- Joined
- 23 November 2004
- Posts
- 3,974
- Reactions
- 850
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.
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.
take your agenda elsewhere, can Joe moderate posters pushing their agendas and only allow people to post who actually contribute to this forum?
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
Meet The CEO highlights with Mike Quigley, CEO, NBN Co
http://tv.unsw.edu.au/video/meet-the-ceo-highlights-with-mike-quigley-ceo-nbn-co1
(6 months old)
What do you guys think?
NBN's commercial viability is a joke
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...bility-is-a-joke/story-e6frgd0x-1226506971773
NBN's commercial viability is a joke
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...bility-is-a-joke/story-e6frgd0x-1226506971773
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.
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.
The $27.5bn Government component of the NBN is funded by debt, through the issuing of Australian Government Bonds.
I would argue that a public service shouldn't "return" anything above actual costs.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".
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/
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.
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.
In an economic sense, I'm not sure what you are saying.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.
Isn't Telstra a public service and pays a dividend of around 9%.
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.
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.
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?