Remove this Banner Ad

National Broadband Network

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dry Rot
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Just to point out, its cool to knock the government but wed still be waiting for stuff we now take for granted if we waited for private enterprise.

They always quote henry ford, but who built the roads ? Itd be a pretty useless idea with no roads

Would people like to see roads privatised ?
 
The vast majority of countries have relied on demand-based rollout of FTTH. There seems to be no particularly good reason why the government should provide fibre to every doorstep in metropolitan areas at taxpayer's expense.

If people want it, let them pay for it.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Caesar said:
The vast majority of countries have relied on demand-based rollout of FTTH. There seems to be no particularly good reason why the government should provide fibre to every doorstep in metropolitan areas at taxpayer's expense.

If people want it, let them pay for it.
Click to expand...
Arguably the greatest strength of the NBN is that it would allow the high density metropolitan area connections which should make money hand over fist to subsidise the regional areas to operate at a loss which allows people in outlying areas far better access to internet than they ever would have if left to private rollouts, which carries with it a whole host of benefits (remote medical services, telecommuting, education etc)
 
That's a myth, as has been pointed out by Turnbull numerous times. Rural areas will still receive the benefits of cross-subsidies under the Coalition plan, it just means you are not spending huge amounts of money hooking up FTTH for people who have no intention of using the capacity.
 
Caesar said:
The vast majority of countries have relied on demand-based rollout of FTTH. There seems to be no particularly good reason why the government should provide fibre to every doorstep in metropolitan areas at taxpayer's expense.

If people want it, let them pay for it.
Click to expand...


Geographically Australia is very different to "most" countries.
 
Read 'metropolitan areas'.

More than happy for the government to take a bigger hand in rollout in rural and regional areas, but there is no reason that the government should be rolling out FTTH to every door in major cities. That can easily be handled on a demand/user-pays basis.
 
Caesar said:
Read 'metropolitan areas'.

More than happy for the government to take a bigger hand in rollout in rural and regional areas, but there is no reason that the government should be rolling out FTTH to every door in major cities. That can easily be handled on a demand/user-pays basis.
Click to expand...

There is no reason what so ever for the government to be involved with the provision/subsidy of internet/broadband to rural and regional areas.
 
Caesar said:
If there is any public benefit to socialised broadband, it's outside metropolitan areas.
Click to expand...

There is no need for the government to provide or subsidies broadband to rural and regional areas.

If users in these areas want access to these services then the private sector is more than able provide thee not the government.
 
The distances do not make such a proposal economic, for the levels of broadband connectivity that the community wants in rural and regional areas.

This is not true for the cities, where private sector rollout of last mile services is quite viable.
 
Caesar said:
The distances do not make such a proposal economic, for the levels of broadband connectivity that the community wants in rural and regional areas.

This is not true for the cities, where private sector rollout of last mile services is quite viable.
Click to expand...

The private sector is more than willing and able to provide internet and broadband services to rural and regional services without government read taxpayers subsidies.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

JRoo said:
The private sector is more than willing and able to provide internet and broadband services to rural and regional services without government read taxpayers subsidies.
Click to expand...


Then why the pitiful state of regional and rural broadband access currently?

Feel free to actually engage someones point at any time rather than repeating yourself three times.
 
JRoo said:
The private sector is more than willing and able to provide internet and broadband services to rural and regional services without government read taxpayers subsidies.
Click to expand...

The private sector isn't even willing to provide internet and broadband services to the majority of people in metropolitan areas without government, the Copper Access Network that they almost all leverage off was built and paid for by the government.

Take your ideological blinkers off and realise that the best outcome for the public is for a GBE to roll out a wholesale FTTP network and for private business to compete in the retail market.

It isn't reinventing the wheel it is the exact same way the Copper Network was built and the Copper network has paid itself off many time over directly and indirectly through improvement to productivity and new business that was enabled by it.
 
MUYB said:
Then why the pitiful state of regional and rural broadband access currently?

Feel free to actually engage someones point at any time rather than repeating yourself three times.
Click to expand...

I don't need lectures from fanboys of either side on how to engage in a debate on providing taxpayers money to subsidies rural and regional users who demand internet services at a comparable cost to city users.

What is this pitiful state of broadband access you speak of??
 
