Rudd Government not up to speed on NBN
in [Computers]
|
Prev: Good ebay junk?
Next: Watching 3D movies on my computer
From: Mr.T on 24 Jun 2010 20:39 "Swampfox" <noidea(a)whocares.com> wrote in message news:4c22cbb2$0$1029$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > I thought some independant modelling suggeted it would turn a modest profit. That's the great thing about modelling, you get whatever result you want by selecting the data you put in. > Given that all Telstra's customers will be using it it's looking less like a > white elephant. Yes, if it's the only game in town it's value improves. However with many people using their mobiles for all their phone needs these days, that leaves NBN just for internet, so the question is how much you can milk from the punters. The stated plan is to sell it in five years, and I cannot see it returning a profit in that time, so my bet is it will be sold at a loss after all expenses are taken into account, including the compensation to Telstra. If the new owner gets it for a bargain, they should then make a profit at taxpayer expense. And I don't think for a minute this hasn't all been considered and may even be the whole plan! MrT.
From: Swampfox on 24 Jun 2010 20:48 Mr.T wrote: > "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. That was bound to happen when they dumped Turnbull, that was Rudd's chance. He was still astronomically popular at that stage and could have decimated the Coalition at a DD election, then if it was blocked by The Greens in the Senate he walked away, only after making every possible effort to see it through, a conviction politician.
From: Swampfox on 24 Jun 2010 20:55 Mr.T wrote: > "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? Not necessarily but I'm not an economist so need to take these things on face value. > >> 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! What qualifies you to make the judgement? 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. 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. > > MrT.
From: Mr.T on 24 Jun 2010 21:55 "Swampfox" <noidea(a)whocares.com> wrote in message news:4c23fd25$0$1028$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! > > That was bound to happen when they dumped Turnbull, that was Rudd's chance. > He was still astronomically popular at that stage and could have decimated > the Coalition at a DD election, then if it was blocked by The Greens in the > Senate he walked away, only after making every possible effort to see it > through, a conviction politician. Maybe, but why is Rudd solely to blame and not Abbot? MrT.
From: Mr.T on 24 Jun 2010 22:05
"Swampfox" <noidea(a)whocares.com> wrote in message news:4c23fed0$0$17176$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? > > 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 IMO. > 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. 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! MrT. |