|
frances
21 February 2012
|
NBN:
1. I love the idea of a faster internet, but sometimes having to wait for information increases it's value.
2. It is a luxury we can't afford given our tax revenue is going down, while our taxpayer population is also going down (as retirees increase).
3. It is staggeringly expensive - you'd have to ask who's creaming the milk. Insulation, school building and solar panels schemes are the benchmark here. The Rudd/Gillard Governments simply can't manage money wisely.
4. I'm yet to be convinced that home computers will enjoy the advertised speeds.
5. Any illusion we had of privacy will be gone forever. I imagine (but who'd ever tell us?) there is a whopping great fibre node going straight to the DSD so they can listen to, and watch (over?) everything.
That’s what I think.
Comment made about the PC & Tech Authority article:
Are you one of the NBN believers, and why??
New survey results indicate support for the NBN outweighs opposition. So where do you stand on the issue?
What do you think? Join the discussion. |
|
getomPC&TechStuff
21 February 2012
|
As a 59 year old who has had to see a Neurosurgeon recently and another surgeon next week, the amount of unnecessary travelling and waiting to get results has been frustrating.
EHealth will eliminate a lot of this and as a consequence the NBN has my full support, all I have to do now is stay alive to see its full implementation. Geoff P |
|
paulha
21 February 2012
|
I'm all for the NBN but only if it services areas that don't already have access to fast internet first. With it's present rollout it's covering areas that already have fast internet that's covered by either HFC cable or ADSL2+ services. If the NBN would rollout into areas that have ADSL1 or 2 (up to 8000kbps) and even dialup customers first than I would fully support it. I find it pointless going into areas where customers already have access to fast internet like ADSL2+ (up to 20mbps) or cable (up to 100mbps). |
|
Sputnik
21 February 2012
|
All for it.
The fibre solution is the best, long term solution to fix Australia's broadband issues.
Yes, it is expensive, but as others have stated, it should actually turn a 6% profit. Even if it only breaks even or runs at a slight loss, it's worth it.
(So no everyone, it is not going to be $43 Billion out of everyone's collective pocket.)
My main concerns are:
Time and cost could blow out. Time blow out actually concerns me more.
The Libs could cancel the rollout, which would be a monumental error.
The Liberal alternative vision, (what very very little we have heard about), is a stop gap measure only, eventually fibre would have to be rolled out anyway, it also costs a lot, and does nothing to address Telstra ownership of copper cabling.
I can't wait for the NBN to hit my home! |
|
Sputnik
21 February 2012
|
Agree with paulha as well. I mean Applecross in Perth is one of the first areas in WA getting NBN. It's a highly afluent suburb, with a reasonably sized exchange smack bang in the middle of the suburb. (My parents live there).
Whereas poor me is on the Landsdale exchange in outer Perth, with a 5km line length and only 3-4mbit speeds on ADSL2+ when the wind blows the right way.
Should be doing poorly serviced areas first! |
|
Sputnik
21 February 2012
|
Agree with paulha as well. I mean Applecross in Perth is one of the first areas in WA getting NBN. It's a highly afluent suburb, with a reasonably sized exchange smack bang in the middle of the suburb. (My parents live there).
Whereas poor me is on the Landsdale exchange in outer Perth, with a 5km line length and only 3-4mbit speeds on ADSL2+ when the wind blows the right way.
Should be doing poorly serviced areas first! |
|
taylorb100
21 February 2012
|
I'm 63yo and absolutely believe that we are being sold a pup in wolf's clothing. With xDSL technology increasing short distance speeds in quantum amounts, there is no economic justification that could be imagined not to go for fibre-to-the-cabinet. That would give the advantage of renewing the major portion of the existing old infrastructure and save in the order of $20 Billion. Unfortunately the Labor Gov have as always got not a clue about running an economy of any scale. |
|
rubaiyat
21 February 2012
|
xDSL is one of the many totally fake solutions put up by those who are opposing progress for purely political reasons. I am in the heart of a major city and I can not get it.
I am all for the NBN which is a major project that is being wheeled out at an affordable pace.
The pack of lies and misinformation by the mostly technically illiterate opposition is obscuring the fact that despite it is a major overhaul of the mostly decrepit and dysfunctional telecommunications system left in place by the Howard government, it is not costing much more per year than the ongoing installation and repair of the obsolete POTS network.
The Labor government is as technically illiterate as the Liberal Party and is chronically unable to put the case for the obvious. This needs to be done and should have been done long ago except the Liberals were "balancing" the budget by hocking off the family possessions to the pawnbroker and putting us in the expensive position of now having to pay more to buy them back.
If the Liberals stopped this stupid and anti-Australian practice of trying to talk down an extremely healthy economy and oppose everything because the morons out there just might buy anything out of shear resentment, we could get on to the serious debate of exactly how we should get on with the job and not eternally put things off.
The Liberals have always opposed everything based on their cravenly slavish copying of only things the Americans have done before us. We need to make our own way now. Following the Americans will only lead us down into the same self-dug ideological hole.
Australia needs to be more grown up and gone are the days when we can excuse everything as "we can't afford it".
You only have to look around at the misspent rubbish that "We can afford" to realise just what a hypocritical statement that is.
|
|
Snappy
21 February 2012
|
Taylorb, You obviously have no idea you are talking about. There is no way that proper Broadband can ever be delivered via copper. The New Zealand model does not work despite Malcolm TunBull's claims, read this; http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10786929 They have completely stuffed up their Broadband as Fry says, and TurnBull reckons their 'system' would be better than the Australian NBN. |
|
rubaiyat
21 February 2012
|
I propose yet another Liberal "solution".
Like the Scotsman and his son whenever we need the Interthingy, we pop over to NZ and borrow their "excellent" system |
|
KeithWJames
21 February 2012
|
I am in Scottsdale Tasmania and was connected to the NBN in October 2010 and have been using a 25Mbps link ever since. In that time I have only had one outage, which was reset with a phone call. Let us remember it installed as a "trial". The main limitation seems to be the connect speed of the site I am trying to connect, which could of course be anywhere. I have played high definition streaming videos with it and they play without buffering. 25 Mbps seems to be eough for me, when I see a need for 100 Mbps then I will look at up grading. This service is 3 times the speed of the best ADSL link available in Scottsdale and, at the time, about 1/3rd the cost. |
|
photohounds
21 February 2012
|
Faster internet is OK by me
This NBN roll-out is happening far too slowly considering the vast fortune spent on it so far and the huge amounts that look yet to be spent.
Medical results can be sent on existing networks, revealing most results in 15-20 minutes of data travel time - FASTER than many in-person consultations. (ever been referred to a specialist?)
The critically ill probably need a real doc NEXT to them, not InterDoc.
Most likely, the bulk of the bandwidth will be gobbled up by entertainment media. Entertainment is SUCH AN IMPORTANT and socially conscious use for taxpayers hard-earned ...
So far? FAIL!
Edited by photohounds: 21/2/2012 05:27:43 PM |
|
shamaka
21 February 2012
|
Well, Im one of those people against the NBN. I can't see it ever achieving its goals - certainly not financially. Most businesses or doctors offices wont spend up big to improve their webservers - they'll change only when they have to. Hardly anyone is taking it up for a start and while most readers of PC and TA obviously have an interest, the cost is phenomenal. ...and Rubaiyat the economy is pretty crappy, and only propped up by the mining industry. I hope you got your "cheap" pink batts from Rudd! |
|
GuiGuy
21 February 2012
|
I am an NBN Skeptic; I am convinced it is one of the biggest political conjobs of our time.
I know people who live in districts that we are told have NBN. Yet none have ever been approached about nor have they seen activity that suggests there is such a thing.
