Rudd Government not up to speed on NBN
in [Computers]
|
Prev: Good ebay junk?
Next: Watching 3D movies on my computer
From: Rod Speed on 24 Jun 2010 22:28 Swampfox wrote > Mr.T wrote >> Swampfox <noidea(a)whocares.com> wrote >>> The ETS was a watershed, Rudd spruiked it, the voters bought it, then he dumped it. >> Well actually it was put up and defeated by the opposition! Three times in fact. > That was bound to happen when they dumped Turnbull, that was Rudd's chance. He was still astronomically popular at > that stage And his govt wasnt. Thats what matters with an election. > and could have decimated the Coalition at a DD election, Pure fantasy. ALL govts end up with less seats in the election after a landslide. And we had already seen the insulation and schools fiascos by then. And his failure to do what he promised on health care in spades. > then if it was blocked by The Greens in the Senate A DD allows a joint sitting, you pig ignorant clown. > he walked away, only after making every possible effort to see it through, a conviction politician. With the greens having complete control of the senate, knocking back everything the coalition opposed. That would have seen him executed by the labor mafia, fool.
From: terryc on 25 Jun 2010 00:44 On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 11:55:59 +1000, Mr.T wrote: > Maybe, but why is Rudd solely to blame and not Abbot? He is the prime minister and not a dictator. It is his duty to negotiate legislation for ALL Australians. If he can not get parliament to agree, the he can ask the Australian people to effectively vote on it. Is there a convention that the opposition accepts the peoples choice after a DD?
From: Swampfox on 25 Jun 2010 06:20 Mr.T wrote: > "Swampfox" <noidea(a)whocares.com> wrote in message > news:4c23fed0$0$17176$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... >>>> The modelling did suggest it could turn a profit though >>> >>> Who's research, based on what data? Why would you believe it? >> >> Not necessarily but I'm not an economist so need to take these >> things on face value. > > Nope, need to be highly sceptical. > > >>> Big *IF*!!! And the taxpayers foot the bill if not! Why? >>> IF it was viable there would be private companies lining up to do a >>> PPP deal with the government already. That there are not should be >>> your first clue it may be a disaster. Hell even many of the PPP's >>> they thought would be a windfall have turned out disasters! >> >> What qualifies you to make the judgement? > > The income less than predicted, and resulting share price falls speak > for themselves. > > >> With any project of this scale there are bound to be risks, the >> question that needs to be asked is whether the risks are worth the >> ultimate benefits. You obviously think they're not, I have my doubts >> as well but have an open mind. > > Great, I'll be happy if it works out too, but it's still the > taxpayers who foot all the risk which is NOT something they should do > IMO. > >> As has been stated elsewhere high speed broadband, telephony and >> television over a single connection is an attractive proposition for >> many people, price would be the determining factor and I haven't >> seen the projected prices so am in no position to even guess at the >> uptake or whether it could be profitable. > > Well the projected total cost divided by the adult population, > doesn't bode well for the income necessary to make it viable. Surely that's flawed. What about business, government departments, research establishments, hospitals etc. Many businesses, especially large ones, already pay a premium for fast and reliable communications and the possibilities would be endless with a fibre network, all business telephony could be handled for starters. Just as fleet sales are vital for the motor industry business take up would be vital for the NBN. >As long > as some of that income is not from taxpayers who don't need or want > pay TV or fast internet, then fine. I'm still yet to see any figures > that would support that possibility. > Simply claiming you can't guess if it's going to be profitable is a > reason NOT to do it IMO, rather than take such a huge risk! What would be the worst case scenario though? It would be impossible for the entire $40 Bil to disappear into a black hole, the risk is probably manageable at the end of the day given the benefits. > > MrT.
From: Mr.T on 27 Jun 2010 20:00 "Swampfox" <noidea(a)whocares.com> wrote in message news:4c248337$0$12922$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > > Well the projected total cost divided by the adult population, > > doesn't bode well for the income necessary to make it viable. > > Surely that's flawed. > What about business, government departments, research establishments, > hospitals etc. > Many businesses, especially large ones, already pay a premium for fast and > reliable communications and the possibilities would be endless with a fibre > network, all business telephony could be handled for starters. So just a good case for the private enterprise Telco's to fund it then, NOT the taxpayer. And IF Telstra was still owned by the government we would have a problem of course. They had already planned to put in fibre to the home when practical, *before* it was even thought of being sold. > Just as fleet sales are vital for the motor industry business take up would > be vital for the NBN. Bullshit, only a very small percentage of car models made are sold to fleets, or in a number that has ANY effect on price. > >As long > > as some of that income is not from taxpayers who don't need or want > > pay TV or fast internet, then fine. I'm still yet to see any figures > > that would support that possibility. > > Simply claiming you can't guess if it's going to be profitable is a > > reason NOT to do it IMO, rather than take such a huge risk! > > What would be the worst case scenario though? > It would be impossible for the entire $40 Bil to disappear into a black > hole, the risk is probably manageable at the end of the day given the > benefits. Well I certainly can't see much benefit for the $50B spent on the stimulus package, except to a few businesses who made a killing of course. (figuratively and literally!) Same thing is likely for the NBN IMO, but hopefully not as literally. MrT.
From: Mr.T on 27 Jun 2010 20:06
"Swampfox" <noidea(a)whocares.com> wrote in message news:4c2551c6$0$17172$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > Rod Speed wrote: > >> I see you've knocked $10 Bil off the price in the past 24 hours, > > > > Just using a more conservative number that even that cant show > > a profit, and not bothering about the govt's 90% coverage fool. The price being quoted is $43 Billion, and everyone knows what happens to such estimates. They RARELY cost less, sometimes more than twice as much, depending on what is actually delivered, when, and what costs are properly counted. > Pick a number, any number. Yes, pick a number, any number, your guess is as good as theirs! > Everyone's a winner! Nope, everyone's a LOSER! MrT. |