Rudd Government not up to speed on NBN
in [Computers]
|
Prev: Good ebay junk?
Next: Watching 3D movies on my computer
From: Rod Speed on 24 Jun 2010 01:33 Swampfox wrote > 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, Not by election time it wont. > Gillars had as much to do with the schools as Rudd did, probably more. Yes, and the coalition wont let anyone forget that now, you watch. > The ETS backdown was the beginning of the end for him, especially with the young. No evidence to support that claim with the polls. >>> 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: terryc on 24 Jun 2010 01:54 On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 15:02:41 +1000, Swampfox wrote: > Rod Speed wrote: >> Swampfox wrote >>> 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. Yep, that is when public opinion deserted him, or "fell off a cliff" as one columnist wrote. Very interesting quote on the ABC News site in the linked article about "Rudds Golden honeymoon ends in divorce". "As one factional leader told ABC's Chris Uhlmann: This crypto-fascist made no effort to build a face in the party. Now his only faction, Newspoll, has deserted him he is gone" Says it all. He was elected leader after the right faction & Gillard's faction supported him. Then he acted like a dictator, then betrayed Gillard's trust in him".
From: terryc on 24 Jun 2010 02:02 On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 09:12:39 +1000, Rod Speed wrote: > Thats another lie. Most of the wealth from mining ends up in the hands > of the shareholders and the few multibillionares are a VERY small part > of the total shareholding in mining companys now. > >> who don't want to pay for the raw materials > > They have no choice on that. They have been paying royaltys for many > years now. And that was another examples of Ruddles's stupidity and greed. Royalties go to state governments, but Rudd was going to dump those, taking more money from the states and putting it into his pocket. Then someone pointed out the major failing; the states would be highly motivated to block all mines on environmental grounds and not take the political damage.
From: Mr.T on 24 Jun 2010 20:24 "Swampfox" <noidea(a)whocares.com> wrote in message news:4c22c668$0$32019$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > The modelling did suggest it could turn a profit though Who's research, based on what data? Why would you believe it? >so if it's built at no net cost to the taxpayer who cares? 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! MrT.
From: Mr.T on 24 Jun 2010 20:27
"Swampfox" <noidea(a)whocares.com> wrote in message news:4c22e67b$0$14086$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > 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! MrT. |