From: Petzl on
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 13:10:58 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>Dunno, completely integrated phone, broadband and pay TV over
>the one feed is a substantial improvement, but like I said, its not
>worth spending anything like that immense amount of money on.

It is to those crooks who Labor pay to install the gazos ("Bovis Lend
Lease")

Petzl
--
Australia is a Christian nation,
Australian society is based on
a Christian culture with Christian values and Christian principles.
We have nothing to be ashamed of in stating that
From: Rod Speed on
Swampfox wrote
> Mr.T wrote
>> Swampfox <noidea(a)whocares.com> wrote

>>> We need to hope that Conroy is taking expert advice,

>> Sure he is, but from which vested interests?

>>> which he surely is, in any case it won't happen at all if there's a change of government which is looking more
>>> likely by the day.

>> We can only hope JG gets rid of it and we don't end up with the Abbot.

> Not gonna happen, at least not until after the next election.

Certainly not given that Conroy is one of the factional heavyweights that just assassinated the dud.

> Rudd's backdown on the ETS cost him his job

I doubt it. Bet it was the pink bats and school building fiascos that did that.

> and might cost Labor government, Gillard isn't that silly.

She has said that almost all of the govt policys will continue except the mining tax and
given that the duck is the the deputy leader, but that doesnt see much change either.

>>> In my opinion the NBN is a good idea in principle but bad in
>>> practice, by the time it's built we could see wireless technology
>>> approaching similar speeds and $40 Bil. is a hell of a lot of cash,

>> Fibre is good in practice too, *IF* it didn't cost $40-50Billion
>> dollars, for a few million users. But my biggest complaint is that
>> they expect the taxpayers to foot the bill, then they want to sell it
>> in five years at a loss. IF it's not considered an essential enough
>> service for the government to provide and maintain, the taxpayers who
>> don't need it should not have to pay for it. It's simply another case
>> of "privatising the profits and socialising the losses".

> I thought some independant modelling suggeted it would turn a modest profit.

Some fool might have claimed that, but its pure fantasy.

There is no way to get a profit on $45B when most
have decent broadband available now if they want it.

> Given that all Telstra's customers will be using it it's looking less like a white elephant.

Thats nothing like certain. The only thing that has been signed is a NON BINDING
heads of agreement and it certainly wont happen if labor loses the next election.


From: Rod Speed on
Pretzl wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote

>> Dunno, completely integrated phone, broadband and pay TV over
>> the one feed is a substantial improvement, but like I said, its not
>> worth spending anything like that immense amount of money on.

> It is to those crooks who Labor pay to install the gazos ("Bovis Lend Lease")

They have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.

What they want on that in spades.


From: Swampfox on
Rod Speed wrote:
<snip>
>> They'll do what they always do, get their information from Today
>> Tonight
>
> That doesnt explain the changes in the polls. The dud barely ever got
> a mention there.

The ETS was a watershed, Rudd spruiked it, the voters bought it, then he
dumped it.
From then on he started to look like every other politician.

>
>> and vote according to how much cash they've got in their pockets.
>
> That wasnt the reason they got elected last election.

I beg to differ.
Workchoices threatened the take home pay of millions of Australians, at
least that's how they read it.

>
>> Workchoices is still a hell of a hurdle for Abbott to overcome
>> though.
>
> We'll see...
>
> I was never convinced that it was the reason Labor won last time.

Can you give me any other rational reason?
Low unemployment, low interest rates, low inflation.
Howard had the trifecta, it's unprecedented for governments to lose in those
circumstances.

>
>>>> In my opinion the NBN is a good idea in principle
>
>>> Not in mine, MUCH too much money when most have decent broadband
>>> available.
>
>> Which is my point, very expensive for marginal gain, who cares if
>> you can download a movie in 10 minutes when you can download it in a
>> few hours as it is.
>
> I recon plenty do care, but its certainly not worth spending anything
> like $45B to get.
>> There are probably benefits for business, medical and research and
>> the like
>
> Corse there are, but again, not worth anything like $45B
>
>> but for the average punter it's no big deal.
>
> Dunno, completely integrated phone, broadband and pay TV over
> the one feed is a substantial improvement, but like I said, its not
> worth spending anything like that immense amount of money on.
>
>> The modelling did suggest it could turn a profit though so if it's
>> built at no net cost to the taxpayer who cares?
>
> That could be done by spending what the govt got from flogging off
> Telstra, but again, there is still plenty that it makes a lot more sense
> to spend
> that money on.