What I want to see is hard evidence that there is such a thing. In the meantime I'll paraphrase Victor Meldrew; "I don't believe it".
Cheers
|
|
daniel2501
21 February 2012
|
As one of the people that has an NBN connection, I say that it is absolutely great to use. It is fast and reliable. Admittedly, as a member of the Technical Community, I saw the desirability and need for this network over 10 years ago. When Senator Conroy first bought the idea up that Fibre to the Node (FTTN) be used, there was a very strong push to make it Fibre to the Home (FTTH) instead. The reason for that was to make the NBN as future proof as possible, and FTTN simply wouldn't do the job. Using copper wiring as the last mile solution, would severely limit the attainable speed, AND, at the same time, would not be easily converted over to FTTH. I have heard it said that wireless technology will overtake the planned fibre rollout, both in speed and capacity. It simply isn't true. At present, we are receiving 100Mbps download, but that isn't the highest that Optical Fibre can deliver. It is capable of speeds many times in excess of 1000Mbps. For all those readers who don't know what our international communications are based on, it is now Fibre, and has been for quite some years.
If Tony Abbot gets into power and rips the NBN out (which he has stated he will do), he is sending this country back into the 20th century technologically, and we will remain there for a very long time afterward.
|
|
rubaiyat
21 February 2012
|
shamaka wrote:Well, Im one of those people against the NBN. I can't see it ever achieving its goals - certainly not financially. Most businesses or doctors offices wont spend up big to improve their webservers - they'll change only when they have to. Hardly anyone is taking it up for a start and while most readers of PC and TA obviously have an interest, the cost is phenomenal. ...and Rubaiyat the economy is pretty crappy, and only propped up by the mining industry. I hope you got your "cheap" pink batts from Rudd!
No I didn't get one of the "cheap" pink batts
Nor did I get any of the middle class welfare from Howard, nor the money he threw down the drain with his money for dead trees in National Party electorates, nor his send refugees to concentration camps, then let them into the community once they are mentally damaged enough to frighten conservative voters.
You have totally buried your head in the sand if you believe the Australian economy is "pretty crappy". Go to Europe or America to see "really crappy". Typically those who gained most from the intelligent stimulus policy of the government, which simply acted on Treasury advice, are biting the very policies they benefited from because they couldn't simply go on with the business as usual that caused the problem in the first place.
True we are benefitting from China and India's continuing demand for resources, but not from any wise management by the resource kleptocracy who were the first to lay off workers when everyone else and the government were trying to keep the economy ticking over. In fact Rio Tinto almost hit the wall and was only saved by both the Australian and the Chinese government's stimulus packages.
You have no idea what telecommunications infrastructure costs but grasp blindly and ignorantly at the figures quoted for work spanning over 10 years. Australia spends over $15 billion per year on telecommunications, $3.5 billion or less per year for the NBN is tiny for a totally overhauled network that will bring big changes.
Changes that will happen when it is more widely installed.
You are the typical fool who doesn't know the vast amounts of money that are spent on a wide range of infrastructure projects, such as roads, cars, trucks, harbors, airports and air fleets, but gets half of the facts of one particular project and gets all indignant.
Did you know how much money for example was spent on laying the network of pipes and pumping stations that have reticulated natural gas around the country?
Thank God otherwise you would have stopped that too because in your vague guesstimate "we couldn't have afforded that" either. yet you turn on your gas and use it everyday. btw That has also risen in price SHOCK because the price of fossil fuels has escalated enormously due to global demand.
On your teeny tiny thinking you will sort that out as the fault of this government but the huge benefit that that same price rise brings to our resource rich economy is not to the credit of this government, but oddly was to the previous government that benefitted from the same effect. |
|
rubaiyat
21 February 2012
|
Here we must listen to the mentally inept ignoramuses, those same suckers who bought the anti-resources tax rhetoric of the miners.
Thanks to fools like that, in one fell swoop Gina Rinehart has become the richest woman in Asia.
Wisely the dupes let her walk away with the benefits of sitting on Australian resources that became highly in demand.
She won't be wasting "her" money on public infrastructure. She will spend it on trying to acquire the only competitive media to the Murdoch empire in this country. If she succeeds we will no doubt hear much much more tripe like that above. But at least she will then be able to hide all mention of her feuding dynasty from the public. We don't need to have the shine taken off these towering examples of financial and political brilliance.
If we are really fortunate we can have her become our first President and like Berlusconi turn Australia into a state of stupefaction. The same stupefaction that has some hankering for the policies that got us the GFC.
The money wasted and lives ruined by the GFC don't count because the are measured in Trillions of dollars and millions of lives. Those kinds of figures get avoided by those who have trouble with simple maths, let alone any grasp of doing their homework when guessing, posturing and mouthing prejudices will do. |
|
desbromilow
21 February 2012
|
I'm for a better solution than overpriced unequally distributed internet access options, but I'm not sure the current NBN solution is not the best option. I see too many areas with xDSL availability being offered fibre, but myself and others with adequate xDSL will have it taken away for wireless. Personally I feel the best solution would have been a NBN backbone to every .gov office - state and federal, then offering access from those offices to ISPs at a discounted rate - alowing various "last mile" solutions to be used based on commercial offerings. But then, since when did anyone from politics ever listen to us.. the public, those who have an opinion, but no paid lobbyists, or vested interest... |
|
rubaiyat
21 February 2012
|
Where is that mental minnow elhombre?
Expect him to do his usual impersonation of Fox News. |
|
steven
21 February 2012
|
It intrigues me to wonder if we had a similar debate in this country 150 or so years ago when the government of the day was considering installing poles and wires along every street and road so that we could all share in the new-fangled telephone.
Did the Tony Abbott of the day decry the waste of public money? I bet he did. "We are well served today by carrier pigeons and men on horses efficiently carrying postal items from town to town!" I imagine he might have said. "The telephone is nothing but an expensive luxury that we can ill afford.".
Thank god there were some visionaries in the government back then...
Oh yeah, I'm all for the NBN by the way. Bring it on!
|
|
petergaskin
21 February 2012
|
As stated previously, the nbn should intially be directed to areas in most need - ie country areas that have to rely on wirelless for broadband - because there are no wired broadband options available at all.
So what will the nbn do to improve the lot of these areas. oh yes they are purchasing 2 satelites to rpovide broadband access to these areas. So there will be no FTTN or FTTH solution for these people.
The current roll out si a complete debacle. New estates have been left in real limbo.
Telstra does not want to provide a copper solution. Legally the estate can not be built unless the estate has a wired telecomunnications solution.
All in all, the nbn has not been well thought out. Surely the government coudl have come up with a better way top provide a solution to our current problems.
I guess its all about supplying pensioners with set top boxes and installing them. So what will this little exercise cost us - nearly $700 per household. |
|
woogaman
22 February 2012
|
At & all rubaiyat. You have said what I feel. It's a joke the Government is handing out set top box's.(But it has to be installed by them).
Being on a pension I did not want people of less knowing of the area coming into my home. Also I have had set top boxes+computers for years now & I do want to do what is not right.
Just like the water tank scheme. The Council has to install them & if you don't get them too install the BS. You don't get the benefit. It's all about getting more money out of all the people...
We need to be able to keep up with the rest of the world with bandwidth. I am not really happy with the roll out of the NBN.
The least should of been the 1st connected. Nah! They have to connect the cities first. A bloody shame JOB!!!
By the time they get to where I was. It will be too fucken late dip shits!!!! |
|
rubaiyat
22 February 2012
|
petergaskin I had given this some thought a while ago. I am not satisfied with the way the authority is going about the roll out on several fronts, but I don't know all the details so can't be taken as an expert.
