NBN Rollout Scrapped

Fortunately Labor will be hammered so badly in the next election, the three stoogies could win it. The other saving grace is the greens aligning themselves with labor will crash and burn with them. Whereas if they weren't alighned they would pick up a huge swing.
Getting back to the N.B.N Conroy has confirmed all the speculation we raised a year ago. They cleaned up when they sold Telstra and now they have basically abused their power to to change the laws which were put in to weaken Telstra so their N.B.N can't be competed with. It borders on immoral.
Actually just about all the legislation put in place to force Telstra to give competition a free ride on Telstra, with the aid of the ACCC. Has been reversed to allow the N.B.N to face no competition especially from Telstra. Why because it is a flawed business model and can't face competition.
Conroy even admitted it is better to spend $36 billion than give Telstra $20 billion and compete against them.
Well this forum has called the N.B.N pretty well upto now.
My next call is that the process will be so slow and the take up so low, remember they are doing country areas first. After the next election there will be a huge rethink and Telstra wholesale(who still own the infrastructure) will be given the ownership of the installed fibre. This will be done on the understanding that they continue with the roll out to commercially viable consumers eg commerce, business and guvment.
It may work out sensible despite the labor idiots.

sptrawler said:

Fortunately Labor will be hammered so badly in the next election, the three stoogies could win it. The other saving grace is the greens aligning themselves with labor will crash and burn with them. Whereas if they weren't alighned they would pick up a huge swing.
Getting back to the N.B.N Conroy has confirmed all the speculation we raised a year ago. They cleaned up when they sold Telstra and now they have basically abused their power to to change the laws which were put in to weaken Telstra so their N.B.N can't be competed with. It borders on immoral.
Actually just about all the legislation put in place to force Telstra to give competition a free ride on Telstra, with the aid of the ACCC. Has been reversed to allow the N.B.N to face no competition especially from Telstra. Why because it is a flawed business model and can't face competition.
Conroy even admitted it is better to spend $36 billion than give Telstra $20 billion and compete against them.
Well this forum has called the N.B.N pretty well upto now.
My next call is that the process will be so slow and the take up so low, remember they are doing country areas first. After the next election there will be a huge rethink and Telstra wholesale(who still own the infrastructure) will be given the ownership of the installed fibre. This will be done on the understanding that they continue with the roll out to commercially viable consumers eg commerce, business and guvment.
It may work out sensible despite the labor idiots.

Click to expand...

Dude what are you smoking :bong:

Telstra fought competition every inch of every step of the way...have a look over there old announcements at the trail of litigation the other telcos had to peruse in order to force Telstra to actually act competitively...over a decade of litigation.

Are you seriously suggesting that Telstra should of been allowed to compete against the NBN? have the NBN lay cables across the road from Telstra for 10's of thousands of miles?....seriously....build 2 NBN's

Telstra was floated as a monopoly by the guvnmnt to get the most amount of money from the mum and dad investors. Then when they had the money the guvnmnt started making laws to enable the overseas multinationals to jump on Telstras network for minimal cost and cherry pick high population areas for maximum return. Rather than force them to install their own infrastructure to compete.
This made for lazy parasitic competition and discouraged Telstra from spending $ billions of shareholders money and still have the blood suckers on their backs. But this was fine because the guvnmnt had already picked up $40billion for selling it.
Now you are telling me it is ok for the guvnmnt to legislate to stop a competitor from competing with them. Can't you see the stupidity the N.B.N is in exactly the same position Telstra was. You must be a Conroy fan.
WHATEVER YOU ARE SMOKING GIVE ME SOME.
I suppose to put it simplisticly . As you said Telstra fought every inch of the way to stop competition getting a free ride on their network. But you are saying it is ok for the Guvnmnt to legislate to stop a competeing network from competeing. Get real this isn't even pigyback this is real competition the ACCC should be encouraging it. JEEZ THIS IS HARD WORK.