Not if it makes a profit, there's no money in hospitals or old folks homes.

>
>>> Plenty better things to spend $45B on.
>
>>>> but bad in practice,
>
>>> It never made sense.
>
>>>> by the time it's built we could see wireless technology
>>>> approaching similar speeds
>
>>> It will never get within a bulls roar of what fibre can do, and
>>> suffers from the very fundamental problem with shared bandwidth too.
>
>>>> and $40 Bil. is a hell of a lot of cash,
>
>>> Yes, much better things to spend that sort of money on, like
>>> hospitals etc.

Not if it makes a profit, there's no money in hospitals.
The health budget is a bottomless pit, no matter how much is spent it will
never be enough, like public transport and aged care.

>
>>>> fibre won't be redundant technology any time soon
>
>>> Ever in fact.
>
>> Of course it will, a question of time.
>
> Nope, there is no other viable alternative.

Not at the moment, there will be as surely as night follows day.

>
> Wireless will never be that.
>
>>>> but inevitably it will be,
>
>>> Nope.
>
>>>> ask Telstra shareholders how fast their millions of k's of copper
>>>> is depreciating.
>
>>> Its nothing like fibre.
>
>> It was state of the art until the early 90's.
>
> Nope. We had already seen fibre as the future at that time.
>
> It was already replacing the copper inter exchange links and undersea
> cables etc.

Yes but the advent of affordable mobile phones spelt the end for the copper
network, wireless internet is another nail in the coffin.


From: Swampfox on
Rod Speed wrote:
> Swampfox wrote
>> Mr.T wrote
>>> Swampfox <noidea(a)whocares.com> wrote
>
>>>> We need to hope that Conroy is taking expert advice,
>
>>> Sure he is, but from which vested interests?
>
>>>> which he surely is, in any case it won't happen at all if there's
>>>> a change of government which is looking more likely by the day.
>
>>> We can only hope JG gets rid of it and we don't end up with the
>>> Abbot.
>
>> Not gonna happen, at least not until after the next election.
>
> Certainly not given that Conroy is one of the factional heavyweights
> that just assassinated the dud.
>> Rudd's backdown on the ETS cost him his job
>
> I doubt it. Bet it was the pink bats and school building fiascos that
> did that.

The pink batts would have blown over, Gillars had as much to do with the
schools as Rudd did, probably more.
The ETS backdown was the beginning of the end for him, especially with the
young.

>
>> and might cost Labor government, Gillard isn't that silly.
>
> She has said that almost all of the govt policys will continue except
> the mining tax and given that the duck is the the deputy leader, but that
> doesnt see
> much change either.
>>>> In my opinion the NBN is a good idea in principle but bad in
>>>> practice, by the time it's built we could see wireless technology
>>>> approaching similar speeds and $40 Bil. is a hell of a lot of cash,
>
>>> Fibre is good in practice too, *IF* it didn't cost $40-50Billion
>>> dollars, for a few million users. But my biggest complaint is that
>>> they expect the taxpayers to foot the bill, then they want to sell
>>> it in five years at a loss. IF it's not considered an essential
>>> enough service for the government to provide and maintain, the
>>> taxpayers who don't need it should not have to pay for it. It's
>>> simply another case of "privatising the profits and socialising the
>>> losses".
>
>> I thought some independant modelling suggeted it would turn a modest
>> profit.
>
> Some fool might have claimed that, but its pure fantasy.
>
> There is no way to get a profit on $45B when most
> have decent broadband available now if they want it.
>
>> Given that all Telstra's customers will be using it it's looking
>> less like a white elephant.
>
> Thats nothing like certain. The only thing that has been signed is a
> NON BINDING heads of agreement and it certainly wont happen if labor loses
> the
> next election.


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Prev: Good ebay junk?
Next: Watching 3D movies on my computer