I had thought that it would speed up the rollout and lessen the load on the NBN to have new housing estates and apartment buildings install the NBN infrastructure themselves, under set specifications, and then have it purchased by the NBN on final inspection and approval.
This could enable country towns and utility companies to join in if they saw advantage in doing so to implement the NBN infrastructure locally. It could also take away the feeling of this being foisted on everyone.
If it were in my hands, the junction box and all connections would be industrially designed and manufactured for speedy, low skill installation. These would be mass manufactured and sold onto local enterprises for installation, whilst the NBN concentrated on the main trunklines. Given the scale of the project we could build a major advantage over all other countries and even export the technology and project management.
But that does not preclude just getting on with it. Argument over. It needs doing, will be a huge asset, just get on with it.
Exactly what do the naysayers imagine installing a plain old cable, ADSL or POTS connection costs? Lines have to be laid and tradespeople paid. |
|
shivaiyr2004
22 February 2012
|
NBN should have the support of all concerned Australians. This is an opportunity to move to a technological future not just for the city folks but also for the much smaller population who reside in the country and other outer regions and communities.
It seems strange to me that many in the country party oppose the NBN. If we pursue a purely market oriented policy (let the market forces decide) it is most likely most of the country areas would miss out. Even if they did get some NBN type service it would be extremely expensive.
So, let us all Australians unite and look at the benefits for the country as a whole even if it means that the city folks (and I am one of them) have to pay more. |
|
GuiGuy
22 February 2012
|
I want to clarify my earlier post about being an NBN Skeptic; I am all for something like the NBN. I just don't believe it's happening. |
|
amcmo
22 February 2012
|
Rubaiy,
The suggestion that there should be a spec that developers install to etc, sounds a great way to kick this along. A more flexible system, incorporating a market based approach, with allowance for integrating installations already out there, with some sort of oversight (NOT NBN CORP! sack the lot!) has appeal. Get specialist companies out there competing to roll out compatible tech with a minimum spec level of NBN, selling back or even leasing back to really kick it along.
Shivaiyr2004, "all Australians should unite..." sounds like something GWB said to the Yanks when defending the IRAQ war! Perhaps you should add "You're either with us or against us". The moment I hear statements of that nature, I know there is every reason NOT to 'unite'.
The NBN is unoubtedly better than we have in most areas, though remember there are market funded installations out there in some city areas that have a higher spec than the NBN. The other issue with the pig-headed approach of this government is that it gives no allowance to take up improved technology that will come along during the excessive time it takes to get full roll out.
As with everything this particular gov't does, it is based on a rabbid approach with no option for discussion. Thankfully, I doubt there are too many opportunities for workers to get fried this time. |
|
photohounds
22 February 2012
|
Ah yes, the presumably gold plated $350 set top boxes, for which functional equivalents can be had for under $50 in any store.
With that management "style" as a portend, what basis do we have to expect due diligence and value for money from the NBN? |
|
GuiGuy
22 February 2012
|
@Rubayat,
You wrote "It seems strange to me that many in the country party oppose the NBN".
It's not strange at all. I live in the Country. I am all for the NBN, if there is such a thing.
The problem for us rustic types is that we've heard it all before; governments that promise so much but deliver so little. Like the "Big Mac", really...
|
|
jg
22 February 2012
|
One thing rarely raised in the NBN discussion in download allowances. I'm restricted to wireless despite being only 2km from the exchange. With ADSL you can get 200GB or more/month for under $50. For that much wireless download you would pay at least ten times as much. Bring on the NBN BUT as others have said, the right thing would be to roll it out to those who can't currently get decent broadband first instead of going where the votes are. |
|
et_tu_brute
25 February 2012
|
I moved from New Farm, Brisbane, Qld., to Coffs Harbour, NSW last June to be close to my aging mother. My ADSL2+ connection was a rock stable 23mbps (400 metres from the local tx) and was adequate for my business needs. Fortunately, I was able to transport my business with me and I am now on a Naked adsl connection via an Optus Wholesale dslam at the local exchange 3.5 kms away with an at best 6mbps connection, just over a quarter of my old connection. My business is struggling to cope with this connection and light at the end of the tunnel was offered with the promise of the NBN. When I arrived, all sorts of misleading statements were flying about when the NBN was going to be rolled out here locally when this area was declared in the 2nd round of sites for the NBN. I am in a street within the nominated area due to receive aerial flat ribbon NBN. Finding anything more about the project has been frustratingly fruitless with pathetic minimal information and sparse and out-of date maps available on the NBN web-site. Even the local paper has backed off regurgitating the media spin that was sent out in an avalanche in June-August last year. One can only speculate, but I have a feeling that the roll-out has stalled while the take-over of Telstra wholesale assets and the necessary ACC approvals etc are yet to be finalised. Communication on the project has all but stopped. I am a very patient person, however I am becoming concerned that the Coalition's policy of putting the kybosh on it if they win government may come sooner than the NBN rollout. God help us! - If they really believe that wireless and antiquated copper will suffice, then they really don't have a clue. It's a shame we never split off Telstra Wholesale years ago when their was the opportunity and maybe the NBN might possibly have been delivered a decade ago. Our politicians (of both side sides) really don't have a clue when it comes to effective telecommunications policy... no wonder it took 100 yhears to get a standard gauge railway line around this country. Answer to all of this is a bi-partisan policy to benefit the future generations of ALL Australians and just get on with it. |
|
rubaiyat
25 February 2012
|
I think that Abbott's aim is to reduce Australia to a smoking ruin, if necessary, so when he takes over he can claim to "fix" it.
We STILL do not have standard gauge railway after 110 years of Federation "because it is too expensive". Nor do we have the VFT that would be vastly cheaper than what we are spending on the deadly alternative of highways and hugely expensive air fleets and airports "because it is too expensive". Inner Sydney Real Estate would shoot up enormously in value and quality of life if planes stopped flying low over all the houses to Mascot. But those few individuals in the planes trump everybody else.
In Australia we seem to have the No Can Do attitude that leads to huge waste and self defeat.
America converted huge tracts of rail to standard gauge in just 2 days! Because they have a Can Do attitude, and it was a sensible idea, worth getting it over and done with. Here in Australia we have made endless pathetic excuses against getting almost anything done. The Americans drove railways through the Rockies and we made a fuss over our piddly Blue Mountains with the NSW railways taking huge diversions to get over the Georges and Nepean Rivers, virtual creeks by american standards.
The stupidity of our policies and thinking is more than a running joke. My wife and I recently narrowly missed being in the deadly truck accident on the Hume Highway that killed 3 people. It happened just ahead of us. The truck driver who appears to have been breaking all the rules veered completely from one side of the highway across the broad dividing strip and straight over the sedan before perching half over the balustrade of the bridge. He is the immediate cause of the accident but fundamentally the murderer is the trucking industry, the automotive industry and all those people and politicians manipulated by them.
People divide neatly into two. Those who believe in the greater good and those for whom self interest trumps everybody else, no matter what it costs or who or what it kills.
The later is currently fighting tooth and nail against the NBN, The Carbon Tax, The Mining Tax, cleaning up the Murray Darling basin, cleaning up our dirty energy and anything else that might even slightly inconvenience them. Just as they have every other reform before. It is hard wired into them. Pointless discussing it. Time to hammer them mercilessly as they have everyone else.
|
|
Mario
25 February 2012
|
Having been in the industry for over 20 years only the ignorant would ever support this gross misuse of taxpayers money. This will go down as the biggest con on the Australian public in the last 100 years. There is plenty of private money in this industry, it did not need the taxpayer to pay 1 cent to get faster broadband only a better regulatory setup that promotes investment |
|
rubaiyat
25 February 2012
|
That was precluded by the Liberal sale of Telstra as a virtual monopoly of both the wholesale and retail arms.
