Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

NBN Rollout Scrapped

Jump to new
prawn_86 said:
From a moderators perspective there is nothing long with NBNMyths posts to me. It's obvious it is a cuase he is passioante about, however he never directly directs people to his blog etc and it promotes discussion amongst the community.

Obviously it would be nice if he also commented in technology stock threads where he feels the NBN may have some form of impact in order to promote stock discussion also.
Click to expand...



Well he's never short the NBN.
 
prawn_86 said:
From a moderators perspective there is nothing long with NBNMyths posts to me. It's obvious it is a cuase he is passioante about, however he never directly directs people to his blog etc and it promotes discussion amongst the community.

Obviously it would be nice if he also commented in technology stock threads where he feels the NBN may have some form of impact in order to promote stock discussion also.
Click to expand...

As much as I'd like to comment on stocks, the only shares I've ever owned were those received in the NRMA demutualisation, and I sold them soon after. I don't know enough about share trading, or even tech companies, to make an informed comment!

I have always been an Apple groupie though, and regret to this day ignoring the advice of my inner geek which told me to buy some Apple shares when they were US$7.00 back in the 90s.....
 
white_goodman said:
take your agenda elsewhere, can Joe moderate posters pushing their agendas and only allow people to post who actually contribute to this forum?
Click to expand...

Oh take it easy on drsmith and Trawler, everyone Knows they have an agenda and a barrow to push, but really they do know harm...just a couple of overly conservative spruikers with arguments as wafer thin as a Noalition policy.
:)
 
So_Cynical said:
Oh take it easy on drsmith and Trawler, everyone Knows they have an agenda and a barrow to push, but really they do know harm...just a couple of overly conservative spruikers with arguments as wafer thin as a Noalition policy.
:)
Click to expand...

Hang on, that's a bit rough, if you look back through the posts I think you will find I was the first one to thank Myths for his informative posts.
Secondly, my barrow and I think drsmiths also, is the fact we have the internet and we're happy with it.
However we have to fork out for a new internet, that we don't require.
So what advantage is in this for me? none

What disadvantage is in this for me:
1. It is going to cost me more in direct and indirect taxes, to pay for its deployment.

2. There are things that currently are a one of cost, that will become an ongoing and increasing cost. eg free to air t.v and commercial radio. At the moment I buy a t.v and an aerial, bingo you get entertainment.
The free to air stations would be stupid not to morph into cable t.v providers. Then they can charge the consumer rather than rely on advertising revenue. I am having to pay to give them the avenue to charge me :eek:

3. There is an arguement for commerce and industry to have the NBN, also there are individuals out there that feel they need it. Well why shouldn't they pay for it?
Why should I have to pay for it. It is a bit like the pink batt fiasco, I payed to put insulation into my roof and my daughters roof, why then did I have to subsidise tight **** landlords to put it in their rooves.

Your probably right, it is a waffer thin arguement, peoples right to choice allways is.
 
So_Cynical said:
A bit like arguing, why have cars that can go faster than the speed limit...or why have 4 dinner plates when you only need one for dinner, why 2 phones when you can only use one at a time, or 6 pairs of socks...i could go on.
Click to expand...
Having multiple dinner plates or pairs of socks serves an actual purpose. It avoids having to constantly wash and re-use the same plate or socks.

Having 2 phones also serves a purpose. I can put them in reasonably convenient locations (assuming we're talking about fixed phones not mobile).

A better analogy would be hiring a semi trailer (and driver) in order to transport a single pallet of goods that could easily fit on a 1 tonne ute. There is no advantage in the larger vehicle, unless you consider using a larger vehicle to be an advantage in itself. Either way you still only move the one pallet, but the semi will cost far more than the ute in order to do so.

I could buy a full size farm tractor with mowing attachment and use it to mow a bit of grass it in the backyard if I really wanted to. It's a ridiculously over the top, but it's certainly possible. :2twocents
 
sptrawler said:
Hang on, that's a bit rough, if you look back through the posts I think you will find I was the first one to thank Myths for his informative posts.
Click to expand...

If he looked back through the posts, he'd find more than that.

white_goodman said:
its a private forum, so freedom of speech CAN be thrown out the window, im talking bout people such as NBNMYTHS, who only come here to post on one thread, push a clear agenda for who knows why, its just murks the discussion. Similar to how on property forums spruikers arent allowed to post selling their respective 'products'.. just a thought.
Click to expand...
 
dutchie said:
NBN's commercial viability is a joke


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...bility-is-a-joke/story-e6frgd0x-1226506971773
Click to expand...

noco said:
Yes it was written by Kevin Morgan of the Australian.

Morgan was the ACTU member fo ALP leader Kim Beasley's advisory committee on telcommunications.

The whole set up has been a joke from day one.
Click to expand...

