National Broadband Network

[Ratts of Tobruk]

When did 'rates' get mentioned? I was talking about how the NBN could've been financed. The cost of rates is obviously passed on to renters unless negative-gearing is the goal. Most people own or rent, so I don't particularly see rates as that different to general taxation, just that it is local council keen on getting the cash rather than the feds.

 

[Taylor]

Service v infrastructure.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Maintenance of the infrastructure? Or are you suggesting people wouldn't have to pay for their 'service' directly (i.e. for the internet, like everyone already does)? I can't see in the previous discussion what you might be talking about, but this thread generates fresh pages pretty quickly.

Or maybe you're confused by Power Raid suggesting I'd confused service and infrastructure. PR regularly pretends to be smarter than everyone else, but unfortunately he hasn't worked out how to communicate his ideas with any clarity so we're all in the dark as to if there is any smarts behind all those posts.

 

[Power Raid]

Paying for it even if they don't use it... like infrastructure paid through taxation? Because then we're really back to you saying once more that more tax should be paid by land-owners. That's fine, but not that relevant to the NBN thread, where the suggestion that it could've been (even slightly) paid for by making new properties pay, is completely unrealistic.

And 'welcome back' to using financial gibberish to try and make it sound like you know what you're talking about. I'm sure you'll convince someone.

I wouldn't expect you to appreciate financial stuff unless you call "free s**t" financial.

But unfortunately it is the crux of the problem. The NBN was poorly conceived because it was all about winning votes.

Proper funding solutions were thrown out the door despite precedent on power, parks, water, sewerage, telephones and roads which are all on billed or paid for by the developer and not the state. but that would have discounted the vote pork barrelling efforts.

This F up was consistent throughout the planning and execution phases and the result was a $73b(?) mess which is insufficient to keep off balance sheet.

You do know what off balance sheet is don't you?



oh and property owners paying for it even if they don't use the NBN is appropriate, as it relates to a value add to the property.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

I wouldn't expect you to appreciate financial stuff unless you call "free s**t" financial...

Have you been drinking, PR? Your true self is showing again.

 

[Power Raid]

Have you been drinking, PR? Your true self is showing again.

a nice dodge and weave from a financial post.

Is it because you lack a basic understanding finance or just have a "user" personality that likes free s**t?

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

a nice dodge and weave from a financial post.

You have been drinking. You actually believe your posts are 'financial'.

Remember what the TAC says: If you drink and drivel, you're a bloody idiot.

 

[Taylor]

You have been drinking. You actually believe your posts are 'financial'.

Remember what the TAC says: If you drink and drivel, you're a bloody idiot.

And when you attack the person and not their message you have lost the arguement.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

And when you attack the person and not their message you have lost the arguement.

Untrue. If you don't also have other arguments, it may be true, but that is not the situation here.

 

[Taylor]

Untrue. If you don't also have other arguments, it may be true, but that is not the situation here.

Can only work with what you give so far.

 

[Power Raid]

Paying for it even if they don't use it... like infrastructure paid through taxation? Because then we're really back to you saying once more that more tax should be paid by land-owners. That's fine, but not that relevant to the NBN thread, where the suggestion that it could've been (even slightly) paid for by making new properties pay, is completely unrealistic.

And 'welcome back' to using financial gibberish to try and make it sound like you know what you're talking about. I'm sure you'll convince someone.

do you want to try again? try and focus now......

no, not like infrastructure paid through taxation. We moved away from that in the various states between the 1960s and 1980s.

We now pay for the connection of water, power, electricity, roads, parks and sewerage through a direct cost to land developers. Yes even parks, you have to give 10-20% of you land to the council to make parks or pay the equivalent amount so they can buy other land for public use. Thus it is a direct fee to the property owner for the infrastructure rather than funded by a general tax.

So it is completely relevant to the NBN and not unrealistic because we already do it for the services mentioned.



I look forward to your next dummy spit.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

do you want to try again? try and focus now......

no, not like infrastructure paid through taxation. We moved away from that in the various states between the 1960s and 1980s...

I had no idea the East-West link was being paid for by developers. No wonder those local residents are annoyed.

