NBN Rollout Scrapped

[sptrawler]

I would go along with you, if there weren't any other pressing infrastructure issues, if the government was running surpluses and if the government wasn't screaming poor.
They can't have it all ways, you can't say it's a great time to max out the credit card because rates are low.
Then in the next breath turn around and say tax reciepts are droping, we've got to increase taxing and find savings. To me it's illogical,
IMO the coalition idea appears a workable compromise.
I can understand the tech wiz users are not happy, they want the best.
From an economic standpoint, businesses, industry and heavy data users get it, the household gets what can supply adequate speeds at a reasonable price.
I must admit, I'm not a heavy or even moderate internet user, so it really doesn't bother me.

To highlight my statements, here's a link to good ole Wayne.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-...ates-revenue-warning/4620532?section=business

 

[Ves]

Thanks drsmith, quite clear the cost savings are worthwhile but the fact that it will be up and running sooner is a big plus.

And if it is not up and running will you man up and admit you were wrong? I doubt it, you will look the other way and pretend it didn't happen like you always do.

 

[MrBurns]

And if it is not up and running will you man up and admit you were wrong? I doubt it, you will look the other way and pretend it didn't happen like you always do.

Like I always do ?????
Stop making things up.

This will be up and running, it's a Lib project not Labor.

 

[Julia]

Originally Posted by McLovin
The government hasn't been able to borrow at such low rates of interest in generations. I say build a decent network that will still be scalable (is that the right IT term?) in 20, 30, 40, 50 years' time. No point building another Spit Bridge, or M5 East. And I'd much rather my money was spent doing something that benefits the country than being squandered on property tax breaks, propping up the super balances of millionaires or being handed out to middle class families so they can afford their annual trip to Bali.

Completely agree about the middle class welfare issue, but do we really want to max out the card just because we can?
If you were to continue the same principle more broadly, you'd say "well, we have a lot of hospitals which are old and almost dysfunctional, so let's knock them down and build state-of-the-art new hospitals that will deliver better care." " We owe less than many other countries so it's just fine to do this."

Ditto across all sorts of other issues where service delivery could be hugely improved if cost were no object.

Surely there has to be a point where we place a higher priority on living within our means than necessarily having the latest supa dupa version of everything?

I would go along with you, if there weren't any other pressing infrastructure issues, if the government was running surpluses and if the government wasn't screaming poor.
They can't have it all ways, you can't say it's a great time to max out the credit card because rates are low.
Then in the next breath turn around and say tax reciepts are droping, we've got to increase taxing and find savings. To me it's illogical,
IMO the coalition idea appears a workable compromise.
I can understand the tech wiz users are not happy, they want the best.
From an economic standpoint, businesses, industry and heavy data users get it, the household gets what can supply adequate speeds at a reasonable price.
I must admit, I'm not a heavy or even moderate internet user, so it really doesn't bother me.

 

[So_Cynical]

I would LOVE them to say "We think Labor are managing this project badly. We will take over and build it more efficiently"..

Yep i thought the exact same thing, but that's not what there saying at all, what they are saying is we are going to half **** it.

Fact is the noalition has been dragged kicking and screaming into this and they are determined to wreck it, 3 years of negotiations, 100's of contracts and billions spent all ready and they are gona wreck it.

Could some informed person please tell me how practical it is for the copper network to continue to supply the connection from the node to the home?
Some opinions seem to indicate the copper is pretty much stuffed and will need replacing before too long anyway.
Is this correct?

If the copper is fine well into the future, then the cost and time savings of the Coalition's plan seem preferable, but not if they're going to have to backtrack and replace the copper in the foreseeable future.

If and when the copper degrades enough it will be replaced by fibre....so really the noalition are just delaying the inevitable.

This will be up and running, it's a Lib project not Labor.

What's the last major infrastructure project they handled?

 

[Ves]

Completely agree about the middle class welfare issue, but do we really want to max out the card just because we can?
If you were to continue the same principle more broadly, you'd say "well, we have a lot of hospitals which are old and almost dysfunctional, so let's knock them down and build state-of-the-art new hospitals that will deliver better care." " We owe less than many other countries so it's just fine to do this."

