This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

National Broadband Network

Jump to new
todster said:
Hard wire the major cities screw the country theres ya cost benefit geez its the Libs Wrecking ball regardless of any analysis.
Click to expand...

haha Todster... Labor is showing itself to be quite capable of wrecking itself without any help from the Libs. Losers generally look for someone else to blame for their own mistakes and so it is very handy for Ms Gillard to have Mr Abbott for this purpose.

What has Labor got to hide by persistently refusing to allow any indepth analysis to be made public?

This is nothing to do with denying anyone broadband - it's about whether Australia can really afford an investment of this size. But then I think you know that - it's just more fun to write an unpunctuated line of nonsense to poke the stick at the libs ...
 

Sails, you summed Todster up pretty well.
 

Umm the Libs lost?
Do a cost benefit analysis on public transport while your at it.
Nonsense??? I would of thought by not running the blue wire to regional centers would save a fortune.
 
Both the Liberal and Labor know the CBA for the NBN as it stands will be negative. If it wasn't, private enterprise would have jumped on this ages ago. Australia's tyranny of distance ensures this in servicing the last 10-20% of Australians. So essentially the first part of Todsters comment was true, cut out the rural component and the CBA will likely be +ve.

As Labor know the NBN CBA will be -ve with current technologies they of course will be opposing any CBA to avoid political damage. The Libs knowing the same are pushing this for maximum political damage. It is a political football, there are points to be made. Todsters wrecking ball comment is on the money too.

Sails, did you read and consider Smurfs post? How can an accurate CBA be completed when the likely largest variable is unknown? Who would have thought in the early 90's sitting at a monochrome screen sending out text based Archie searches that in 15 years the Web would be this encompassing and critical to everyday existence. I was amazed back then. Then consider the exponential growth in bandwidth and more importantly web economy since those days. Now put your mind forward 15 years - what will the Web be like? What will you be able to do on it? I sure don't know but I'm looking forward to it.

I say how can we not afford to commit to an investment of this size.
 
Derty,

Yes, I read Smurf's post, but that doesn't override the fact that some things we can afford in life and some things we can't - or if we do go ahead, it will either impact on other areas of our budget or we have to work harder to pay for it.

Government is no different. They have to budget the funds they receive against their expenses. Simple. If they overspend, then other areas are going to be neglected or they have to start taxing us further to make up the shortfall.

For example, a young couple on a basic wage with a few young children. Income is limited and there is barely enough to go around. Then their old car needs replacing and they look with wide eyes at vehicles that have enough room to seat their large family and have extra safety features. They convince themselves they should go ahead - afterall it's what they need.

They don't do a simple budget and, after being knocked back by the more reputable lenders, their friendly car dealer refers them to a lender who doesn't need to know their income or worry about credit checks. They don't understand all the fine print or the impact of 25% interest. They are over the moon to finally have their vehicle.

Then they find they can't provide food for their kids AND pay off their new car. Something has to give. But even if the vehicle is repossessed, that doesn't wipe out their loan in full because, as it turns out, they were overcharged in the first place and interest is already mounting up. So cutbacks have to happen and there is no money left for food such as meat and fresh fruit and vegetables.​

As I have said several times on this thread, I'm not against the NBN any more than I would be against a family purchasing a safe vehicle. I am only asking:
1. Can Australia really afford this massive spend?
2. Will it have a negative effect on other essential services (which are already known to be hurting)
3. If it doesn't pay it's way financially, how much extra burden will be placed on taxpayers in the future?​

In my analogy above, if the young couple had taken the time to look more closely into what they were actually signing, what the impact was going to be on their already struggling household budget. Australia is no longer in surplus with debt levels rising. We don't have the same financial security that Howard and Costello left us.

That's all some of us are asking for. When the RBA chief is calling for the same due diligence and expresses concern that Australia may be overcommitting itself financially with this project, I don't understand the Labor government ignoring his advice. IMO, they are showing no more financial savvy than the young couple in my analogy.

Once again, I repeat, I have no problem with the concept of NBN unless there is a cheaper, viable alternative and IF Australia can adequately afford it without impacting on essential services and without adding significantly to the already overloaded taxpayer.
 
Just do the cities then. Telstra's copper can continue to serve the rural areas. No NBN, so that will keep the Opposition happy, and we can move on.
 
sails said:
Derty,

Yes, I read Smurf's post, but that doesn't override the fact that some things we can afford in life and some things we can't - or if we do go ahead, it will either impact on other areas of our budget or we have to work harder to pay for it.
Click to expand...
I'm wondering if they have decided to bet that inflation will devalue the debt shortly after the NBN is built?

Seriously, there are plenty of people predicting high rates of inflation ahead and the same strategy worked quite nicely to pay for rather a lot of highways, power schemes, water supply etc in the past.

Borrow the money at low fixed interest rates. Add some inflation. Pay back the loans using the devalued currency.

It's a gamble doing that however...
 


Really good summery Derty
 
Derty, I always respect your views, and thank you for the above post.
I also completely get what Sails is saying.

At the risk of being labelled discriminatory, I'd ask if there really should be an expectation that those who live in the country are reasonable in expecting all the facilities enjoyed by those who live in a major city?