Can only work with what you give so far.

I've pointed out that what PR is saying is BS. He's complaining for the sake of it, and pretending he has a factual basis. His response was to suggest I didn't understand financial terms/unfocussed/havign a dummy spit (ad hominem stuff we can ignore), and claiming power, etc, is paid solely by developers. That is only the case when a developer wants to develop a piece of land. Obviously in a truckload of instances that isn't the situation. For the NBN it is in the extreme minority.

 

[Power Raid]

I had no idea the East-West link was being paid for by developers. No wonder those local residents are annoyed.

I've pointed out that what PR is saying is BS. He's complaining for the sake of it, and pretending he has a factual basis. His response was to suggest I didn't understand financial terms/unfocussed/havign a dummy spit (ad hominem stuff we can ignore), and claiming power, etc, is paid solely by developers. That is only the case when a developer wants to develop a piece of land. Obviously in a truckload of instances that isn't the situation. For the NBN it is in the extreme minority.

lol

east-west link being compared to infrastructure adding value to private property like power, water, electricity, sewerage etc

lol

just ignore this was all about votes not delivering a project

lol

going fro a $4b bird brain idea to a $94b blow out


this is the price we pay for government pork barrelling.......a massive debt and a half baked project that was never going to be.

 

[Footy Smarts]

lol

east-west link being compared to infrastructure adding value to private property like power, water, electricity, sewerage etc

lol

just ignore this was all about votes not delivering a project

lol

going fro a $4b bird brain idea to a $94b blow out


this is the price we pay for government pork barrelling.......a massive debt and a half baked project that was never going to be.

PR you seem to be making an art out of nit-picking a very minor point of a policy and deciding everything is terrible because of it.

How you can say this was all about votes rather than delivering a project based on charging for usage rather than connection is mind boggling.

You've completely ignored what this project would deliver. It would fix up the massive cluster* that is our current communications network, fix the mess of having Telstra being both a wholesaler and retailer, end the digital divide, give us a communications network that can best deliver on any future need and give us a long-term profitable asset.

Yet because they decided to pay for it through usage charges rather than connection fees to homeowners it's "all about votes not delivering a project"?

It's a classic diversionary tactic when you don't actually have a decent argument to fixate on a minor, virtually irrelevant detail rather than tackling the overall issue. Like every policy there are positives and negatives but when you're spending all your time arguing over the minutiae it suggests you don't have a good argument. But then a quick look back at your posting history suggests you haven't let things like basic physics come ahead of your anti-NBN rants (bolding mine):

and once it gets to the home, what do most people use? wireless?

I suspect homes will be connected by a series of wireless from the street or central location.

I have no idea what kind of frequencies would be used on 20 years but suggest it won't be fibre optic.


you also seem to have an obsession with speed. Who knows you may be right that we need even more data capacity but what happens if we move away from the bit to a far more efficient data package.


I seems it is you that has not only no idea but also not open to the possibilities. Let's see where the next 20 years takes us.

I'm sorry but anybody with a basic physical understanding of communications knows that nothing is going to be remotely competitive with fibre-optic for high volume data transfer without some completely knew scientific understanding. Even if we get that understanding tomorrow the chances that this new technology is developed enough to be competitive in 50 years is slim let alone in 20. And perhaps you're right that we'll be transferring data via quantum bits rather than bits in 20 years (very, very unlikely and it would only be for very specific purposes). Lucky we didn't bother investing in laying fibre-optic cable since the only current method for long-distance coherent quantum transport is through using a photon as the qubit and transporting it via fibre.

 

[Taylor]

What's the reason for the cost blow outs?

 

[TheMase]

going fro a $4b bird brain idea to a $94b blow out


this is the price we pay for government pork barrelling.......a massive debt and a half baked project that was never going to be.

The $4b plan and the newer plan are vastly different and you know that. On this page alone you've used 2 figures 75b and 94b (the coalitions fictitious number).

No, for government pork barrelling we have a structural deficit to to middle class vote buying by both parties but particularly the Howard government.

At the this money would give the country an asset.