Both the investors and the Australian public were badly burnt by that. The only 'winner' was Howard who proclaimed himself a "wise money manager" for putting all the public's assets into hock, then committing the public and the government to rent it all back forever. Short term gain, long term cost.
Telstra went from a self perpetuating government monopoly to a self perpetuating largely incompetent corporation. Both of whom when asked to list their corporate mission, never included the public's interests.
The Howard government talked big on privatisation but when it came to floating Telstra was just interested in getting the most from the market so that it could to wind down government debt. That was a one off sale however. Howard then put in place the worst combination of supposed free enterprise with backdoor government interference. None of it in either the consumers' or investor's interests. The result was Telstra burnt 2/3rds of its investor's equity and opposed any challenge to its old POTS network and it's ability to overcharge for lines, its largest and most crucial asset.
The lying manipulation had already begun before the float. I was working in an advertising company that was doing Telstra ads in the names of several phoney "Interest Groups". |
|
willtell
25 February 2012
|
rubaiyat,
I like your referencing of the construction of rail in America. One key point you're missing from your argument on this one was that the construction you've mentioned was privately funded and run by entrepreneurs not government.
This brings me to my single opposition point on the NBN. While I can't fault the idea of faster communication, I do not believe that any government is capable of completing such an undertaking efficiently and cost effectively. Particularly this government based on their track record.
Another point you're missing rubaiyat with your argument regarding the Howard Govt, it was the Howard Govt that deregulated telecommunications in Australia. The deregulation and initialisation for ACCC regulation allowed for private competition to enter Australia and roll-out services. Without this taking place we wouldn't even be talking NBN right now as we'd still be waiting for basic ADSL services. |
|
rubaiyat
25 February 2012
|
Fair enough about the capitalists building the railways, but in the process they corrupted governments and finally when they brought their wildly speculative enterprises crashing down, in the Panic of 1893, they turned to government to pick up the pieces, just like with the GFC. It took the Great Depression to finally eclipse The Panic of 1893 as a financial disaster .
Every time there is talk of "government waste" or mismanagement I have to ask doesn't anyone pay any attention anymore? All the critics are staring at the odd scrapped public knee whilst behind them lie stacked mangled bodies in the usual capitalist train wreck, abandoned by the drivers of the predictable head on, driving off to their estates in their Rollers, after massively sucking off the public teat, they so despise, one last time.
Howard's "deregulation" was not a true deregulation it was a sell off, one that left Telstra holding virtually all the assets.
Optus only got a look in by stringing its fat and ugly cables all over the country's telegraph poles. Something that became as big an eyesore as it has become a white elephant.
NBN is now having to be rolled out because of the catastrophic failure of the virtual Telstra monopoly. It is the answer to over a decade of stagnation. The rest of the world has moved on whilst we stood still. If you have a look at the chart of speed, coverage and cost, Australia is not just at the bottom of the 1st world nations it is behind a number of 2nd world and even some third world countries.
I repeat for those hard of hearing that the money spent on finally upgrading the ageing infrastructure is only a small percentage of what we spend each year on telecommunications. The critics love pointing at anything they want to sabotage and claiming that it's too expensive. This financial sleight of hand districts the ignorant punters from the massively greater money they pour down their own drains.
At least we should see something for our money, unlike the $7.59 Telstra shares now hovering around the $3 mark that Howard stuck us for. |
|
willtell
26 February 2012
|
All very good points rubaiyat.
After deregulation several telecommunications companies began rolling out their own networks, not just Optus. For example Comindico built an IP network across Australia to rival most others in the world. It opened the door for TPG, iiNet, AAPT, iPrimus and others. Yes, in nearly all cases the final stretch was owned by Telstra which kept them a piece of the pie and was certainly not ideal, but we had competition in telecommunications. Without that competition we would still be using dialup.
I would see that perhaps some form of middle ground would be the ideal solution? The networks that were built in Canada were a combination of private and public process. This was the idea of the initial tender process with the NBN, however the Govt threw it out when Telstra refused to play along. There were several players interested in taking part with extensive experience in rolling out fibre networks, but they chose to abandon the idea.
Edited by willtell: 26/2/2012 08:01:15 AM |
|
rubaiyat
26 February 2012
|
I don't want to give the impression that the government should do everything. If given the choice it is preferable that private enterprise do it.
I was for deregulating Qantas, the Australian Post Office and Telstra. The Commonwealth Bank however should have stayed as a government controlled entity for key reasons.
The Commonwealth Bank should never have been privatised. People forget with their goldfish memories, why it was founded in the first place. It served the key purpose of restraining the excesses of the private banks, whilst actually earning very good money for the government. Once it was sold for a one off gain, it along with the other banks have formed a quadumverate that has taxed the Australian public and small businesses, like the government never has. They have sucked billions out of customers who have no choice but to use them no matter how bad the service has got. Their massive gains have been at the expense of everyone else. That is why I am forced to invest in them as well, because to get mere interest from them is to gift your money over to them, as an investor I share in their exploitation of their other customers.
Of the first 3 sales of public assets, the APO was better managed as its services were in decline and there was substantial unfettered competition from courier companies who were in turn restrained by the continuing socially responsible services of the APO.
Qantas was handed massive dominance of Australian airspace by combining its international routes with all the domestic routes of Australian Airlines. Ansett, its only much smaller competitor, was crushed, as were a succession of tiny newcomer discount airlines like Compass. Qantas was locked into the drivers seat by the continuing practice of public servants flying both its international and domestic routes out of habit supporting the "government" carrier. It was only eventually challenged by foreign investors with very deep pockets. In itself it has been progressively taken from a company with excellent income and superb safety and service record to one that is now well on the nose. It is only famous now for things falling off it, attempts to turn it into a totally foreign corporation and the massive amounts of money the CEO's and management pay themselves for trashing it.
Telstra should have been sold but definitely not as it was. The government interest pollutes these transactions, just as when they hold a public monopoly outright. Telstra would achieve its maximum price only if it was sold as a whole with virtually no competition, which is what happened. It should have been split into two. The wholesale division owning the network with a mandate to retail that network to all competitors equally, and a totally separate retail division to compete with all new comers.
Instead we had Telstra only meet one purpose, to get the maximum amount of money for Howard to wind down the government deficit, which he could only do once. We sold the gold plate and from now on we have to pay to use it at whatever cost the new owner wants, or go buy replacements, or eat off paper plates.
Telstra had a massive corporate culture problem. The employees believed they owned all its assets, even before it was privatised, and even more so after. Surveys of primary concerns of both management and employees never even mention their customers. They had gone into privatisation fighting it tooth and nail. As I said I my advertising agency was pumping out ads from "Telecommunications Interest" groups all concocted and paid for by the local Telstra manager with Telstra's money.
Once they were privatised, they still had their sense of God given ownership, which they were not about to share with anyone, especially the competition. There has been the absurd situation where Telstra owns the network and all its international connections, yet is supposed to sell those directly to the public AND unselfishly to their competitors! The natural course of monopolies is to simply crush their competition by over charging them for their supplies and undercut them in the market place until there is no competition then to raise their prices to the sky.
The government then fettered Telstra with the ACCC's requirements that it could not undercut its competitors at all! In one stroke defeating the lie of this all being about introducing competition! Telstra then went through a decade of smoldering resentment, mostly sitting on its hands because it had no incentive to strive at all. It went off into several external ventures because that was the only place it could exercise some entrepreneurial skills. Only to massively prove that it had none. Joint ventures in HK, with Microsoft, and other supposedly sure things, all ended in spectacular disasters. Its share price went into free fall burning the Australian Futures Fund, most Australian Super funds who now had compulsorily acquired assets from Australian workers and the mums and dads talked into the Howard scam.
