- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,757
- Reactions
- 24,736
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
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.
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.
Completely agree about the middle class welfare issue, but do we really want to max out the card just because we can?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.
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.
I would LOVE them to say "We think Labor are managing this project badly. We will take over and build it more efficiently"..
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.
This will be up and running, it's a Lib project not Labor.
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.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?
If and when the copper degrades enough it will be replaced by fibre....so really the noalition are just delaying the inevitable.
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.
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.
Like I always do ?????
Stop making things up.
This will be up and running, it's a Lib project not Labor.
Like I always do ?????
Stop making things up.
This will be up and running, it's a Lib project not Labor.
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.Sorry Vesup, you are backing the losing team. You'll just have to get over it.
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.
How are those new choppers for the Navy going?
http://www.theage.com.au/news/natio...elicopters-deal/2008/03/05/1204402555584.html
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.
Michael Quigley is due for the chop.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...e-says-coalition/story-e6frgaif-1226617770635
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.If I was Mike Quigley, I'd resign if they really try to cancel the NBN for FTTN "fraudband".
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"
NBNMyths;765521Well said:"we are absolutely confident that 25megs is going to be more than enough"[/I] will look just as stupid in 10 years time.
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."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?