RoboWars Australia Forum Index -> Off-Topic

Goto page Previous  1, 2

Post new topic   Reply to topic
  Author    Thread
Experienced Roboteer

Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 4435
Location: Sydney

 Reply with quote  

My clients would benefit greatly from "extremely quick Internet", To get it connected to their office will cost around $80,000, and $5,000 a month for the connection.
As far as home connections go, no, I cannot get a 100/100mbit connection to my house without contracting with telstra and I don't see any change out of $200,000. I'm 6km from the exchange.

Regarding the NBN.
Your taxes aren't paying for it (well a trifling amount anyway).
As i said before the cost to the government of the NBN is $700M over 15 odd years.
They want to build a $100 Billion rail link from Sydney to QLD and nobody sneezes.

As for your person with no real Internet.
Under the opposition plan he won't be any better off as presumably his copper is crap.
If they put a node near enough his place his Internet becomes not totally crap then he may be able to operate during the day but it sounds like he is an architect/builder. "plans" in that case are large, with a fibre NBN rather than taking 30 minutes to download he could have them in less than 1.
If the government doesn't put in the NBN then he will get no Internet. He will be written of as unprofitable and left to rot, that is how he has been dealt with for years, there's no reason to think it will change in the future.

Regarding the time frame.
Abbots NBN is due to cover 70% of the population and be completed in 2019. The fibre NBN is due to cover 93% of the population and be completed in 2021.

In 1930's people said the same thing about the phone system. Why would I want to talk to america? I can send a letter and it gets there in a month.
Mechanical engineers build weapons, civil engineers build targets

Post Sun Apr 14, 2013 3:40 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number
Experienced Roboteer

Joined: 18 Jun 2004
Posts: 3842
Location: Queensland near Brisbane

 Reply with quote  

It is disingenuous to say they are only spending 700 million. They have to pay back the capital and interest on the 40 billion borrowed. Maybe they can sell it, maybe they can't. Until it is sold, the government has the liability on it's books. Any way you want to spin it, they are spending $40 billion plus whatever the blow out figure is.

With the government's addiction to borrowed money, they are threatening our credit rating. Look at the former QLD government. They managed to loose our credit rating during the mining boom. Now we pay higher interest rates to cover the added risk.

The various people in my area who don't have reasonable broadband access would have had ADSL by now if it wasn't for the NBN. As soon as the NBN was announced, Telstra stopped upgrading the exchanges. Normal investment decisions were distorted by the government trying to pick a winner. Now all of our eggs are in the one basket.

And again, I am not comparing one scheme with another. I don't want either. There is nothing in it for me.

They are never going to build the high speed rail. They can't afford the basics let alone a 114 billion dollar railway.
So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems

Post Sun Apr 14, 2013 5:17 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message
Site Admin

Joined: 31 May 2004
Posts: 3160
Location: Melbourne, Australia

 Reply with quote  

Governments will never behave in a fiscally responsible fashion while they dont have to.

As long as they can spend up big, garner the votes, and kick the payback shitcan down the road a bit further for the next person to have to deal with, without affecting their precious retirement pensions & benefits, why should they ?

I believe that there should be a simple measure of an outgoing governments performance.. both financially and service wise. If theres a majority agreement that government X put the place in a hole financially and didnt perform well during their term in office, then guess what guys, you only get 50% of your retirement benefits.

Why should they be able to play fast and loose with others money and not have their own affected by it ? As long as we pay them regardless of performance, why would they try to do a good job ?
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people

Post Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:11 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
  Display posts from previous:      

Forum Jump:
Jump to:  

Post new topic   Reply to topic
Page 2 of 2

Goto page Previous  1, 2

Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Last Thread | Next Thread  >
Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
millenniumFalcon Template By Vereor.