Upgrading of our main fixed line communications has been on the agenda for 10 years, it is (was) future proofing our fixed communications infrastructure to ensure we remain globally competitive...

 

[Taylor]

How about the $38,000,000,000 in high income tax offsets from superannuation allowances?

It's not all mum and dad battler voters being bought.

 

[Power Raid]

The $4b plan and the newer plan are vastly different and you know that. On this page alone you've used 2 figures 75b and 94b (the coalitions fictitious number).

No, for government pork barrelling we have a structural deficit to to middle class vote buying by both parties but particularly the Howard government.

At the this money would give the country an asset.

Upgrading of our main fixed line communications has been on the agenda for 10 years, it is (was) future proofing our fixed communications infrastructure to ensure we remain globally competitive...

yep, that's why I call it a bird brain plan but it demonstrates how much thought went into the project. It was all about votes and not a real plan but then we were locked onto train tracks to save face but not real destination in mind.

No, the number was from one of the lead engineering firms rolling out the NBN.

and unfortunately yes Howard pork barrelled as well. two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[TheMase]

We are ideologically divided on this issue, there is no middle ground.

 

[Taylor]

Don't you both want the same end result?

 

[Power Raid]

What's the reason for the cost blow outs?

asbestos was a big one early,
the lack of clearance in the existing trench work
the severe angel and bend to get into the existing trench work that has caused massive damage to the new cables (splinters the glass)
the multiple call outs to connect the premise
time and funding costs
engineering penalty payments

and the "cost" is not actually the "cost". As the cost is much more than quoted numbers as the "cost" is actually the negative cash flow meaning slow take up rates blow out the "cost".

 

[Power Raid]

Don't you both want the same end result?

yes

one path gets you there and the other gets you where we are today and will never deliver the desired end result.

tough choice! oh and for me it is not ideology, it is project management.

 

[TheMase]

Don't you both want the same end result?

Perhaps, but different ways to get there.

My argument is that both parties are using the same funding model, no one is being charged on rates for either model and FTTP offers more long term viability in both cost as well as technological innovation as well as offering all Australians the opportunity to connect to close to a ubiquitous network (which offers content providers and other businesses a single platform to know they can offer services to nearly everyone, expanding the available market).

My point is that our geographical location will always provide massive disadvantages and we need the best technology in order to compete and have a market to which businesses want to invest in (ie. a return on investment).

As for take up rates, they will accelerate when the copper is switched off, like it has been recently in my area.

 

[TheMase]

yes

one path gets you there and the other gets you where we are today and will never deliver the desired end result.

tough choice! oh and for me it is not ideology, it is project management.

Yes it will, just not at a cost that is palatable for you

The ideology is how it should be paid for, the people who can afford it pay (A LOT more per premise) vs my ideology of providing these services to everyone (no disadvantage).

 

[Power Raid]

PR you seem to be making an art out of nit-picking a very minor point of a policy and deciding everything is terrible because of it.

How you can say this was all about votes rather than delivering a project based on charging for usage rather than connection is mind boggling.

You've completely ignored what this project would deliver. It would fix up the massive cluster**** that is our current communications network, fix the mess of having Telstra being both a wholesaler and retailer, end the digital divide, give us a communications network that can best deliver on any future need and give us a long-term profitable asset.

Yet because they decided to pay for it through usage charges rather than connection fees to homeowners it's "all about votes not delivering a project"?

It's a classic diversionary tactic when you don't actually have a decent argument to fixate on a minor, virtually irrelevant detail rather than tackling the overall issue. Like every policy there are positives and negatives but when you're spending all your time arguing over the minutiae it suggests you don't have a good argument. But then a quick look back at your posting history suggests you haven't let things like basic physics come ahead of your anti-NBN rants (bolding mine):

1) the initial $4b plan highlights the project was born from a light bulb idea rather than a proper thought out plan
2) that plan was "small" in sie and didn't warrant financing considerations
3) The NBN plan was more ambitious and poorly budgeted on purpose to push the cash flow off balance sheet
4) No consideration was given to charging property owners as that would unwind the pork barrelling efforts

without going into the project further in this post, how do you expect to roll out a multi billion dollar project without proper planning, budgeting and financing?