A succession of mostly foreign CEOs and their lackeys talked big, took heaps for themselves and produced nothing. They were hired for their "expertise". I remember these "experts", particularly the Four Amigos telling Apple to "mind its knitting" with the iPhone then having to eat humble pie and go on to sell it after they were proved to be giant asshats.
All this time the Australian public could only constantly beg Telstra to get on with modernising the broadband infrastructure. Telstras answer was NO!, it wasn't in its own interests. It would do the minimal fiddling at the edges with ADSL on its monopoly POTS lines but no more.
I am way luckier than most Australians in that our local utility company used its access to the electricity poles to bring in cable to the house, but whilst that gives me better and cheaper broadband than most, the utility still has to at some point connect to Telstra's monopoly of the trunk connections.
So that is where we are today. The present government was forced into bringing in the wholesale network that should have been in place 12 years ago. Instead of just getting the project done as well as possible, nearly all its energy is going into justifying its necessity. To a public which has repeatedly affirmed that it is for getting on with it, but with an Opposition that was single handedly responsible for the mess that the NBN is trying to fix, and won't let the public off the hook.
As with the climate debate and many other contentious issues, progress has been derailed by a small, noisy but extremely well funded group of spoilers.
Edited by rubaiyat: 26/2/2012 04:30:39 PM |
|
gnome
26 February 2012
|
@rubaiyat - Your good recollections about how our comms scene progressively got into such a mess are spot on.
But on the debate about global warming, now more fasionably (and accurately) known as climate change, you seem to have applied the description 'extremely well funded group' to the wrong side.
It is the climate industry which has received literally billions in funding, so it is not surprising that there are now many people very anxious to demand the continuation of such largesse.
It is the people who are seeking to bring some rigour and objectivity to the debate who are poorly resourced, and who are subject to continuing attacks from some of the beneficiaries of all the political patronage and payouts.
|
|
tecma
26 February 2012
|
When the NBN was first mooted, I thought the idea was to, in the first instance, the provision of a fast network for those people still on dialup, or as in my cast "to far from the interchange".
It is obvious that the powers to be have mismanaged this, like they have mismanged everthing that they have put their hands on.
Do I have confidence that it will suceed? Definately not.
Is it value for money" Definately not.
Will it provide what they claim? Definately not.
So why are we continuing to flog a dead horse?
If someone can answer that, I think that thousands of people would love the answer. I would. |
|
petergaskin
26 February 2012
|
Thats why the NBN has bought 3 new satellites - to provide superior broadband to current users stuck on dial up. It has all been reported. just wait 2 to 3 years and the satellite services will be available. in fact i believe that it has always been the case that either wireless or satellite services to fix remote users of broadband. there was never a plan to provide fibre to 100% of Australians. The only problem is - just which Australians will be lucky enough to get the fibre and just how well will the alternate services work and how will they be priced! |
|
911TS
26 February 2012
|
+1 for the NBN.
FTTH is essential for our future economic and technological development and security.
If the Liberals stop the NBN, we will be plunged back into the technological dark ages. Anyone not living in Telstra or Optus cabled city area will continue to suffer ridiculously slow speeds for the foreseeable future.
Despite some large budget surpluses (wasted on tax cuts to inflate house prices), 10 years of the Howard government produced absolutely nothing in terms of internet access.
The likes of Alston, Coonan and Minchin were completely and utterly clueless.
The Liberal Party view is that:
- only the wealthy deserve fast internet access
- the plebs and country people just don't matter
|
|
rubaiyat
27 February 2012
|
gnome wrote:
@rubaiyat - Your good recollections about how our comms scene progressively got into such a mess are spot on.
But on the debate about global warming, now more fasionably (and accurately) known as climate change, you seem to have applied the description 'extremely well funded group' to the wrong side.
It is the climate industry which has received literally billions in funding, so it is not surprising that there are now many people very anxious to demand the continuation of such largesse.
It is the people who are seeking to bring some rigour and objectivity to the debate who are poorly resourced, and who are subject to continuing attacks from some of the beneficiaries of all the political patronage and payouts.
They are not at all poorly resourced they have the entire Murdoch publishing empire behind them, amongst others, and all the resources of the Energy sector.
But that money is not being spent on research, which would throw up the "wrong" answers, it is being thrown at massive PR and misinformation. It is a repeat of what Big Tobacco and Big Auto did before.
Science doesn't take votes or polls. It either has the weight of evidence or doesn't.
Unfortunately for the people who "just know", retreating glaciers world wide, warming sea temperatures, shrinking ice shelfs and migration of temperature sensitive flora and fauna are very hard to ignore thermometers. |
|
willtell
27 February 2012
|
Although it's seriously drifting off topic...
I would argue that science isn't as black and white. Although the research can conclude one way or another, there's no way you can deny that grant money to fund the research will in some instances skew the results. I don't know for sure but a lot scientists wouldn't want to bite the hand that feeds them.
While climate change is definately happening, it's always a question of how much of it is because of our influence. I personally believe we are having an effect, however I also believe that we are simply speeding up the inevitable. But how much of an effect are we having? The climate on this planet has shifted countless times with most of it being purely natural.
The money behind the debate comes from the financiers (banks) that are playing both sides of the field in order to maximise their return. They have been profiting from funding outdated finite resource collection. They are now funding elementary research and pushing Governments to act. A carbon trading scheme will prove to be highly profitable and the next bubble for the banks. It doesn't solve the problem but simply gives them another avenue to profit.
I like to think of it as an "asshole tax". I can be as rude to people as I like, as long as I pay for it. It won't stop me being rude if the money I'm making offsets the tax or that I can simply pass that tax onto others.
The real benefit I can see from the debate is that people have started to stop being so wasteful with resources and that we are starting to look at alternatives to the old ways of doing things.
In the end though, whether we change what we do or not, the climate is going to shift. We can however delay it by changing what we do.
|
|
rubaiyat
27 February 2012
|
All those scientists all got together and came to more or less the same conclusion.
The world is round!
But only because there is a heap of money to be made out of the Global Rounding Conspiracy.
In fact I know this guy whose brother works down The University and he says his cousin saw once down the back of the Physics department where they were handing out the money. She didn't get a really good look, because it was dark and it was a fair way off, but she's pretty sure the receipt said something about "Global Research"!
Now there are people who might scoff at that and say that sounds stupid and just hearsay, but I told my wife, who told all her friends and a week later I was in a pub and this guy said he'd heard exactly the same thing.
In fact Alan Jones reported something similar on his show! …and he's not exactly the kind of guy who can be bought off!
Edited by rubaiyat: 27/2/2012 12:04:32 PM |
|
Stomfi
27 February 2012
|
I used to work in the public service writing ministerials and unbiased discussion papers as an informed advisor to ministers who generally have little knowledge of all the issues surrounding a problem. One of the options of a ministerial is always "do nothing" with pros and cons. If an issue warranted a minister's attention, it was usually a "do something" option that was approved. This is because if you do something and it's not quite right, it can be fixed, whereas doing nothing usually meant a solution would be extremely costly later on and delay could lead to greater problems.
The NBN is a typical example of something that needs to be done to fix previous do nothing decisions.
In the mid '80s, the US Department of Defence as the world's biggest user of computing technology, issued a paper authored by the best minds and experts available, regarding computer communications. It stated that optical fibre cables, preferably in the ground, were the only robust solution as every other means was prone to greater disruption and outages by natural and man made disasters. The delay in implementing the DoD plan around the world is caused, not by lack of money, but by vested interests in old technologies who fund powerful lobby groups.
In Australia's case in initially was the Unions who didn't want to see job losses through the division of Telecom (Telstra). Thankfully they've seen the damage that particular do nothing decision made to our industry and mostly approve the NBN.