Ditto across all sorts of other issues where service delivery could be hugely improved if cost were no object.

Surely there has to be a point where we place a higher priority on living within our means than necessarily having the latest supa dupa version of everything?

Difference between the NBN and hospital infrastructure (and other projects like freeways and roads) is that the projected revenues / rate of return of a project like the NBN is much higher than hospital infrastructure.

The biggest debate, between the Coalition and the government, was originally will the NBN make a profit. I am pretty sure at the moment, it is not being treated as part of the federal budget, because it is considered to be an investment that will see a return made by the government further down the track.

 

[medicowallet]

If and when the copper degrades enough it will be replaced by fibre....so really the noalition are just delaying the inevitable.

In my business, I was using pentium 3 windows 98 computers when much better and faster technology was available. I was also using older versions of accounting programs etc.

But guess what, they did the same job, and I got my value for money out of them.

Only an incompetent fool would pay for an asset and then not utilise it whilst they could, and invested the money instead to replace it at a lower cost at a later date.

MW

 

[bellenuit]

I am pretty sure at the moment, it is not being treated as part of the federal budget, because it is considered to be an investment that will see a return made by the government further down the track.

As far as I understand how it works is that it can be kept off the balance sheet so long as the value of the NBN is not less than the cost to build it. In other words they capitalise the cost to build it and treat it as an asset on the books, that will presumably be depreciated over time, but with the depreciation off set by the revenue it produces. Presumably its value is determined by the NPV of its revenue stream or sell price if sold.

Should this valuation turn out to be less (or more) than the expenditure on it, the difference has to be taken on to the current account as a loss (or profit).

So when they say the NBN will cost us nothing, they are implying that its value, as either an ongoing government utility realising revenue or its sale price if sold, is more than the expenditure sunk in its construction. Cost blowouts and construction delays will increase the latter, but its income producing capacity is limited to what the consumer will pay for the service. This is why the ACCC is keeping a close eye on it to make sure they can't create an inelastic demand by stifling competition.

 

[Calliope]

Turnball's own press papers indicate that it is a worst case figure based on a number of scenarios, all happening at once. He, of course, never mentioned that, nor was he questioned on it.

Labor and Conroy can be depended on to deliver "worst case" scenarios. This is one area where your mob seldom fails to deliver.

Sorry Vesup, you are backing the losing team. You'll just have to get over it.

 

[NBNMyths]

Like I always do ?????
Stop making things up.

This will be up and running, it's a Lib project not Labor.

How are those new choppers for the Navy going?

http://www.theage.com.au/news/natio...elicopters-deal/2008/03/05/1204402555584.html

 

[NBNMyths]

Like I always do ?????
Stop making things up.

This will be up and running, it's a Lib project not Labor.

Oh, and the North West rail link, too?

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...go-off-the-track/story-e6freuy9-1226581478490

The myth of conservative Government competence lives on, for some.

 

[Ves]

Sorry Vesup, you are backing the losing team. You'll just have to get over it.

Nope, I don't believe in the need to have a "team." Whilst there is a need for a strong opposition in government because certain policies are downright bad or harmful, development and progression in modern societies is often stifled because dominant political parties are seen to need to be oppositional no matter the circumstances. Often they would achieve more by working together and dropping the notion that they are two teams playing against each other. I'm more interested in discussing the merits of policies than cheerleading. It's not the modus operandi of most on this forum, but that's what I have to deal with.

 

[MrBurns]

Oh, and the North West rail link, too?

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...go-off-the-track/story-e6freuy9-1226581478490

The myth of conservative Government competence lives on, for some.

That hasn't been started so we still know in advance of the costs unlike the NBN fiasco.

 

[MrBurns]

How are those new choppers for the Navy going?

http://www.theage.com.au/news/natio...elicopters-deal/2008/03/05/1204402555584.html

Started in 1897 sorry 1997 article from 2008 grasping at straws, you have to go a long way back to find anything even as small as that compared to Labors gigantic surplus sucking blunders......give up.