So_Cynical said:

Dude what are you smoking :bong:

Telstra fought competition every inch of every step of the way...have a look over there old announcements at the trail of litigation the other telcos had to peruse in order to force Telstra to actually act competitively...over a decade of litigation.

Are you seriously suggesting that Telstra should of been allowed to compete against the NBN? have the NBN lay cables across the road from Telstra for 10's of thousands of miles?....seriously....build 2 NBN's

Click to expand...

Ummmmmmmmmm did you even watch the program? The "original" concept was to build nodes on every street corner (FTTN) for 4.6 billion which is what Labor took to the election and was voted in on (Rudd) Then from there it was up to the retailers (Telstra)to hook the shiny blue cable up to the houses (FTTP) Telstra was seeking 20 billion in compensation to shutdown their copper network etc. You did watch the program didn't you or were you out the back hooking on the broadleaf entertainment plant?

It was then decided by the government that it did not want Telstra to compete with or receive any compensation so they decided to go it alone and build the worlds most expensive per capita EVER in the history of the world. So 4.6 billion PLUS 20 billion compensation was only 24.6 billion spent for the NATION BUILDING exercise rather than the 36 billion PLUS blowouts it is going to cost now. It was up to PRIVATE ENTERPRISE to sell and install the shiny blue cable to the homes from the nodes and up to the people if they wanted to connect or not (freedom of choice)

As for being "fair to all Australians", I hardly think so .......... it was discussed in great length as to the people that live in the city will be paying more than they should for high speed internet to "compensate" for the people who live in the country to "spread" the overall cost to the proletariat. How is this fair? Or do you live in some Orwellian dream where all animals are equal?

"Remember, comrades, your resolution must never falter. No argument must lead you astray. Never listen when they tell you that Man and the animals have a common interest, that the prosperity of the one is the prosperity of the others. It is all lies. Man serves the interests of no creature except himself. And among us animals let there be perfect unity, perfect comradeship in the struggle. All men are enemies. All animals are comrades" - Animal Farm

trainspotter said:

It was then decided by the government that it did not want Telstra to compete with or receive any compensation so they decided to go it alone and build the worlds most expensive per capita EVER in the history of the world. So 4.6 billion PLUS 20 billion compensation was only 24.6 billion spent for the NATION BUILDING exercise rather than the 36 billion PLUS blowouts it is going to cost now. It was up to PRIVATE ENTERPRISE to sell and install the shiny blue cable to the homes from the nodes and up to the people if they wanted to connect or not (freedom of choice)

Click to expand...

Someone watched, but didn't listen. Here's an exert from the transcript:

STEPHEN CONROY: Over the course of the period of the tender, the GFC absolutely crashed the liquidity in the financial markets. So many of the companies that had indicated that they were - would be willing participants had no funding.

STEPHEN LONG: And to make matters worse, the Government received some shocking legal advice.

STEPHEN CONROY: If we were to go ahead with the fibre to the node proposal, we would essentially have to, not to put too scientific a point on it, cut the copper. That would've meant effectively that we would've appropriated Telstra's property rights, and under our constitution if you- you have to have fair compensation if you take someone's property rights. And no expert in the field, nowhere in the legal field, commercial field, would give us a suggestion that the sort of bill you'd pay to Telstra was anything less than $15-20 billion.

STEPHEN LONG: Plus, the expert panel advising the Government warned that a company - read Telstra - could retaliate by building its own separate network in profitable city areas, killing the value of the fibre to the node investment.

STEPHEN CONROY: The Government could spend $15 billion to build a fibre to the node network, pay $15-20 billion to Telstra for compensation, and then Telstra could take that money and build a fibre to the home network past you and strand 70 per cent of $15 billion on the side of the road.

STEPHEN LONG: And Phil Burgess says that's exactly what Telstra would have done

PHIL BURGESS: Absolutely, that's the way competition works. The only way it'll be stopped is if they have laws that prevent it.

STEPHEN LONG: A month after Telstra was excluded, the panel of experts delivered its report. It said none of the tenders was "...sufficiently well developed to present a value for money outcome."