Ahh yes, Kevin Morgan.

A man with no known qualifications in communications who describes himself as a "communications consultant", but who has no public resumé, and no records or evidence that he has ever worked in the role he attributes to himself. Go ahead, look him up!

In fact, if you care to look, you'll see his only public work is dissing the NBN for News Ltd publications!

Perhaps he's embarrassed that the sale of Telstra as a vertical monopoly turned out to be an unmitigated disaster for consumers, shareholders and the country.

In the case of the quoted article, it falls apart like a house of cards as soon as you see that the entire article is based around a vastly incorrect figure. He claims that the NBN won't be viable because it will return "7%, which is only slightly more than 1 per cent above the long-term government bond rate".

What utter BS! Maybe Kevin should check some financial sites to see what the bond rate is. Me thinks big Kev has been to the same fact-checking school as Alan Jones.

Other figures and statements in the article are similarly rubbish.
 
Taxpayers don’t really have anything to do with NBN funding. It is users of the network who will pay to build it, whether they are taxpayers or not.
Click to expand...

The $27.5bn Government component of the NBN is funded by debt, through the issuing of Australian Government Bonds.
Click to expand...

That debt is, and remains a taxpayer liability until it is repaid from returns from the project.

http://nbnmyths.wordpress.com/how-are-we-paying-for-it/
 
NBNMyths said:
In the case of the quoted article, it falls apart like a house of cards as soon as you see that the entire article is based around a vastly incorrect figure. He claims that the NBN won't be viable because it will return "7%, which is only slightly more than 1 per cent above the long-term government bond rate".
Click to expand...
I would argue that a public service shouldn't "return" anything above actual costs.

The notion that everything from roads to water has to make a "profit" is enriching a few whilst slowly but surely strangling everyone from consumers to manufacturers in the process. I'd much rather go back to actual public services as such, where the rates charged cover the actual costs and no more.:2twocents
 
drsmith said:
That debt is, and remains a taxpayer liability until it is repaid from returns from the project.

http://nbnmyths.wordpress.com/how-are-we-paying-for-it/
Click to expand...


Just like any other infrastructure project of size, even if only 1/2 the expect return happens its small change for the replacement of the Telstra monopoly of which Costello and Howard are continually praised here for their brilliance in making surplus's by flogging the pup to everyday Mum/ Dad punters.
 
Smurf1976 said:
I would argue that a public service shouldn't "return" anything above actual costs.

The notion that everything from roads to water has to make a "profit" is enriching a few whilst slowly but surely strangling everyone from consumers to manufacturers in the process. I'd much rather go back to actual public services as such, where the rates charged cover the actual costs and no more.:2twocents
Click to expand...

Hear hear. What do my taxes actually pay for these days? Roads, electricity, water, internet/communications are all privatised. Health is paid for with a seperate (Medicare) levy. Education is paid back through HECS. So where does my tax money go?
 
Smurf1976 said:
I would argue that a public service shouldn't "return" anything above actual costs.

The notion that everything from roads to water has to make a "profit" is enriching a few whilst slowly but surely strangling everyone from consumers to manufacturers in the process. I'd much rather go back to actual public services as such, where the rates charged cover the actual costs and no more.:2twocents
Click to expand...

Isn't Telstra a public service and pays a dividend of around 9%.
 
IFocus said:
Just like any other infrastructure project of size, even if only 1/2 the expect return happens its small change for the replacement of the Telstra monopoly of which Costello and Howard are continually praised here for their brilliance in making surplus's by flogging the pup to everyday Mum/ Dad punters.
Click to expand...
In an economic sense, I'm not sure what you are saying.

Are you suggesting that it's more about Telstra than taxpayer money well spent ?
 
noco said:
Isn't Telstra a public service and pays a dividend of around 9%.
Click to expand...

No Telstra is no longer a public service and the 9% goes to shareholders.
I think what Smurph was alluding to was, it was much better when it was a public service and any profit was returned to the government.
Then they didn't have to tax you so much, ah the good old days.
 
IFocus said:
Just like any other infrastructure project of size, even if only 1/2 the expect return happens its small change for the replacement of the Telstra monopoly of which Costello and Howard are continually praised here for their brilliance in making surplus's by flogging the pup to everyday Mum/ Dad punters.
Click to expand...

Well at least Howard and Costello, got the accounts in surplus and set up the future fund with the proceeds.
Didn't Hawke and Keating float off assetts and still left office $90Billion in debt.:eek:
 

Similar threads

N
The Australian Human Rights Commission: A national disgrace
3 4 5
Replies
85
Views
15K
Tisme
Tisme
A
National Broadband Network
23 24 25
Replies
483
Views
57K
sptrawler
sptrawler
Joe Blow
ASF Mark III
7 8 9
Replies
173
Views
44K
mr. jeff
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
Top