Telstra shareholders were the next and the Gov't were forced to buy them off.
All we have left in opposition to a long term robust communications infrastructure are the Luddites and political posers. Remember, if the road is there, potholes can be fixed, and traffic can flow. |
|
rubaiyat
27 February 2012
|
Let me just say a word here for Alan Jones.
He is not a man who can be bought off with a few lousy dollars, like the so-called "scientists" or telecommunications "experts".
No he is much, much bigger than that! When he speaks out, it is because it is really worth speaking out.
He speaks not just because of what it means to him personally, but because it means a whole lot more for others.
Others who can't speak for themselves, and for whom his willingness to stand up for others earns their undying gratitude. Try as they might no-one out there can say just how much Alan Jones is really worth to the cause.
Despite his high public profile, he modestly keeps so much of the benefit of what he does to himself, out of the adoring public's gaze.
Edited by rubaiyat: 27/2/2012 05:03:52 PM |
|
amcmo
27 February 2012
|
Hang On,
Wasn't Jones one of the 'Cash For Comments' jocks.... Sounds like he can quite easily (and expensively?) be brought... :lol:
Stomfi, etc.
I have no problem with the concept of an NBN, just the typical pig headed implimentation. As usual, dum arse decisions, lack of truly competitive tendering and a rush to make political points and boost marginal electorates/buy votes.
|
|
photohounds
27 February 2012
|
There are many ways to speed up internet - this is one and it is (so far) poorly managed with little to show so far. A lack of competition rarely yields decent results.
I get it ...
Gina owning a paper is "bad" because she has money (thought it COST money to have a publishing interest) AND has the temerity to disagree with some 'expert' posters here.
Leftie loonies thwarting free press by controlling other papers and the ABC is "good"
Not a VERY unbiased dissertation in that respect ...
Edited by photohounds: 27/2/2012 10:24:36 PM |
|
Jason Ozolins
27 February 2012
|
@tecma: "It is obvious that the powers to be have mismanaged this, like they have mismanged everthing that they have put their hands on."
Ermm, are you referring to the delayed rollout that Tony Abbott was frothing about last month? After the ACCC made NBNCo go back and redesign its network for 8 times as many Point of Interconnection as originally planned? After the very long process of getting the structural separation of Telstra past the ACCC [last week], so that NBNCo can finally do the deal with Telstra that gives access to Telstra cabling and ducts? I know a very capable guy who works for a large ISP who is not a big fan of Labor by any means, and yet his comments to me have been casting doubt on some of NBNCo's network design choices, rather than dumping on the whole thing, which to me is pretty telling.
NBN is a huge undertaking, which has necessarily been heavily front loaded with ACCC wrangling and deals to use Telstra capacity. Hardly surprising that those deals have been hard to cement. This year will be the one to actually test their ability to deliver a network into the existing Telstra turf.
I'm hoping that the Coalition won't get to kill the NBN before I finally get a choice of reliable broadband that isn't 3G wireless, 50km south of the nation's capital. Maybe Malcolm Turnbull is able to afford a 3G connection as his main domestic Internet connection, but not I... |
|
rubaiyat
28 February 2012
|
photohounds wrote:There are many ways to speed up internet - this is one and it is (so far) poorly managed with little to show so far. A lack of competition rarely yields decent results.
We have had next to nothing to show from the supposed "competition" we have had so far.
Quote:I get it ...
Gina owning a paper is "bad" because she has money (thought it COST money to have a publishing interest) AND has the temerity to disagree with some 'expert' posters here.
Leftie loonies thwarting free press by controlling other papers and the ABC is "good"
Not a VERY unbiased dissertation in that respect ...Edited by photohounds: 27/2/2012 10:24:36 PM
Like we are short of extreme right wing publishers with massive amounts of money.
The ABC is a linchpin in Australian democracy. Without it we would be another Italy. Nobody would have any idea of what was going on and the politicians would be unrestrained. That goes for both the left and the right, neither seems to like the ABC when it is nipping on their heels.
Have you actually listened to Gina Reinhart or read anything she has managed to scribble down? She would have trouble holding down a job as a checkout chick in Coles. Her brilliant qualifications are being the daughter of the guy who found iron ore in the Pilbara.
btw I go for most of my Leftie loonie hits in The Economist, New Scientist, Financial Review and a enormous range of publications of all persuasions. I relish reading all sorts of viewpoints because of the insight it gives me into this often strange world and the people who infest it. Gina regurgitating material we are already flooded with, is not going to do anything for this country. But then I don't suppose those apparently obsessed by "waste" will see what she does with the money effectively swindled out of the gullible Australian taxpayers, is actually waste.
Edited by rubaiyat: 28/2/2012 05:17:56 AM |
|
tecma
28 February 2012
|
Reading all the comments on the subject of the NBN, I see that there is a huge fragmentation in the community.
In the 90's I was part of a team that installed kilometres of fibre optic cabling, for computer networks. The first thing once the idea took hold, was to TALK to the PEOPLE, to ask what they required for them to do their everyday tasks, this is even before a cost benefit analysis was done.
This immediately determined the priority of the installation, that is give the installation to those that have the GREATEST NEED, not WANT. Not only did this ensure that we had the STAKEHOLDERS on side, but it ensured that the benefits were realized in both the STAKEHOLDERS infastructure, but that in the organisation as a whole. There is nothing like having the STAKEHODERS on side, amazing what can be accomplished. OH, there was also a huge cost saving because it was rolled out in a CONTROLLED and TIME orientated manner.
So am I missing something about the rollout of the NBN?
|
|
rubaiyat
28 February 2012
|
The NBN is like reticulated water, it needs to go past every house whether they want it or not.
I did surveys when I was at Uni, going house to house, and one thing I quickly learnt is that people both hate to have to think and will avoid it at all costs. Half the time I was filling in the answers to the question because they couldn't make up their minds which of 4 it was they wanted.
Most people will be like your elderly parents. Initially they will absolutely know that they neither want, nor can use the new technology, without ever experiencing it nor even understanding a single thing about it. Some will be totally afraid of it and swear it is the work of the devil.
Then someone they know will get it and they might see what it can do. They'll use it for some trivial purpose, then maybe a bit more and eventually after finding exactly what it can do for them, which maybe nothing anyone else ever thought was important, they will become totally attached to it and swear they never opposed it, ever!
Like my parents when we got them a microwave. Now that they use it for everything, apparently they never told us it was useless, and they would never use it.
It's amazing just what your crazy demented children come up with sometimes!
Somewhere after your demented parents will come the National and Liberal Parties and their constituency.
Steve Jobs was right when he said it is not the publics job to tell designers what they want.
They have no clue until they get it. |
|
photohounds
28 February 2012
|
Ruby, like we are short of EXTREME lefties haven't a 'king clue...
I doubt that Gina will have THAT much to say in the day to day running as long as it turns a profit.
The NBN won't turn a profit - but it doesn't matter, it is largely paid for by the tenth man - below.
Some of the drivel above reminds me of economics 101 at the pub:
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100…
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
Let's say they do just that..
The ten men drink in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20″. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
They also realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving). The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”
(how bloody often have we heard THAT?) The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
(OUR welfare does this to some degree - it has been often shown that these people are financially disadvantaged by GOING BACK TO WORK!!
THIS MEANS welfare is more profitable than working - and PAYING non-workers MROE than workers is a shameful situation - unless that person has SAVED for it])
Edited by photohounds: 28/2/2012 06:10:37 PM |
|
rubaiyat
28 February 2012
|
This is how the pub system works.
Ten guys go to the pub. One of the guys has always had bad breaks and has a wife and family to support, so never has spare money so his mates chip in for him more often than not.