Labor's election promise of a high speed national broadband network was in disarray. Stephen Conroy's response? To jump on a plane. It was the only way he could get to the prime minister.

STEPHEN CONROY: So on the plane between Sydney and Melbourne and then the next morning on the plane from Melbourne up to Brisbane, we went through what all of the possible options were, what the challenges would be.

STEPHEN LONG: Conroy's pitch - bypass Telstra and build an entirely new fibre network all the way to the home. An option the panel of experts had said was the best "future proof" solution.

NBN Co is in talks with the Leighton Holdings Ltd and Siemens joint venture, Silcar, regarding a prime contractor role, according to a report in The Australian Financial Review newspaper.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...-report-pd20110413-FURVB?OpenDocument&src=hp6

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy may have cleared the air on how the current framework for the $36 billion national broadband network came into being but it’s the boss of NBN Co, Mike Quigley – the man running the show with regards to the construction of the network – who is facing the hard questions at the moment. The construction process is already reportedly four months behind schedule thanks to a bungled tender process which has claimed casualties on the NBN Co’s executive ranks. Quigley is apparently doing the rounds to convince all involved that the wheels aren’t coming off just yet and a new tender process is on its way.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...de-oil-refinery-pd20110413-FUSGR?OpenDocument

INVESTORS and analysts are sceptical about Leighton Holdings' profit forecast for the next financial year. And there is lingering concern over whether it has raised enough capital. One day after Leighton unveiled a record loss of $427 million, more than $1 billion in writedowns and a discounted $757m capital raising, criticism continued to dog the group.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/leighton-forecast-doubts/story-e6frg8zx-1226038108455

Not sure what you are driving at zzaaxxss3401? Telstra was to receive compensation around 15 - 20 billion fact. Government did not want competition fact. Government did not want to compete with Telstra fact. Under the original "model" Government was to build to node only and private enterprise was to link to houses fact.

Someone read, but didn't understand.

Yes yes yes Telstra might have cherry picked the eyeballs out of it with their compensation money and "perhaps" installed a secondary fibre optic cable rendering the governemnt one useless ?? We will never know now will we !!!

trainspotter said:

Not sure what you are driving at zzaaxxss3401?

Click to expand...

IF the NBN comes past my door, I'll be saying "Connect me baby!".

My point is:
There is limited or no public transport in the country - fact.
There is limited or no access to high-speed broadband in the country - fact.
There are sh*t roads in the country - fact.
There are limited hospital facilities and services in the country - fact.
There is limited educational services for students in the country - fact.
There are higher petrol, food, electricity and internet in the country - fact.
Yet, those living in the country still pay the same % in tax as everyone else - fact.

Country people have been subsidising the cities for years. Finally, those living in the cities will have to subsidise the folks living in the country for a change. Country Victorian tax-payers have already paid for Melbourne's sprawling mess of roads, it's desal plant, and it's Myki fiasco for what benefit to them? Melbourne councils allow market-gardens to be leveled for more houses, only to put brick boxes (with no verandahs), with black roofs and huge air conditioners - increasing the demand for power.

If the roads, hospitals, food prices, and electricity costs aren't going to improve, then at least there's a chance that broadband might. I can then teleconference for work, rather than spending 2 days driving to and being stuck in traffic in Melbourne.

zzaaxxss3401 said:

IF the NBN comes past my door, I'll be saying "Connect me baby!".

My point is:
There is limited or no public transport in the country - fact.
There is limited or no access to high-speed broadband in the country - fact.
There are sh*t roads in the country - fact.
There are limited hospital facilities and services in the country - fact.
There is limited educational services for students in the country - fact.
There are higher petrol, food, electricity and internet in the country - fact.
Yet, those living in the country still pay the same % in tax as everyone else - fact.

