National Broadband Network

Remove this Banner Ad

TheMase said:
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).
Click to expand...

As far as no disadvantage goes, I see your point but what will feel that cost?
I think it will be health and education, the interest on our debt is greater than some entire sectors of the budget spending (it was something like $14 billion) and those who can afford private health and private schools aren't going to be the ones feeling a drop off in public services in those two areas.

I'm not so convinced that a really good communications infrastructure is going to be much relief for those suffering.
 
Footy Smarts said:
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.
Click to expand...

Do you think we will get rid of our modems in exchange for optic cable running around our houses? I think not.

In Paris the fibre optic travel through the street and is broadcast wireless by modems on the street into the homes. So it is not that great a leap to consider this could be deliver the same speeds whether the modem was in the home or outside of the home.

Or do you refuse to see how advance and even current technologies can achieve this?
 
Tayl0r said:
As far as no disadvantage goes, I see your point but what will feel that cost?
I think it will be health and education, the interest on our debt is greater than some entire sectors of the budget spending (it was something like $14 billion) and those who can afford private health and private schools aren't going to be the ones feeling a drop off in public services in those two areas.

I'm not so convinced that a really good communications infrastructure is going to be much relief for those suffering.
Click to expand...
One could argue that health services could be provided across a FTTP NBN freeing up hospital beds.

One could also argue further education services could be provided due to the ubiquitous nature of the network.

Again though, we are spending $40+ billon on what is largely outdated technology that will not take us forward (in any significant way) and will cost this country much much more.

The cost will be paid for by the customers plan fee. NBN co should be recovering some of the costs with connection fees (that the ISP passes on or absorbs).

The debt is a whole separate issue which has been caused by both sides of politics recklessness. I have very little faith in pollies and don't 'barrack' for any of them. Not part of the 80% that blindly votes who their dad voted for.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

TheMase said:
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).
Click to expand...

no disadvantage.....cough cough

The highest price will be paid by our youth, our poor and disadvantaged

The winners are the rich, the land lords and the banks


It is a shame people are willing to trample our youth, our poor and our disadvantaged for some "free s**t". It is not ideological, it is morally wrong!
 
Power Raid said:
no disadvantage.....cough cough

The highest price will be paid by our youth, our poor and disadvantaged

The winners are the rich, the land lords and the banks


It is a shame people are willing to trample our youth, our poor and our disadvantaged for some "free s**t". It is not ideological, it is morally wrong!
Click to expand...
Lol, our youth and poor are arguably going to be ones that benefit the most given they will have access to services that otherwise the wealthy would only be able to access giving them a huge advantage over the youth and poor.

What is morally wrong is having services that are a huge part of the next generation of technology only being able to be afforded by the rich.... Leaving our poor to suit themselves and have no opportunity to ge themselves out of it.
 
TheMase said:
One could argue that health services could be provided across a FTTP NBN freeing up hospital beds.

One could also argue further education services could be provided due to the ubiquitous nature of the network.

Again though, we are spending $40+ billon on what is largely outdated technology that will not take us forward (in any significant way) and will cost this country much much more.

The cost will be paid for by the customers plan fee. NBN co should be recovering some of the costs with connection fees (that the ISP passes on or absorbs).

The debt is a whole separate issue which has been caused by both sides of politics recklessness. I have very little faith in pollies and don't 'barrack' for any of them. Not part of the 80% that blindly votes who their dad voted for.
Click to expand...

Which services would be covered by an NBN skype sessions that isn't currently covered by a GP and requires a hospital admission?

I do see how a skype session classroom would benefit lectures but not one on one teacher student interactions.

How much will this network cost to maintain per year?
If this network costs $40,000,000,000 and every single household gets one that is a burden of $5000 each, how many years does that need to be spread over to cover the cost?

I will run a best case spreadsheet on that if you like using historical average interest rates and determine what the price would need to be per month per household to pay it off within your timeframe.

I will need:
Total cost to build the network
Cost per year of maintaining network and operations
Number of years expected to take to repay
Expected household take up rate (8.15 million total households)
 
TheMase said:
Lol, our youth and poor are arguably going to be ones that benefit the most given they will have access to services that otherwise the wealthy would only be able to access giving them a huge advantage over the youth and poor.

What is morally wrong is having services that are a huge part of the next generation of technology only being able to be afforded by the rich.... Leaving our poor to suit themselves and have no opportunity to ge themselves out of it.
Click to expand...

no, completely wrong.

The youth, the poor and the disadvantaged would have a proper NBN and the landlords would contribute to the upgrades and value add to their personal property which they would recoup on sale. Is it that simple.

Let's stop punishing the youth, the poor and the disadvantaged every time we have a new policy. We have stuffed the disabilities services commissions with the half baked NDIS (we should have just given more funds to the DSC), we have f'd up the NBN (scope, budgeting and financing), we have loaded the nation full of debt (ie a first home owners grant pushing up house prices and rich land owner off loading their property at inflated prices), we undermined our constitution and set a dangerous precedent etc etc. Why does much of the electorate celebrate making life tougher for people who are already doing it tough? Do you simply chose to ignore it or just can't see it?
 
