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

NBN Rollout Scrapped

Jump to new
Ah, the old tactic - when you can't fault the argument, attack the messenger.

Would be interested to hear someone provide an actual counter-argument to the NBN that relies on facts and not rhetoric.
 
Labor can't afford to have it scrapped. Windsor and co. would dump them and Labor loses power.

As for a new subdivision with nice new blue cable doing nothing useful - put blame at the company responsible for it. Is it Opticom? If so I would be surprised because one of their retail partners has FetchTV and a good reputation for speed.
 
Mofra said:
Ah, the old tactic - when you can't fault the argument, attack the messenger.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

ASF is a forum for discussion primarily on stocks, but also issues which can affect stocks.

It is also a forum which facts and figures are the best form of posts rather than slagging off other members. NBNMyths has provide a hell of a lot of detail in his posts, so if anyone wishes to counter it feel free to provide some alternate detail, facts and figures
 
Myth No 1: ‘The Snowy Hydro Scheme and/or Sydney Opera House were not subjected to cost-benefit analyses, so neither should the NBN be’.

This is a classic logical fallacy, an ‘appeal to tradition’, which asserts that past practice is, ipso facto, suitable in the present. This is obviously not of itself true, for a number of reasons. Consider the bare numbers: the Sydney Opera House cost roughly $110 million. The Snowy Hydro Scheme was about $8 billion (both these figures are in 2010 dollars). We know that the NBN will likely turn out to cost in the region of $30-40 billion, if government predictions are accurate – that’s about 3 Snowy Schemes, or 360 Opera Houses. Even if those two ventures were not subjected to a cost-benefit analysis, the sheer expense of the NBN suggests the need for a more diligent approach.

Myth No 2 (a corollary to No 1): ‘The NBN is necessary simply because it is a nation-building venture, regardless of the outcome of a cost-benefit analysis’.

While social utility is an important criterion of any government project, it should never be the sole determinant of whether a project should go ahead. Large-scale government activities ought always to be subjected to a rigorous economic analysis. The days of the 1950s, when Labor opposition leaders blithely made promises to increase aggregate government spending by 50 per cent or more without a care in the world for the economic viability of such proposals, are best left in the past. As F. A. Hayek once wrote, ‘the curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they think they can design’ – idealist nation-building should never come before statistical reality.

Myth No 3: ‘I live in a remote regional community and I have no/very slow internet, therefore the NBN is necessary’.

This is black-and-white thinking at its best. It is akin to saying, ‘I do not own a car and therefore the government should purchase for me a Rolls-Royce (although it will still charge me for servicing that I may not be able to afford)’. The question is not one of ‘yes or no’, and it is disingenuous of supporters of the network to make that claim. Instead, the question is, ‘yes, but how much?’ Do we need expensive fibre-to-the-house hardware, that is not necessarily fully exploitable by ordinary households, in 93 per cent of Australian homes? Could a sufficient level of service be achieved by upgrading existing ADSL services? These are examples of valid questions that are swept under the carpet by the black-and-white nature of this particular NBN myth, and whatever decision is made regarding the future of Australian broadband would be strengthened by a frank and full analysis of them.

Myth No 4: ‘Our regional neighbours in Asia are modernising, and if we do not keep up then we will become a backwater’.

In my opinion, this myth captures well the cultural zeitgeist of ‘keeping up with the Joneses’ that has pervaded progressive thought in this country for many years (see Hawke’s ‘clever country’ for an earlier example). However, in this case, the argument spectacularly ignores basic variations in geography and economy that distinguish us from the Joneses of the Asia-Pacific region. Although countries such as Japan and South Korea are modernising their own telecommunications infrastructure, it is worth remembering that the population densities of these countries are over a hundred times that of Australia’s, meaning that economies of scale makes this infrastructure inherently cheaper for a larger number of people. China is the only country in the region that is remotely comparable in size and geographical issues to that of Australia – and do you see a fibre optic cable stretching into the home of every Chinese peasant? Even notwithstanding the obvious differences in personal wealth and level of development that influence the Chinese case, it is clear that geographical considerations cannot be overlooked.