Country people have been subsidising the cities for years. Finally, those living in the cities will have to subsidise the folks living in the country for a change. Country Victorian tax-payers have already paid for Melbourne's sprawling mess of roads, it's desal plant, and it's Myki fiasco for what benefit to them? Melbourne councils allow market-gardens to be leveled for more houses, only to put brick boxes (with no verandahs), with black roofs and huge air conditioners - increasing the demand for power.

If the roads, hospitals, food prices, and electricity costs aren't going to improve, then at least there's a chance that broadband might. I can then teleconference for work, rather than spending 2 days driving to and being stuck in traffic in Melbourne.

Click to expand...

Excellent retort zzaaxxss3401. Now wouldn't it be better if the Guvmint spent 36 billion dollars on all of the points you have raised BEFORE they whack a shiny blue cable around this great country of ours? I would vote for that irrespective of which political persuasion they represent.

http://www.theage.com.au/business/p...b-homes-plan-for-werribee-20110413-1ddcs.html

There appear to be a few frustrated City-zens... what shall they do? Unfortunately, I can but sigh and suggest that this is what happens when you choose (or are forced) to live in the city. I can't think of anything worse than having my house butted up against my neighbour's house and then be forced to commute hours each week just to get to work.

If they're spending 3 hours per day (including waiting for a train or sitting in traffic) just to get to work, that's an extra 15 hours per week they are spending for the same income. Assuming $80,000 pa they could take a $58,000 pa job in the country for exactly the same $/h return and spend more time with their family. Plus they would have lower (non tax-deductible) costs if you consider parking, petrol / travel ticket and medical bills (for stress).

If businesses had access to high speed fibre, they wouldn't need expensive buildings in the city. The same emails, documents and computer programs can be written anywhere. The same spreadsheet calculations work in the country. They wouldn't need a transport distribution centre in the Docklands - Portland has a natural port far deeper than that of Melbourne's and no need to dredge it and it can all be tracked via GPS just down the road. The list goes on.

But then again... why would I want to congest MY country town with City folk!

I wish someone (independent and factual) could come up with a total cost-benefit analysis for the NBN.

We could have a whole separate thread on city versus country.

To be realistic about it, if you choose to live in the country, because you like the space, lack of traffic snarls, high density living etc., then you accept the disadvantages as well.

Don't expect that you should have eg the quality of medical care you would get in a teaching hospital, or the best quality education, and on that same basis don't expect in a country with the geography of Australia you should get the same level of technology.

Julia said:

We could have a whole separate thread on city versus country.

Click to expand...

Yep - agreed.

Julia said:

To be realistic about it, if you choose to live in the country, because you like the space, lack of traffic snarls, high density living etc., then you accept the disadvantages as well.

Click to expand...

Why? I don't think you are being realistic. Do you think city people live in the city because they like traffic snarls, high density living, etc... or are you suggesting that everyone in the city should stop complaining about the congestion / poor public transport / lack of police / crime / house prices because it's simply a "disadvantage" of the city?

Either way, according to you, if you don't want the NBN or agree with the price - suck it up! The current government was elected by the majority of the people (under KRudd) and they have elected to spend our tax payers money on the NBN. You don't have a choice.

Julia said:

Don't expect that you should have eg the quality of medical care you would get in a teaching hospital, or the best quality education, and on that same basis don't expect in a country with the geography of Australia you should get the same level of technology.

Click to expand...

Why shouldn't I expect the same level of quality? I'm still an Australian citizen who pays the same % of tax as you. Or should I ask for a tax discount because I'm clearly not getting the same quality of services as you?

Who's going to fill your fridge with fresh produce or your cupboard with cereals... come on Julia that is such an "us and them attitude". We can't all live in the city otherwise we'll starve! Your comment is like telling all those people heading away for Easter, to simply stay home. Their lack of open space, clean air and a holiday with the family is clearly the disadvantage for living in the City.

As I've already stated, too many people are focusing on the cost to tax-payers' for the NBN. Apparently it's just too damn expensive? If you all KNOW it's too expensive, what price is acceptable? And future proof? And doesn't have congestion issues or limited bandwidth?