 

[sptrawler]

At last, now the self serving, self interest and one eyed hyperbowl and spin has settled, Sensible discussion commences.

http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/govern...ions-nbn-plan-makes-sense-20130410-2hkx2.html

http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/govern...deal-but-prudent-turnbull-20130410-2hkye.html

My guess the result, whoever delivers it will be, will be well short of what either party are proposing.

Costs will constantly blow out to the point where it is eventually abadoned. IMO

At that point ,new developments will get fibre and older areas will be done as required. Somewhat like the underground power scheme currently being carried out.

 

[Calliope]

Michael Quigley is due for the chop.

opposition communications spokesman Malcolm Turnbull declared that the performance of NBN Co management had been "very unsatisfactory".

"The fact they have missed so many targets surely is enough evidence for that," Mr Turnbull said.

NBN Co chief executive Michael Quigley, a former executive at French equipment giant Alcatel-Lucent, was no doubt "a very capable man and respected in the industry" but was "the wrong choice for this job", Mr Turnbull said.

"He spent his life working for a vendor," he said. "The person who should be running the NBN Co should be someone that has been responsible for a telecom network business or has been involved in the construction of them. Someone who sells electronic kit is not a million miles away from that but is (in) a very, very different business and I think the problems they are having with construction are not unrelated to that.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...e-says-coalition/story-e6frgaif-1226617770635

 

[NBNMyths]

Michael Quigley is due for the chop.



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...e-says-coalition/story-e6frgaif-1226617770635

If I was Mike Quigley, I'd resign if they really try to cancel the NBN for FTTN "fraudband".

He was retired before the NBN and gave away his first years salary. He obviously doesn't need the money. He stated that he only came out of retirement because he believes in making history with an FTTP NBN.

Why would you want to go down in history instead as the one presiding over a company that switched from modern FTTP to a technology that's obsolete before it's even switched on?

You know those infamous quotes we laugh about today, like "we don't need the telephone because we have messenger boys", and "there's only a world market for 5 computers"?

Well, Tony and Malcolm's statement the other day that "we are absolutely confident that 25megs is going to be more than enough" will look just as stupid in 10 years time.

 

[drsmith]

If I was Mike Quigley, I'd resign if they really try to cancel the NBN for FTTN "fraudband".

As a long time supporter on the ALP's NBN model, I would have thought that there would be some joy on your part that the Coalition is maintaining that basic structure and that their version can be rolled out quicker due to less overall capital works.

While the Coalition is not all going the way with FTTP, it remains and option for the future.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...=21778&page=99&p=765182&viewfull=1#post765182

A glass that is 1/4 empty is 3/4 full.

 

[bellenuit]

You know those infamous quotes we laugh about today, like "we don't need the telephone because we have messenger boys", and "there's only a world market for 5 computers"

Yep, IBM Watson's quote of there only being a worldwide demand for 5 computers. At that time, the one computer they had built cost tens of millions of dollars. We now know today's demand runs into the hundreds of millions of computers each year.

If Watson had the foresight of Conroy, he could have built millions of computers at the time, each costing tens of millions of dollars. But instead he used backward thinking and only built what was needed to meet foreseeable demand. And the computers he could have built using the then technology would have been completely future proof, as they used the latest in valve technology and what possibly could come along to replace valves. And look at the great deals he could have got from suppliers by placing a huge order for the supply of the then state of the art components that would meet supply for the next 50 years. Imagine where IBM would be today if they had Conroy in charge. Instead they missed out on the vast revenues they could have got by exploiting the computer age and all they can show for their troubles are 5 obsolete computers.

 

[Calliope]

"we are absolutely confident that 25megs is going to be more than enough"[/I] will look just as stupid in 10 years time.

Not as stupid as providing 100megs to the vast majority who have no use for it and at a huge and unnecessary cost. I am afraid that your love for Quigley overrides your commonsense. In any case the Turnbull model will deliver;

90 per cent of households will get 50 to 100 megabit downloads and they will get it for one third of the cost of Labor's broadband."

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/04/10/08/53/abbott-denies-coalition-s-nbn-plan-slower

Bellenuit

You have provided the commonsense that Myths lacks.