One of the guys is rich. He is very rich because he had to work hard to get where he is, but he remembers what it was like before he made it where he is today. He is generous and figures what he makes is more than enough for one man and he can't take it with him. So he too tends to pick up the tab more than the others.
Another of the guys is rich but is rich because he got lucky, he's always had money because his parents worked hard. They give him all the best including a private school education where he got to mix it with mainly other rich kids. In fact he went to school with the publican, alongl with a lot of rich people, many who always had a lot more than him. He tends to confuse his parents, and the people they employ to wait on him hand and foot. He has developed the idea that he is actually very special and the world owes him everything. People who don't have what he has are "lazy" because he never had to share their experience of real work, adversity or their obstructions to obtaining wealth. He doesn't find it hard to get money, so maybe they just aren't trying hard enough.
He tends to go to posh hotels and restaurants where everyone seems to have their hand out. He doesn't have the work ethic or abilities of his parents but he has appetites that need to be paid for far beyond what his parents can understand. When he was in school he ran up a few debts and got a big lecture from his parents about how money doesn't fall out of trees. He then found out if he bent the rules or lied a bit, even stole you could make money fall out of trees. His parents have more than enough and they are such a bunch of yobs they don't really know how to spend it properly. He's doing them a favor if he goes through their purse or wallet when they aren't around and tops up the rather generous income they give him, because no matter what he always seems to be running out.
This sense of entitlement actually is pretty ingrown, because whilst he was growing up he knew his parents were special but then in his late teens his eyes are opened a bit when he finds out his parents didn't get where they are today just by hard work. They lied and cheated too whenever it was to their advantage and justified it as that's what you have to do to get ahead. A lesson that has grown even stronger with their son.
The son being mates with the publican twists his arm and gets mates rates for the beer, but doesn;t tell the other guys and always arranges to collect the money from the others first, pocketing the difference. That doesn't stop him telling them how generous he is getting special treatment for them but he's really just one of them. Secretly he has nothing but contempt for them, what a pack of idiots! They swallow his story when it is actually the ordinary buggers in the middle picking up most of the tab. They hang out with the son because they might not like him but they aspire to be like him one day.
The son has been getting away with this for a long time, and he keeps reading all these really smart academics who reckon what he does may look bad but is really good for everyone. In fact the more he does what he does and the more he gets for himself the better it must be for everyone. That fits in right where he thinks he should be, "greed is good" because he is pretty good at being greedy. Unfortunately he is not really good at making real money. He is rather good at conning people, because that is what he was trained to do from a small age.
His needs are always growing and what he gets by fair menas or foul never seems enough. So he finds it easy after collecting the beer money to just hang onto it and just owe it to his publican mate, who despite running a successful pub and generally sticking within his means, thinks the son is really sharp, and even better at making money than himself, otherwise he wouldn't be driving that Lamborghini with all those girls with the breast implants. He figures the son is good for it.
By this stage the son is letting his greed and lifestyle get really out of hand, so he tells his publican mate, the others haven't paid him yet so can he let him have even more credit till he gets his. The publican starts to realise he might never see what he is owed, unless he gives the son the time and credit he is asking for. What the son doesn't tell the publican is that he has not just been taking money from his mates he's also been taking money from the till, and the last time he actually cleaned it out completely. Things are starting to get to the point where the publican might finally find out what he's done, so in a last ditch effort to cover his tracks he sets fire to the pub.
The publican and the mates are now all out on the street, watching the pub burn to the ground. The publican then says to the son, "I hope you paid up that insurance I gave you!". The son says sure he did, but just to make sure he'd better dash down to the insurance office to it out, just his lamborghini is "in for repairs" so can he have money for the cab fare? Then he disappears with the money from the till and the cab fare.
The publican then turns to the other 9 and says, "Now about this money you owe me…?"
|
|
photohounds
28 February 2012
|
Ahh- the 'ole "If they're rich, they lied, cheated, and generally don't deserve it." ploy.
While some may fit that description, most do NOT "get there" by anything other than hard work. There's actually a psychological term for people who actually believe that anyone who's better off than THEM did it by foul means. Oh yes, I'm certainly not on top of the heap.
The tax system does NOT work like your postulated pub system. People who behave like that traverse ALL walks of life and are called COM MEN (or WOMEN).
Wanna see people rip the system off - in bulk? Easy, hang out with your welfare buddies who collect 5 'pay' cheques a fortnight and complain how the system is ripping them off. Just like the blokes in my (realistic) pub scenario.
|
|
rubaiyat
28 February 2012
|
Actually that story just happened in recent memory, unless you didn't notice. But then it seems a lot that seems to pass your attention.
By lucky happenstance there was just an article in CNN on research that shows there is a strong correlation between wealth, greed and unethical behavior.
btw The story isn't "All rich people are thieves and don't deserve it". But there are very few rich thieves in jail.
The best correlation whether you do time, and how much you do, is the inverse reciprocal of how much you steal. |
|
Zeafer
29 February 2012
|
I am one FOR the NBN.
My home is in a southern suburb of Brisbane and is around 15 years old. Despite the "availability" of ADSL & ADSL2+ on my phone line, no provider can actually supply me with service due to my poor, lenghthy, copper connection. And because my number shows as "available" in initial tests, I do not qualify for any assistance or attention in wanting broadband. In fact, my phone line does not support a stable 56.6K connection - only 28.8Kbps, which is "the specified minimum" apparently.
I am lucky enough to live on the "right" side of the street, and I have a Telstra cable passing my house. No other providers or competition, but I can have a Telstra BigPond cable account at least.
As I currently pay more than $120 per month for a service which is "for home use only" and does NOT support fixed IP addresses in any form, I understand "expensive" internet plans. Incidentally my monthly spend only recently dropped from $150 per month because of "increased competition" apparently.
Yes, NBN is a massive project. Yes, the Government will spend more implementing this than a private enterprise who watches every dollar would. But the PROs far outweigh the CONs.
Innovation is restricted by the technology of it's day.
GPS tracking and it's logistical applications would not be possible without Space Exploration.
Real-time, remote surgical proceedures performed by expert surgeons 1000's of Kms from the patient may seem like science fiction - but this is only 1 of the millions of very REAL possibilities that come with universally accessible communications. This example uses super expensive equipment... because it's only possible in a handful of locations.
What if every hospital across Australia had access to every surgeon in the country (and perhaps overseas?)
What if less experienced/skilled caregivers could have an expert consultant see a full, high-def, real-time view of that suspicious mole on your skin? And ask to see it from a different angle immediately?
We need the NBN. Thank goodness we finally had someone in politics willing to push this through. And thank you to those still pushing. |
|
elhombre
29 February 2012
|
Hey rubbydick, I'm going to be back there on some R&R shortly. How about you and I get together? You're obviously badly overdue for a fractured skull.
rubaiyat wrote:Where is that mental minnow elhombre?
Expect him to do his usual impersonation of Fox News. |
|
elhombre
29 February 2012
|
Let me guess, you and the parasite public service wife wife were on your way back from the lobby restaurant race riot were you?
My wife and I recently narrowly missed being in the deadly truck accident on the Hume Highway that killed 3 people. It happened just ahead of us. The truck driver who appears to have been breaking all the rules veered completely from one side of the highway across the broad dividing strip and straight over the sedan before perching half over the balustrade of the bridge. He is the immediate cause of the accident but fundamentally the murderer is the trucking industry, the automotive industry and all those people and politicians manipulated by them.
People divide neatly into two. Those who believe in the greater good and those for whom self interest trumps everybody else, no matter what it costs or who or what it kills.