If we were to apply your reasoning here with respect to the spread to every remote part of Australia of fast internet services, wouldn't we also suggest there should be a research based teaching hospital with all the best specialists in these regions as well? Or the top department stores? A branch of every bank?

What I'm suggesting is that if we choose to live away from the major hubs of industry, business and general activity, then we should accept we are simply not going to have at our fingertips all those services which are available to citizens of big cities.

If you want the country quietness, no traffic jams, no industrial pollution, the ability to be away from the crush, then don't you also have to accept that you can't necessarily have everything you would have if you accepted all the disadvantages of living in a city?

I'm just a bit tired of minorities needing to be so catered for. This is probably a bit of an overreaction on my part to all the noise and parliamentary time spent on gay marriage when the country faces far more pressing issues. That the very vocal minorities can absorb so much national energy and emotion just seems disproportionate to me.
 

That could be their plan, but it's the secrecy of whatever plan they have is what gets me...

In fact, we don't actually know if they have a plan or if it is simply hope. Or do they just decide as it goes along what to do next. And if it should fail, the pollies still get their lifetime entitlements so it's no skin off their noses and might keep them in power for a bit longer (due to the desperately needed independents who want NBN).

After the gang of four's management debacles such as BER, pink batts, etc, it doesn't really inspire one with confidence that they have the necessary skills to manage such a large infrastructure let alone keep it on some sort of budget.
 

Bit of a difference between a fibre optic cable and a teaching hospital ....fat chance that proposal would have getting thru the senate...rural dwellers know there compromising there life styles to a certain extent living in the country, they also know that there is a pay off to that compromise.

Looking at the roll out map its easy to see that many many rural community's miss out on the NBN and its clear to see there not running the cable everywhere, and that the route broadly makes sense considering the routing and back haul needs of a good NBN.

The fibre optic footprint (in red) is tiny.
~

 
Hi.
Well I always thought the CBA of the NBN was to ensure we were not putting a noose around our neck in trying to pay it off, forever in the future.
Regardless of where we live in Australia we pay taxes. The people in rural areas are sick of getting screwed. Rural people are entitled to have a reasonable speed with broadband. They did not ask for "the sky is the limit".

Now I live north of Port Douglas, and was one who waited patiently for a speed better than "dial up". Well after the major cities had speed for about 10 years, it arrived. Well golly gosh we then had to sign a "bloody petition" to ensure it would be cost affective to upgrade the local exchange. i.e.
go and get the people to sign the petition, then give it to the local politican.

Guess what. I have satellite because anything that gets installed in the country, never seems to be up to scratch. My daughter is now getting satellite because wireless does not work.
Oh I am sorry they live in Dimbulah and are growing mangoes and beef to feed you lot in the cities. (also working in a mine to get the show going).
As far as I am concerned they are doing more than most, and I would have thought a little bit of broadband speed was not too much to ask for.

What I dispute is Gillard has said she will get fibre to 93%(i think) of the
country. Well is that 93% of the nation of 1950, or 2025 by the time it will be finished( it never will).

Regardless of facts on NBN or QBN or whatever.

This country is in a bit of trouble that we are attempting to crawl out of.
And there is one thing I am 100% sure of, is THAT GILLARD TALKS WITH A FORKED TONGUE.(about any subject)

AND SWAN COULD NOT BALANCE A CHURCH FETE.
Cheers.... I am a free spirit for the rest of the day.
 
Hi.
last night in a question and answer session with some of the government, we were told that two satellites had been ordered by NBN. Conroy himself said they would be 20 times faster than current satellites. He then went on to say the speed as, and mentioned the data down and up of a base package.
So the speed was not mentioned by my recollection.
The satellites will be 3 years in the making.
Satellite will handle 3% and wireless will handle 4%. or vice versa.
Thank god the japanese has just unveiled new satellite technology with much faster speed.
My satellite is weather compensated, so the japanese new show must be pretty good.

I suppose we have to give the government some credit, as they are beginning to understand the 7% of Australia that will not have fibre is getting bigger and bigger. In three years they can then order another couple of sats.
Wonder if they were in the original costing?
The ACCC has told the government to expand its 14 points of interconnection
to 200 to utilise more fibre that is in the ground.

So NBN will be the saga in the news forever as I see it.

Cheers
 
The NBN network has been forced to redesign the NBN project by the ACCC.
The planned 14 points of interconnection is to be expanded to 120 places.
It will be now more difficult to have the promised uniform national price.
NBN Co is to release altered business model later this month.

Well golly gosh!!!
 
Don't wanna say it BUT ........... I told you so !! Let's all gather around the shiny blue cable and warm the cockles of our heart. Hip Hip Hooray for Joolyah
 
Good to see such a basic design fault brought to public view at least.

Does the ACCC similarly have any capacity to force a cost benefit analysis?
I suppose that's not their role.
 
Here is news on an Australian-designed system for delivering long-range wireless broadband to remote areas:

The CSIRO has successfully tested the technology - dubbed Ngara - in rural north-west Tasmania, using analogue television frequencies and existing broadcast towers to send and receive data
Click to expand...

More here: Remote broadband tests come up trumps

IMO, it continues to raise serious questions as to how much research went into alternative solutions before using NBN as a massively expensive election promise.
 
I prefer wireless broadband to any hard wired connection, it is like not having mobile phone with me.

It would be OK 10 years ago, but now I want to have my wireless broadband with me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...