No one (including the Government) is looking at the individual / combined cost savings that the NBN could deliver - now or in the future. Is it because we simply don't know (but apparently the cost to install it is too much)... or is it because we're all a bunch of wingers, we didn't vote for the NBN and the "lucky / smart country" was all a crock? Another reason why our technology heads overseas and we buy it back as an import.

Gotta run... I have to go milk the cow and tend to the vegetables!

sptrawler said:

Like I have said in previous posts, the $40 billion would be better spent on critical infrastucture. Every one over the Easten States will be screaming when the Cooper basin gas reserves run out, they are seriously depleted already.
Maybe then they will say the money would have been better spent running a gas pipe from the N.W.Shelf. Or running water from the north of the country down to the south and creating a food bowl in the Pilbara and central west coast. The soil around there will grow anything if you can keep the water up to it.
That sort of thing is productive and nation building. Making the internet faster has negligable net worth to Australia. Water and Fuel are going to be the major issues and throwing in desalination plants is only making the so called greenhouse problem worse.
They could even try putting in wind farms and have hydrogen plants next to them so that the fuel is being made by renewable energy. Then the hydrogen could be used as an energy storage medium. No that would be too sensible. Lets make the internet faster instead. Fools run by Fools

Click to expand...

Just a note to support the above idea. In todays West Australian, it is reported the drought in W.A is that bad Alcoa's alumina refinery which uses water in its process. Is having to truck in 1million litres of water a day because its catchment dams and bores are dry. Also Worsleys alumina refinery further south had to be helped out by the W.A water authority with 1billion litres.
Everyone is having a great time on the back of W.A's resources boom, what happens when it dries up. No pun intended. Well at least you will have high speed internet to surf for a job or some food or water.

Julia said:

We could have a whole separate thread on city versus country.

To be realistic about it, if you choose to live in the country, because you like the space, lack of traffic snarls, high density living etc., then you accept the disadvantages as well.

Don't expect that you should have eg the quality of medical care you would get in a teaching hospital, or the best quality education, and on that same basis don't expect in a country with the geography of Australia you should get the same level of technology.

Click to expand...

zzaaxxss3401 said:

Why? I don't think you are being realistic. Do you think city people live in the city because they like traffic snarls, high density living, etc... or are you suggesting that everyone in the city should stop complaining about the congestion / poor public transport / lack of police / crime / house prices because it's simply a "disadvantage" of the city?

Click to expand...

So you don't think I'm being realistic? The point of my post was to suggest you are not being realistic if you think you should be able to enjoy all the advantages of the city when you live in the country.

I wasn't commenting about complaints from people who live in cities, didn't even mention this, so just back off with the outrage about that.
For that matter, no I actually never hear people who live in cities complaining much at all about their access to first class healthcare, top cultural activities, and best education. Yes, there are the obvious disadvantages of traffic etc and local governments need to address this.

Either way, according to you, if you don't want the NBN or agree with the price - suck it up!

Click to expand...

Why the unnecessarily rude and aggressive tone? If your argument is sound, you do not need to be rude in presenting it.

The current government was elected by the majority of the people (under KRudd) and they have elected to spend our tax payers money on the NBN. You don't have a choice.

Click to expand...

For a start, the current government was not elected under Mr Rudd, but is a result of the Independents taking their long held revenge on the National Party, and therefore going against the wishes of their electorates to side with Labor.

The Libs actually had the greater first preference vote, so your suggestion that the government was 'elected by the majority of the people' is a misrepresentation of the facts.

Your comment is like telling all those people heading away for Easter, to simply stay home. Their lack of open space, clean air and a holiday with the family is clearly the disadvantage for living in the City.

Click to expand...

What on earth do people going anywhere for Easter holidays have to do with the topic??? Just a silly red herring.

Julia said:

So you don't think I'm being realistic? The point of my post was to suggest you are not being realistic if you think you should be able to enjoy all the advantages of the city when you live in the country.