The later is currently fighting tooth and nail against the NBN, The Carbon Tax, The Mining Tax, cleaning up the Murray Darling basin, cleaning up our dirty energy and anything else that might even slightly inconvenience them. Just as they have every other reform before. It is hard wired into them. Pointless discussing it. Time to hammer them mercilessly as they have everyone else.
[/quote] |
|
rubaiyat
29 February 2012
|
Oh hi Mussolini, nice to have your foul mouthed puffed up moronic presence back again!
See you still haven't worked out how to use the forum yet.
Hint: Banging it with that rock and empty beer bottle aren't going to do it.
Edited by rubaiyat: 29/2/2012 02:27:17 AM |
|
elhombre
29 February 2012
|
Offensive post removed and poster banned.
Slatts.
Edited by Slatts: 29/2/2012 07:14:17 PM |
|
amcmo
29 February 2012
|
Time to publicly state I find some posts in this thread have crossed the line. They are to my mind objectionable and border on the actionable should the target/s of the posts deem them to have been made without regard for the truth.
While I support robust discussion and will be the first to be blunt, how about a modicum of civility?
Seems too many people regard forums as places where normal standards of discussion and laws of libel do not apply. Australian law does not protect on line posters OR THE FORUM OWNERS from liability.
I'm happy to be on forums where there is plenty of spirited discussion, however choose not to be associated with forums where spineless posters user their anonymity to make unecessarily offensive and potentially actionable posts. |
|
rubaiyat
29 February 2012
|
amcmo
Somehow I picture him as a dwarf, not just mentally, standing on his stool banging angrily away at his keyboard.
A towering blowhard on a computer, acting like a tough thug. Then when there is a knock at the door falling off the stool in shock. Frantically scampering to hide down the bottom of the wardrobe. Peeping out nervously from behind the soiled undies until the bad people go away. |
|
photohounds
1 March 2012
|
Z - what you dream possible from the CURRENT implementation of NBN and reality displays a VERY wide gap.
10 points for imagination, though.
Our 'masters' should have private interests engaged to improve efficiency.
Ahhh - but THEN we could SEE where the money is going and they won't have that.
'trust in us and we will love you anyway ...'
BTW 'ell...' may have been 'well over the top' (to 'copy' someone else's words) at times, but perhaps you'll consider your part in encouraging him.
Presumably, he'll just re-register with a new identity. Lemme know when you find him, if don't work it out first :)
Edited by photohounds: 1/3/2012 12:24:20 AM |
|
rubaiyat
1 March 2012
|
el hombre will give himself away. He won't be able to help himself.
The NBN hasn't been allowed to get started yet so everyone is being a bit presumptive.
Once the major obstacle, the Telstra hand over, is done then you can all get started on constructive criticism.
All this back seat driving and interference with NBN's operation started before they even opened their doors.
It is ever thus.
We can look back on all the other disasters:
The Ghan Railway, The Sydney Opera House, the founding of Canberra, the Sydney Harbor Bridge, The Goldfields Water Supply Scheme, The Overland Telegraph, the founding of Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth, The Zig-Zag Railway, The Colony of NSW, the American Colonies, The Oxford English Dictionary, The Norman Conquests, The Roman Invasion of Britain, The Founding of Rome, Athenian Democracy, The Pyramids, the Invention of writing, the wheel, irrigation, husbandry, agriculture, the bow and arrow, the taming of fire, leaving Africa, climbing down out of trees…
…even getting out of bed in the morning. |
|
rubaiyat
1 March 2012
|
For the edification of the perpetually bewildered, here is the nub entry in Wikipedia on the Goldfields Water Supply Scheme
At the time it was a proposed project piping water a never before dreamed of 530 kilometres to the goldfields at Kalgoorlie.
All at a time when Western Australia was a sparsely populated distant outpost in Australia.
Quote:Construction and criticism
C. Y. O'Connor c.1890s
The scheme was devised by C. Y. O'Connor who oversaw its design and most of the construction project. Although supported by Premier Forrest, O'Connor had to deal with widespread criticism and derision from members of the Western Australian Parliament as well as the local press based on a belief that scope of the engineering task was too great and that it would never work. There was also a concern that the gold discoveries would soon dry up and the state would be left with a significant debt to repay but little or no commerce to support it.
Sunday Times editor Frederick Vosper - who was also a politician, ran a personal attack on O'Connor's integrity and ability through the paper. Timing was critical, Forrest as a supporter had moved into Federal politics, and the new Premier George Leake had long been an opponent of the scheme.
O'Connor committed suicide in March 1902 less than 12 months before the final commissioning of the pipeline. Lady Forrest officially started the pumping machinery at Pumping Station number one on the 22 January, and on 24 January 1903 water flowed into the Mount Charlotte Reservoir at Kalgoorlie. O'Connors' engineer-in-chief, C. S. R. Palmer took over the project after his death, seeing it through to its successful completion.
The government conducted an inquiry into the scheme and found no basis for the press accusations of corruption or misdemeanours on the part of O'Connor.
Come on Abbott, this is something to aspire to! Driving someone to suicide for doing his job and doing it brilliantly!
Now that is constructive criticism!
Edited by rubaiyat: 1/3/2012 01:28:21 AM |
|
rubaiyat
1 March 2012
|
Australia as viewed by Tony Abbott:
Australia as viewed by Julia Gillard:
Australia as the world sees us:
Little do they realise our full qualifications.
Edited by rubaiyat: 1/3/2012 07:24:59 AM |
|
photohounds
1 March 2012
|
Most would agree that an improvement is a good thing and that the IDEA has merit. More private industry (not mates) should have been vetted to take part.
Many have no faith in this administration and for good (recent historical) reasons. My main issue is that it will be obsolete before it is finished. I suppose the SMHEA faced this too.
We're used to upgrade treadmills in other tech life, so if we look at it THAT way, why not :) |
|
rubaiyat
1 March 2012
|
Glad you raised the Snowy Mountains Scheme which was another disaster foisted on Australia by a Labor Government, along with the assisted immigration program that helped build it.
Both ruined Australia.
As no doubt the Tony Abbott senior of the day pointed out, it was far too expensive, Australia didn't need all those wogs and it was far cheaper to haul water from the Murray River with buckets.
What on earth would we do with all that water? We only need to bath every Saturday night, and all the rest would just go to waste!
A lot of nonsense got talked about irrigating vast areas of the inland and creating a wine industry which was sheer stupidity because everyone knows Australians will never drink wine, we are all beer drinkers and will stay beer drinkers. |
|
photohounds
5 March 2012
|
Ruby, no one is totally inept, but the current idiots are giving it a jolly good attempt.
To wit: The farce they've made of family law. Make an allegation - evidence not required ... false allegations here we come
As for the pub economics I think it's less holey than the alternative presented after it.:
To quote further ...
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
|
|
dianehughes2000
30 March 2012
|
I'm two thumbs up for the NBN but it needs to be going into areas that don't already have access to cable/ broadband first. I live on the Gold Coast and have access only to dialup or flaky wireless broadband. Our housing estate was set up as pair gained so we share a phone line with a neighbour. No way to get broadband yet NBN is in Armidale where there already was access to ADSL! We also have one of the original phone exchanges (Mudgeeraba) which needs to be replaced. I'm not holding my breath :-( |
|
rubaiyat
30 March 2012
|
The Head of the NBN was on ABC's morning news today and said the only reasons for where NBN was being installed was to meet the Governments general requirements that some priority be given to regional areas, general access and Telstra making their right of ways available. There was one more government requirement that original Tasmanian network be completed by 2015.
The government has not singled out any specific electorates and he said the NBN Authority doesn't even factor in electoral divisions.
Obviously it can't all be done at once, the Telstra agreement took time and the Opposition has opposed everything just as they opposed the horseless carriage as an affront to man and God. |