Additionally, the economic strength of countries such as China, Japan and South Korea will always be greater than our own, and they will be ahead of us in ways that extend beyond telecommunications infrastructure. Let’s consider an analogous large-scale project in another country. Japan is currently engaged in the building of a Maglev train line, the Chūō Shinkansen, on which trains will one day travel at up to 600 km/h (twice the speed of contemporary high-speed rail systems). Incidentally, this train line will cost JR Central (a private Japanese railway company) $44 billion US. Of course, we are a long way behind Japan on the development of Maglev train systems, but how much credence do you think a politician would give to the suggestion that we ought to spend tens of billions of dollars on the construction of a Maglev link between Sydney and Melbourne? Probably very little – as the reader may well know, the current debate concerns whether we will have any sort of high-speed rail! The idea that the NBN will allow us to ‘lead the pack’, so to speak, is quite simply a ludicrous one when other countries will inevitably continue to outperform us in other ways, such as high-speed rail networks, and the opportunity cost of the NBN is obviously stratospheric. Instead, it is far more important for us to design policy around the consideration of domestic economic and social issues first before worrying about what other (more densely-populated and economically powerful) states are doing.

What Does Mythbusting Tell Us?

In conclusion, it is important to realise that the debunking of these myths is not in itself an invalidation of the whole NBN project. Although I see it as a near impossibility that the network will be ultimately successful in its current form, I am happy to be proven wrong in retrospect – after all, I am interested first and foremost in the best outcomes for this country. Thus, the purpose of refuting these myths is to help encourage a logical and constructive debate on the merits and demerits of the NBN, and to prevent that grandiose ambition from being implemented on the basis of incorrect and simpliciter justifications that obscure the very real potential for the network to fail, and to soften the sneering barbs of progressives who seek to portray dissenting voices as geriatric Luddites. By removing the myth of NBN as an absolute necessity, a more effective solution to Australian telecommunications needs is likely to result.

Taken from comments in relation to this article http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...rollout-scrapped/story-fn59niix-1225950383911
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
Believe me.

It's gorne.

gg
Click to expand...


Hmm. Considering that they signed deals worth $1.6billion 2 weeks ago for hardware (in addition to the ~$1bn worth already signed), and just today Conroy announced the finalisation of the Telstra deal in addition to $100M to retrain Telstra's workforce to assist with the rollout, I don't think anyone's told the ALP or NBN co....
 
Mofra said:
Ah, the old tactic - when you can't fault the argument, attack the messenger.

Would be interested to hear someone provide an actual counter-argument to the NBN that relies on facts and not rhetoric.
Click to expand...
Unbelievable.
Neither of you think there is anything up with someone joining a stock forum with the name 'NBNMyths', and who is specifically there to post about the NBN, and the NBN only? Nor do you think it would perhaps be appropriate to comment on this and the nature of it? Unbelievable and laughable.
Regarding the facts and 'rhetoric', Mofra, you could perhaps respond to the rest of the content of my posts (the factual bit), rather than selectively skimming off the 'rhetoric' bit. I have already placed my counter-argument in the mix.
That is, unless you were only looking to spout rhetoric yourself. :
 

NBNMyths made it quite clear that he/she was here to post comments on the issue as some posts here had quoted information on his/her website.

ASF fully supports freedom of speech and opinion and encourages on topic debate, providing the site rules and regulations are not breached.
 
tothemax6 said:
Regarding the facts and 'rhetoric', Mofra, you could perhaps respond to the rest of the content of my posts (the factual bit), rather than selectively skimming off the 'rhetoric' bit. I have already placed my counter-argument in the mix.
Click to expand...
You'd have to actually post some facts first, ttm6
 
Mofra said:
You'd have to actually post some facts first, ttm6
Click to expand...
Well OK, but I don't understand what you mean then by 'facts'. I have stated a line of reasoning that supports 'the NBN is bad'. Arguments are not a stream of facts, they are facts + logical reasoning as to the interrelatedness of the facts + moral implications of conclusions reached from this reasoning. Good arguments are, anyway.

But if you wish facts first: the NBN is a government project. A government project is funded by expropriation of assets from citizens. Logic: These assets cannot thenceforth be invested by the citizens according to those citizens actual personal wants. Facts: Government projects are not under market forces, i.e. competition, and hence (as proven time and time again) do not have natural checks upon inefficiency, waste, budget blow-outs, etc etc. Logic: hence such projects tend to produce much less per dollar than private projects.
Morals: the NBN is a big, government boondoggle, funded by theft, so that the politicians can point at it and say 'we did something'. It is bad.
 

The USA already has a relatively large 150Mbps Fibre To The Home (FTTH) network (which currently passes 15.4 million premises), plus an extremely large HFC cable network. Some of their cable has been upgraded to 100Mbps (shared), but most is at 50Mbps or less.

