From: Rod Speed on 24 Jun 2010 22:28
> Mr.T wrote
>> Swampfox <noidea(a)whocares.com> wrote
>>> The ETS was a watershed, Rudd spruiked it, the voters bought it, then he dumped it.
>> Well actually it was put up and defeated by the opposition!
Three times in fact.
> That was bound to happen when they dumped Turnbull, that was Rudd's chance. He was still astronomically popular at
> that stage
And his govt wasnt. Thats what matters with an election.
> and could have decimated the Coalition at a DD election,
Pure fantasy. ALL govts end up with less seats in the election after a landslide.
And we had already seen the insulation and schools fiascos by then.
And his failure to do what he promised on health care in spades.
> then if it was blocked by The Greens in the Senate
A DD allows a joint sitting, you pig ignorant clown.
> he walked away, only after making every possible effort to see it through, a conviction politician.
With the greens having complete control of the senate, knocking back everything the coalition opposed.
That would have seen him executed by the labor mafia, fool.
From: terryc on 25 Jun 2010 00:44
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 11:55:59 +1000, Mr.T wrote:
> Maybe, but why is Rudd solely to blame and not Abbot?
He is the prime minister and not a dictator. It is his duty to negotiate
legislation for ALL Australians. If he can not get parliament to agree,
the he can ask the Australian people to effectively vote on it. Is there
a convention that the opposition accepts the peoples choice after a DD?
From: Swampfox on 25 Jun 2010 06:20
> "Swampfox" <noidea(a)whocares.com> wrote in message
>>>> The modelling did suggest it could turn a profit though
>>> Who's research, based on what data? Why would you believe it?
>> Not necessarily but I'm not an economist so need to take these
>> things on face value.
> Nope, need to be highly sceptical.
>>> Big *IF*!!! And the taxpayers foot the bill if not! Why?
>>> IF it was viable there would be private companies lining up to do a
>>> PPP deal with the government already. That there are not should be
>>> your first clue it may be a disaster. Hell even many of the PPP's
>>> they thought would be a windfall have turned out disasters!
>> What qualifies you to make the judgement?
> The income less than predicted, and resulting share price falls speak
> for themselves.
>> With any project of this scale there are bound to be risks, the
>> question that needs to be asked is whether the risks are worth the
>> ultimate benefits. You obviously think they're not, I have my doubts
>> as well but have an open mind.
> Great, I'll be happy if it works out too, but it's still the
> taxpayers who foot all the risk which is NOT something they should do
>> As has been stated elsewhere high speed broadband, telephony and
>> television over a single connection is an attractive proposition for
>> many people, price would be the determining factor and I haven't
>> seen the projected prices so am in no position to even guess at the
>> uptake or whether it could be profitable.
> Well the projected total cost divided by the adult population,
> doesn't bode well for the income necessary to make it viable.
Surely that's flawed.
What about business, government departments, research establishments,
Many businesses, especially large ones, already pay a premium for fast and
reliable communications and the possibilities would be endless with a fibre
network, all business telephony could be handled for starters.
Just as fleet sales are vital for the motor industry business take up would
be vital for the NBN.
> as some of that income is not from taxpayers who don't need or want
> pay TV or fast internet, then fine. I'm still yet to see any figures
> that would support that possibility.
> Simply claiming you can't guess if it's going to be profitable is a
> reason NOT to do it IMO, rather than take such a huge risk!
What would be the worst case scenario though?
It would be impossible for the entire $40 Bil to disappear into a black
hole, the risk is probably manageable at the end of the day given the
From: Mr.T on 27 Jun 2010 20:00
"Swampfox" <noidea(a)whocares.com> wrote in message
> > Well the projected total cost divided by the adult population,
> > doesn't bode well for the income necessary to make it viable.
> Surely that's flawed.
> What about business, government departments, research establishments,
> hospitals etc.
> Many businesses, especially large ones, already pay a premium for fast and
> reliable communications and the possibilities would be endless with a
> network, all business telephony could be handled for starters.
So just a good case for the private enterprise Telco's to fund it then, NOT
And IF Telstra was still owned by the government we would have a problem of
course. They had already planned to put in fibre to the home when practical,
*before* it was even thought of being sold.
> Just as fleet sales are vital for the motor industry business take up
> be vital for the NBN.
Bullshit, only a very small percentage of car models made are sold to
fleets, or in a number that has ANY effect on price.
> >As long
> > as some of that income is not from taxpayers who don't need or want
> > pay TV or fast internet, then fine. I'm still yet to see any figures
> > that would support that possibility.
> > Simply claiming you can't guess if it's going to be profitable is a
> > reason NOT to do it IMO, rather than take such a huge risk!
> What would be the worst case scenario though?
> It would be impossible for the entire $40 Bil to disappear into a black
> hole, the risk is probably manageable at the end of the day given the
Well I certainly can't see much benefit for the $50B spent on the stimulus
package, except to a few businesses who made a killing of course.
(figuratively and literally!)
Same thing is likely for the NBN IMO, but hopefully not as literally.
From: Mr.T on 27 Jun 2010 20:06
"Swampfox" <noidea(a)whocares.com> wrote in message
> Rod Speed wrote:
> >> I see you've knocked $10 Bil off the price in the past 24 hours,
> > Just using a more conservative number that even that cant show
> > a profit, and not bothering about the govt's 90% coverage fool.
The price being quoted is $43 Billion, and everyone knows what happens to
such estimates. They RARELY cost less, sometimes more than twice as much,
depending on what is actually delivered, when, and what costs are properly
> Pick a number, any number.
Yes, pick a number, any number, your guess is as good as theirs!
> Everyone's a winner!
Nope, everyone's a LOSER!