I wasn't commenting about complaints from people who live in cities, didn't even mention this, so just back off with the outrage about that.
For that matter, no I actually never hear people who live in cities complaining much at all about their access to first class healthcare, top cultural activities, and best education. Yes, there are the obvious disadvantages of traffic etc and local governments need to address this.


Why the unnecessarily rude and aggressive tone? If your argument is sound, you do not need to be rude in presenting it.


For a start, the current government was not elected under Mr Rudd, but is a result of the Independents taking their long held revenge on the National Party, and therefore going against the wishes of their electorates to side with Labor.

The Libs actually had the greater first preference vote, so your suggestion that the government was 'elected by the majority of the people' is a misrepresentation of the facts.


What on earth do people going anywhere for Easter holidays have to do with the topic??? Just a silly red herring.

Click to expand...

The Libs won 40 odd seats and labor 72 feel free to correct me.

Julia said:

We could have a whole separate thread on city versus country.

To be realistic about it, if you choose to live in the country, because you like the space, lack of traffic snarls, high density living etc., then you accept the disadvantages as well.

Don't expect that you should have eg the quality of medical care you would get in a teaching hospital, or the best quality education, and on that same basis don't expect in a country with the geography of Australia you should get the same level of technology.

Click to expand...

That's really silly stuff julia...almost as silly as Tranny and sptrawler supporting the concept of 2 NBN's EVERYONE that lives in the country knows there missing out on stuff EVERYONE knows its a different life and while alot of county folk have little interest in the NBN, its a FACT that it will lead to longer life expectancy's and a better quality of life.

For little country towns all over Australia the NBN will be alot like a new concrete bridge to replace the old wooden bridge on the only road outa town, alot like the helicopter that fly's in once every 3 months or so to pick up an accident victim and fly them to a real hospital...you really notice change in a little country town because you get 1 decent piece of infrastructure about once every ten years or so.

So_Cynical what is so silly about two N.B.N's? We already have one (Telstras), the guvnmnt want to put in a second one then disable the first so they have a monopoly.
They could leave the existing one there, THAT WOULD BE TWO, but then they would have competition. I really can't see what you are talking about when you say I am being silly? Maybe you could enlighten me.
Actually the guvnmnt is so $h**t scared to leave the existing one they had to draft punitive laws and threaten the competion (Telstra) with exclusion from the 4g spectrum. Maybe you have information I don't.
As for country people paying the same as city Telstra tried to get the ACCC to allow them to charge a flat access price to the parasites on their network(rather than a low price for the city and a high one for the country). Which would stop them Cherry Picking.
But the ACCC wouldn't let them, now the N.B.N comes along and they are granted the very thing Telstra was denied. Just shows what self serving people they all are.
Telstra was prepared to spend their money to upgrade the system but wanted assurances that they would get a reasonable return on their investment. The ACCC would not give them that and so the trouble began. Now the guvnmnt is building it they legislate to ensure they have no competition and get a reasonable rate of return. To me there is only one here who looks silly. :

todster said:

The Libs won 40 odd seats and labor 72 feel free to correct me.

Click to expand...

Hahaha Todster - On the abc's 2010 federal election webpage it is different:

Labor 72 + 3 indies & 1 green
Coalition = 73 + 1 indie.

Coalition was actually just ahead on both primary votes and seats.

Ms Gillard leads a minority government which means labor didn't win and she isn't an elected PM by the people's choice. Pretty simple really but Ms Gillard seems to think she has some sort of mandate for major changes with NBN being one of them.

This is how I see our current voting system:

Primary votes = the will of the people
2pp = the will of the parties (doesn't always reflect the primary will of the people)
seats won = who forms government.

The 2pp does seem to fudge the will of the people considerably. It would be better if one could choose who to preference. It annoys me having to put any number beside parties to whom I absolutely don't want to give my preferences.

Julia said:

So you don't think I'm being realistic? The point of my post was to suggest you are not being realistic if you think you should be able to enjoy all the advantages of the city when you live in the country.

Click to expand...