Ice-Wolf said:
The private sector isn't even willing to provide internet and broadband services to the majority of people in metropolitan areas without government, the Copper Access Network that they almost all leverage off was built and paid for by the government.

Take your ideological blinkers off and realise that the best outcome for the public is for a GBE to roll out a wholesale FTTP network and for private business to compete in the retail market.

It isn't reinventing the wheel it is the exact same way the Copper Network was built and the Copper network has paid itself off many time over directly and indirectly through improvement to productivity and new business that was enabled by it.
Click to expand...

no the private sector is more than willing to invest into infrastructure such s broadband, see the investments made by private companies. The issue is government interference through regulatory threats demanding these investors open up their investments to third parties for use with very little if any contribution to the cost of these investments.
 
JRoo said:
no the private sector is more than willing to invest into infrastructure such s broadband, see the investments made by private companies. The issue is government interference through regulatory threats demanding these investors open up their investments to third parties for use with very little if any contribution to the cost of these investments.
Click to expand...

Investments that build on top of an already existing networks or that require exclusivity to be worthwhile.

Infrastructure competition is idiotic, you only need 1 fixed-line telecommunications network and it is better to have 1 national network than to have multiple local monopoly networks.

Telstra and Optus tried rolling out competing networks they wasted billions before calling it a day.
Infrastructure competition does not lead to better outcomes it leads to worse outcomes.
 
Ice-Wolf said:
Investments that build on top of an already existing networks or that require exclusivity to be worthwhile.

Infrastructure competition is idiotic, you only need 1 fixed-line telecommunications network and it is better to have 1 national network than to have multiple local monopoly networks.

Telstra and Optus tried rolling out competing networks they wasted billions before calling it a day.
Infrastructure competition does not lead to better outcomes it leads to worse outcomes.
Click to expand...

Infrastructure competition is idiotic????? Wtf do they teach in uni economics classes these days???

Optus and Telstra stopped rolling out their various networks when the government started imposing third party access regulations onto their investments demanding 3rd parties be given access to these networks. Telstra was willing to even build a high speed broadband network at no cost to taxpayers but Conroy decided taxpayers needed to instead invest he tens of billions.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

JRoo said:
Infrastructure competition is idiotic????? Wtf do they teach in uni economics classes these days???
Click to expand...

They probably teach about natural monopolies, you know things like electricity grids, water grids, telecommunications networks.
 
JRoo said:
Infrastructure competition is idiotic????? Wtf do they teach in uni economics classes these days???

Optus and Telstra stopped rolling out their various networks when the government started imposing third party access regulations onto their investments demanding 3rd parties be given access to these networks. Telstra was willing to even build a high speed broadband network at no cost to taxpayers but Conroy decided taxpayers needed to instead invest he tens of billions.
Click to expand...


Please provide a link where Telstra proposed what you are suggesting.

Are you thinking about 2005 when Howard stopped them?
 
Caesar said:
The vast majority of countries have relied on demand-based rollout of FTTH. There seems to be no particularly good reason why the government should provide fibre to every doorstep in metropolitan areas at taxpayer's expense.

If people want it, let them pay for it.
Click to expand...

Can you drop the taxpayers expense ? Its a furphy
 
Caesar said:
The vast majority of countries have relied on demand-based rollout of FTTH. There seems to be no particularly good reason why the government should provide fibre to every doorstep in metropolitan areas at taxpayer's expense.

If people want it, let them pay for it.
Click to expand...
RUNVS said:
Not really. There are just some things you cannot ever rely on private businesses to deliver and roads/broadband are two of those things. Without government outside of any city centre no one would have them.
Click to expand...

You only have to look at the two toll roads in melbourne, they have identical bills, they cross charge, they have the same pathetic customer service, but supposedly independent
 
Personally i'm not opposed to doing the network in two phases. FTTN and then FTTP. It's messy in it's own way but at least it accepts that the network is going to take a long time to build.

All last mile connections should be done homogeneously through NBNco. ISP's would struggle to get finance to run fibre in large parts of our metro cities because they are non-commercial, the cost of that first connection is always going to be really high and in low socioeconomic areas not everyone is going to be able to afford a connection. We'd be better off looking at subsidizing connections and there are lots of ways we could go about it.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom