Rudd Government not up to speed on NBN
in [Computers]
|
Prev: Good ebay junk?
Next: Watching 3D movies on my computer
From: Swampfox on 28 Jun 2010 04:09 Rod Speed wrote: > Swampfox wrote: >> Mr.T wrote: >>> "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. >> >> That's a different matter, your projection, "total cost divided by >> the adult population" is nowhere near the mark. >> >>> >>> >>>> 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. >> >> In 2006 88% of Ford Falcons and 81% of Holden Commodores were sold >> to fleet customers. > > Bullshit they were. I'm sure you're across the figures better than a national motoring magazine Rod. Is there anything you're not an authority on by the way? > >> http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=19729 > > Just because some fool claims something doesnt make it gospel, stupid. > >> Both locally built vehicles, you will notice that the Honda Civic had >> the lowest percentage of fleet sales of any vehicle but that fleet >> sales still accounted for 10% of total sales, a not insignificant >> number, take a glance at the next taxi you see. > >> The Commodore was still (in '06) Australia's biggest selling car, >> solely on the back of fleet sales. > > Easy to claim. Pity that fool never substantiated that claim. > >> Commercial vehicles of course would also have a very high percentage >> of fleet sales, so it's not bullshit at all actually. >> >>> >>> >>>>> 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. > >> You don't think that an unemployment rate about half the OECD >> average represents good value for money? > > Nope, because we had that before the GFC too.
From: Rod Speed on 28 Jun 2010 05:53 Swampfox wrote: > Rod Speed wrote: >> Swampfox wrote: >>> Mr.T wrote: >>>> "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. >>> >>> That's a different matter, your projection, "total cost divided by >>> the adult population" is nowhere near the mark. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> 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. >>> >>> In 2006 88% of Ford Falcons and 81% of Holden Commodores were sold >>> to fleet customers. >> >> Bullshit they were. > I'm sure you're across the figures better than a national motoring magazine Rod. When they make such an outrageous claim, its up to THEM to substantiate that claim. > Is there anything you're not an authority on by the way? Pathetic. >>> http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=19729 >> >> Just because some fool claims something doesnt make it gospel, >> stupid. >>> Both locally built vehicles, you will notice that the Honda Civic >>> had the lowest percentage of fleet sales of any vehicle but that >>> fleet sales still accounted for 10% of total sales, a not >>> insignificant number, take a glance at the next taxi you see. >> >>> The Commodore was still (in '06) Australia's biggest selling car, >>> solely on the back of fleet sales. >> >> Easy to claim. Pity that fool never substantiated that claim. >> >>> Commercial vehicles of course would also have a very high percentage >>> of fleet sales, so it's not bullshit at all actually. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> 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. >> >>> You don't think that an unemployment rate about half the OECD >>> average represents good value for money? >> >> Nope, because we had that before the GFC too.
From: Mr.T on 29 Jun 2010 00:28 "Swampfox" <noidea(a)whocares.com> wrote in message news:4c2858a4$0$25325$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > >> your projection, "total cost divided by the adult population" is > >> nowhere near the mark. > > > > "Nowhere near" what mark? Still ??? > >Still no reason given for why private > > taxpayers should subside business users. They already pay a lower > > rate of tax. > > Who said anything about private taxpayers subsidising business users? Seems unprofitable without it to me, but feel free to provide your calculations proving otherwise. > It's ridiculous to talk customer numbers when assessing profitability of the > NBN, as all ISP's to my knowledge charge for bandwidth used, not a fixed > price per customer. IF only it were so. What about the $30+ per month connection fee Telstra and Optus currently charge whether you use it or not? How come Optus charge an extra $30 per month for 300MB and $60 per month for 30GB? > Business will obviously use far more bandwidth than residential customers > per connection so is potentially far more profitable than residential > customers. Not the way the charges are currently structured. Low volume users subsidise the high volume users. Just as with Electricity, Gas, and Water. > I would have thought this to be self evident. You would be wrong then. > > No actual list is given, but I can assume a huge number of car models > > are not covered beyond the Honda Civic. > > Fleet sales of the top 3 selling cars in Australia, the Commodore, Falcon > and Corolla were 81, 88 and 60% respectively of total sales in 2006, so your > claim that "only a very small percentage of car models made are sold to > fleets, or in a number that has ANY effect on price." is patently absurd What part of "car MODELS" didn't you understand? There are thousands other than the three you list. How come they are not all uneconomic as you suggest? > > And your proof that WE would have had unemployment equal, or even > > close to OECD, WITHOUT the stimulus package is where exactly???? > > As you know it can never be proven, which isn't to say that the stimulus > spending wasn't effective. Sure it had some effect, BUT was it value for money????? I think NOT! > The RBA board seems to think that it was so take it up with them if you > like.. They made no decision on it's actual value for money spent. MrT.