Not many "advantages" of the city that I can think of that I would want to enjoy:
* Perhaps riding a tram with the kids - nope not on the list... Ballarat has an older one around Lake Wendouree and far less crowded and often an empty seat.
* Arts / Opera / Museums / Symphony - on the list.
* Exhibitions at Jeff's shed - on the list.
* Visiting the "big smoke" to see the skyscrapers - maybe on the list
That's about it.

Broadband, medical services, education should be available to everyone across this country not just in the cities. As I stated earlier, I pay the same taxes as everyone else, so why can't I expect the same quality of life (or life expectancy)?

Julia said:

I wasn't commenting about complaints from people who live in cities, didn't even mention this, so just back off with the outrage about that.
For that matter, no I actually never hear people who live in cities complaining much at all about their access to first class healthcare, top cultural activities, and best education. Yes, there are the obvious disadvantages of traffic etc and local governments need to address this.

Click to expand...

I certainly wasn't raging at you Julia, merely suggesting that if I can't complain about the lack of broadband in the country, then commuters in the city can't complain about lack of public transport and/or congestion.

Question: Why do we have traffic problems in the City (all cities)?
Answer: The local council / City Planners failed to plan!
Once again my tax payers' money is going to widen a road or divert traffic because no one has been planning the road infrastructure. They'll fix the symptom, but not the cause.

Now I know why I don't have access to better medical equipment or a University - the funding has been spent on fixing your road. The NBN is a future-proof piece of infrastructure for Australia, if it's allowed to be installed. Finally someone is planning for OUR future... hoorah!

Julia said:

What on earth do people going anywhere for Easter holidays have to do with the topic??? Just a silly red herring.

Click to expand...

Not a red herring... if you want to go away for Easter (out of the City), you'll no doubt want to drive there, eat there, sleep there and fill up your car along the way. When you get there, you'll expect a hot shower (powered by gas / electricity). You might even want to use a mobile phone along the way to tell your friends you're almost there. You expect these services to exist. But you say that country people shouldn't expect the same level of quality as the city for medical / education / broadband because they live in the country. On that note then, I'll go stoke the fire, put the billy on and await your arrival. Hopefully, the horse doesn't throw a shoe on the way.

------------------
For all those out there that are quite happy for their local council to fix the endless issues associated with City life (crime, congestion problems) by dipping into the big pool of tax-payers' money available, perhaps you should read Section 9 of the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999 in order to be better informed.

It states that the object of the Telecommunications Universal Service Obligation (USO) is to ensure that:
* the standard telephone service; and
* payphones; and
* prescribed carriage services; and
* digital data services
are reasonably accessible to all Australians on an equitable basis, wherever they reside or carry on business. The section also states that the USO should be fulfilled as economically as possible and that any losses involved in its provision should be shared among carriers.

The Act gives the Minister the power to designate a universal service provider with primary responsibility for delivery of the USO. Telstra is the current universal service provider, although the legislation allows the Minister to declare two or more carriers as universal service providers, or regional service providers, with appropriately limited responsibilities.

------------------
NOW before you all start jumping up and down screaming: "...the USO should be fulfilled as economically as possible...", the alternative doesn't include a solution that isn't future-proof, has limited capacity, limited range or degrades under heavy load. Yes, I'm referring to the Opposition's WiMax proposal (this isn't a solution). Also before suggesting that the NBN isn't the most economical, bear in mind that providing a service to 90% of the population (in the cities) doesn't meet the USO.

sails said:

Hahaha Todster - On the abc's 2010 federal election webpage it is different:

Labor 72 + 3 indies & 1 green
Coalition = 73 + 1 indie.

Click to expand...

Getting WAY OFF TOPIC, but I believe Todster was referring to the number of Liberal votes.

I find it strange that people mention the Independents holding the balance of power in the current Government. They're independent because they are sick of the fighting and party-line-towing that goes on in the major parties. The Coalition is made up of the Liberals PLUS the Nationals, yet you hear nothing from the Nationals - they're obviously happy simply being a "passenger".