Power Raid said:
There are other reasons why this should be on-billed to private property owners in full (or at least in part) such as "should new land developments be offered this free of charge and if so for how long?"
Click to expand...

They aren't. The developer pays for the pit and pipe.

Pre-NBN Telstra paid for everything.

Another FAIL.

BTW you still owe me your house from that bet on an earlier page. ;)
 
Power Raid said:
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.
Click to expand...

Again, NO.

I notice you left out GAS..... doesn't fit your agenda so omit it....
 
Power Raid said:
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?
Click to expand...

Do you?

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam...Library/pubs/BN/2011-2012/NBNBudgetStatements

In sum, money transferred to NBN Co cannot be classified as an expense under currently accepted accounting standards. It is accounted for as a financial asset on the balance sheet (an ‘investment in other public sector entities’), as opposed to an expense item on the operating statement. An eventual gain or loss on the government’s equity investment in NBN Co is accounted for in the operating statement as an expense, but this does not affect the fiscal balance measure.
Click to expand...
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Footy Smarts said:
But is there anybody who can make an argument that the Coalition's current alternative is in any way good policy?
Click to expand...
Telstra who are making out like a bandit and Murdoch who's protected his monopoly by crippling the services able to be offered by competition for just that little bit further.
 
Footy Smarts said:
I think everybody gets that there are criticisms out there of Labor's version of the NBN. Some of those are reasonable, others are moronic. Ok.

But is there anybody who can make an argument that the Coalition's current alternative is in any way good policy?
Click to expand...
This has been exactly my point and the conversation continues to slide into a debate about who is paying for it. Both parties have put up models and neither have done what PR has asked, so then it becomes a question of value for money..
 
TheMase said:
This has been exactly my point and the conversation continues to slide into a debate about who is paying for it. Both parties have put up models and neither have done what PR has asked, so then it becomes a question of value for money..
Click to expand...

you are simply not understanding we were never going to get the FTTP NBN as the funding mechanism would have been unconstitutional(?/ compliant with finance regulation?) unless it could be kept off balance sheet.

However, a CBA which is supposed to be completed to remain of balance sheet but wasn't. When it was finally done, it revealed it could not remain off balance sheet unless changes were made.

I guess that explains why Labor refused to have a CBA done at the beginning. It also supports the requirement for alternative funding such as a private property contribution. So it is not a side issue, rather it is the crux of the problem. We could never deliver a FTTP NBN without a contribution!
 
yibbida said:
WOT?

If you have sewer running past your house you have to use it. You can't use bio-cycles or leech drains.

Another FAIL.
Click to expand...

lol, not exactly what I was thinking. What, go in a say "but I never flushed?".

even vacant block still has to pay
 
RUNVS said:
Not an article I was expecting from News Limited

http://www.news.com.au/technology/o...aming-revolution/story-fnjwncel-1227186853810

It is all about how Australia is going to be left behind as a result of the Coalitions broadband policy.
Click to expand...

news.com.au is always a bit different from the rest of the empire. I get the impression that Rupert doesn't know it exists as this sort of thing comes up there but not in his papers. Probably realises it's a younger demographic readership.
 
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/24/nbn_co_fibre_build_was_close_to_budget/?mt=1426048322117


The real cost of completing Australia's National Broadband Network (NBN) in its originally-planned fibre-to-the-premises configuration may well have been close to the $AU43 billion first budgeted, according to data presented by NBN Co's CEO and CFO to a Senate Estimates hearing.
Click to expand...

The Register notes that the new cost-per-premises yields a fibre build for 11 million premises (the NBN's original target) of $AU47 billion* – around 10 per cent higher than the former government's $AU43 billion build budget, but a long way short of the $97 billion for a fibre rollout bandied about before Australia's 2013 election.
Click to expand...

:cry:
 
NBN Co describes the model Morrow and Rue presented yesterday as representing "fully allocated costings" that represents "the true and full cost of building the network" in greenfields, brownfields and fixed wireless areas.
Click to expand...

key word underlined.

http://www.zdnet.com/article/nbn-co-triples-revenue-boosts-run-rate/

NBN Co has recalculated the cost per premises passed, and said that to date, the cost per premises is AU$4,316 for existing premises, AU$2,780 for new housing estates, and AU$3,637 for fixed wireless.
Click to expand...

Half Yearly Report: http://www.nbnco.com.au/content/dam/nbnco2/documents/150226 NBNCo Half Yearly Report FY 2015.pdf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

nut
One nation
Replies
9
Views
600
Gralin
Gralin
T
Why do the regions still keep voting for the Nationals?
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
Schneebly11
Schneebly11

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top