Over there, cable TV is huge business. This, combined with their relatively high population density means that there is a big commercial return for rolling out cable networks. The FTTH network is also used for cable TV. In Australia, things like the anti-siphoning list have meant that pay TV is pretty small business and there is no commercial incentive to roll out fast cable/fibre networks.

Obama's plan provides very little $$$ for fixed infrastructure, because it's all been done commercially. Although, from what I have read, he will be contributing some money for cable upgrades in less populated areas so residents can get an upgrade to 100Mbps services.

But the wireless network over there is in real trouble. There is a lack of spectrum, and due to the relatively low commercial returns (they have unlimited data on their wireless broadband, which is killing them commercially), the networks are sparse in non-profitable areas, and in many cases have not even been upgraded to 3G.

The situation therefore is almost the opposite of Australia. While our fixed line infrastructure is waaaay behind the US, with almost no fibre and only small HFC networks. However, we do have a massive, advanced 3G wireless network (Telstra's), which covers 98% of the population already and provides theoretical speeds of 21-42Mbps. There is nothing like it in the USA.

Much of what Obama's doing over there is being funded through the sale of additional wireless spectrum, which will hopefully drag their wireless networks out of their current data crisis. IIRC they are planning on getting $27bn just from the auctioning of spectrum.

In Australia, we'll be doing a similar auction once the switch to digital TV is complete.
 

Doesn't the Telstra deal have to be approved by the share holders and if they don't what happens then?
 
noco said:
Doesn't the Telstra deal have to be approved by the share holders and if they don't what happens then?
Click to expand...
It does, but I'll suggest Telstra shareholders will prefer a share price closer to $3 than to $2.
 
bellenuit said:
Senator Conroy's hypocrisy truly galling over national broadband

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...tional-broadband/story-e6frg9if-1226004670045
Click to expand...

sails said:
hmmmm - will be interesting how NBNmyths will explain this one...

Without spin, pleeeeese...
Click to expand...

Explain what? its a politically based, anti NBN piece of page filling opinion...not journalism.

The Govt thru Conroy uses selective comparisons to help "sell" the NBN, this it what all politicians do and could hardly be considered to be hypocritical in any genuine way.

Sth Korea has a FTTH network, Aust wants a FTTH network...Apples & Apples.

Sth Korea has a population of 50 mill in a land area of 99,392 km², Aust has a
population of 22 mill in a land area of 7,617,930 km²....Apples and Oranges.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia
 
So_Cynical, here's an excerpt from that article which may explain it a bit better:


So, it's OK with you that Conroy used South Korea to justify his controversial NBN even though you point out the differences now?

Now that the Economist's Economic Intelligence Unit has ranked Conroy's plan poorly against South Korea, he conveniently finds an excuse...

And you're OK that he now backflips?

It only makes me more cynical and distrusting of this politician. Good try to brush it off, but I think Conroy has damaged his credibility further...
 
Telstra sell-off was a mess. Let's hope we've learnt for the NBN

But the mere fact that private ownership of the NBN is on the table is a cause for concern. Parliament has only recently passed legislation to separate Telstra's wholesale and retail arms - in effect, partially correcting the monumental error of its initial transformation from a public monopoly into a private one. Why would we do this again?

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...e-weve-learnt-for-the-nbn-20101223-196hx.html

Ooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhh the irony of it all. We sold Telstra to stop monopolies and to relieve Government from owning/controlling telecomunications companies. Now we are rushing headlong back into the same mistake. GOSH .... not very bright are we?

And just LOL at So_Cylcical response. Are you sure you read the same article?

"My point isn't that nose jobs and broadband deliver no benefits, but that claimed benefits by vested interests -- like a nose doctor or a minister whose entire credibility rests on defending the NBN -- need to be checked out." - Paul Kerin is Professorial Fellow, Melbourne Business School

Yep ... real political hack job that one ??!?!??!?!??!?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
The Australian Human Rights Commission: A national disgrace
3 4 5
Replies
85
Views
15K
Tisme
A
National Broadband Network
23 24 25
Replies
483
Views
57K
sptrawler
ASF Mark III
7 8 9
Replies
173
Views
44K
mr. jeff
A
Money management
Replies
0
Views
4K
absolute1
A
R
Deception: use + abuse of information by governments + terrorists
Replies
2
Views
5K
reichstag911
R
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...