From: Swampfox on 29 Jun 2010 03:56 Mr.T wrote: > "Swampfox" <noidea(a)whocares.com> wrote in message > news:4c2858a4$0$25325$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... >>>> your projection, "total cost divided by the adult population" is >>>> nowhere near the mark. >>> >>> "Nowhere near" what mark? > > Still ??? > >>> Still no reason given for why private >>> taxpayers should subside business users. They already pay a lower >>> rate of tax. >> >> Who said anything about private taxpayers subsidising business users? > > Seems unprofitable without it to me, but feel free to provide your > calculations proving otherwise. I'm not qualified, calculations have been done by people who are which suggest that the NBN will turn a profit, feel free to provide your calculations proving otherwise. > > >> It's ridiculous to talk customer numbers when assessing >> profitability of the NBN, as all ISP's to my knowledge charge for >> bandwidth used, not a fixed price per customer. > > IF only it were so. What about the $30+ per month connection fee > Telstra and Optus currently charge whether you use it or not? > How come Optus charge an extra $30 per month for 300MB and $60 per > month for 30GB? Optus don't charge any connection fee, I don't know about Telstra. Optus has broadband plans for as low as $15 per month, I pay $55 for 150Gb, I know nothing of Optus charging $30 for 300Mb, I've been using the Optus service for over 10 years.. > > >> Business will obviously use far more bandwidth than residential >> customers per connection so is potentially far more profitable than >> residential customers. > > Not the way the charges are currently structured. Low volume users > subsidise the high volume users. Just as with Electricity, Gas, and > Water. The NBN will undoubtedly give discouts to high volume users as the utility providers do, any business discounts for volume, it's good business practice. It could easily be argued that without high volume users of any service the costs to low volume users would be higher as the business would have less economy of scale, large numbers of connections to manage and service for modest returns. > >> I would have thought this to be self evident. > > You would be wrong then. It seems so. > > >>> No actual list is given, but I can assume a huge number of car >>> models are not covered beyond the Honda Civic. >> >> Fleet sales of the top 3 selling cars in Australia, the Commodore, >> Falcon and Corolla were 81, 88 and 60% respectively of total sales >> in 2006, so your claim that "only a very small percentage of car >> models made are sold to fleets, or in a number that has ANY effect >> on price." is patently absurd > > What part of "car MODELS" didn't you understand? There are thousands > other than the three you list. How come they are not all uneconomic > as you suggest? I didn't suggest they were uneconomic, I don't know why you assumed I did. I stated that fleet sales are vital for the motor industry and a cursory glance at the figures on the page I linked to supports that claim. High volume sales are vital in any industry, the NBN is no different. > > >>> And your proof that WE would have had unemployment equal, or even >>> close to OECD, WITHOUT the stimulus package is where exactly???? >> >> As you know it can never be proven, which isn't to say that the >> stimulus spending wasn't effective. > > Sure it had some effect, BUT was it value for money????? I think NOT! Maybe you're right, maybe you're not. > > >> The RBA board seems to think that it was so take it up with them if >> you like.. > > They made no decision on it's actual value for money spent. They stated that the stimulus spending had helped Australia to avoid a recession. "RBA Governor Glenn Stevens said the combination of rate cuts and Government spending would "help to cushion the Australian economy from the contractionary forces coming from abroad''." February 2009. When that amount of cash is pumped into the economy in such a short time frame there's bound to be wastage, the government needed to act quickly and decisively and that's precisely what they did, it seems to have had the desired effect. > > MrT.
From: Mr.T on 1 Jul 2010 22:09
"Swampfox" <noidea(a)whocares.com> wrote in message news:4c2c38c0$0$17176$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > As I've said repeatedly, feel free to provide your own figures that show > otherwise. Nobody can provide figures UNTIL it's done. As I've said repeatedly, I wouldn't care that they might be wrong, IF it wasn't the taxpayer footing the bill. IF business had any confidence in it's profitability, taxpayer funding of private enterprise would not be necessary. They don't so why should I? > > For line rental, same as Telstra. That you may have a plan which > > includes line rental does NOT mean you aren't paying it, UNLESS you > > have no line? > > OK, that's what's commonly called a service fee which is charged by > virtually any business proviving an ongoing service. Of course, and is often used to gouge small customers as in this case. > Banks and many other financial institutions charge account keeping fees, > councils charge rates, water, gas and electricity companies all have monthly > fees to cover their fixed costs. Yep, councils are another good example of where what you pay bears no relationship to the services provided since most are based on property value. Simply a tax. But a person with a house of the exact same value will pay a different rate depending on the Council area they live, so not a very fair one at that. > It's the normal course of events, businesses are not charities. No argument there, especially those making $Billions in profits. > > Not at all, since I already said that. What I also said was the low > > volume users pay FAR more than would simply be required for the > > service they recieve, and any charge above actual standing costs and > > a *fair* percentage of the companies profits, is obviously a cross > > subsidy from low volume users to high volume users. YOU seem to be > > having trouble grasping that. > > I'll grasp it if you provide some evidence to back your claims. No evidence would ever satisfy you anyway. But the fact you can't see it for yourself speaks volumes. > >> Compare the price of a 1 litre can of paint with a 20lt drum of the > >> same product, the principle remains unchanged no matter what > >> business model. > > > > Yes, and IF the cost FAR exceeds the extra packaging, warehousing, > > distribution, stock control, and sales costs, then it is also a rip > > off. > > Agreed, but you haven't provided a shred of evidence that the cost FAR > exceeds the extra packaging, warehousing, distribution, stock control, and > sales costs. And you have not provided a shred of evidence that it doesn't, but feel free to believe what you wan't, I'm sure facts would not change your mind anyway. > It's a free market, people can choose, if the rip off is as huge as you > portray then consumers can go elsewhere, Exactly, EXCEPT when they are FORCED as taxpayers to subsidise something, which is what this argument was all about wasn't it? > >> $30 per month gets you 4gb of mobile broadband which is the most > >> expensive. > > > > Yep, *MOBILE*. So no need for the NBN then. I'm glad we finally agree > > on something!!!!!!!! > > But you said $30 for 300Mb, where did you get that figure from, From my Optus bill!!!! > and how > exactly does mobile broadband obviate the need for the NBN? YOU are the one quoting a mobile figure to claim there is no line rental fee, NOT me! But as I said, quite a few people are happy with mobile only services, so why are they FORCED to pay for the NBN to be used by others? >The speeds are nowhere near comparable. In fact my mobile internet is sometimes faster than my Optus cable, and averages out about the same. In practice I see little difference, and am happily going to dump my expensive OPTUS cable service. But I am not looking forward to being FORCED to still subsidise others. MrT. |