NBN3 Wireless plan needs 4G spectrum fast-track

[son of a bitch]

Exactly, why should taxpayers subsidise movie downloads?




So don't share it, dongles are cheap now, and most mobile phones are 3G
capable these days.




And the taxpayers should subsidise all that, WHY exactly?

MrT.

If you use Wireless in rural areas as suggested....

They you are going to have a school either having one wireless
connection shared across all PC's or all PC's with their own
wireless. The cost of all the Wireless stations would be more
than a Fibre link or the speed of each PC will be that of a Dial-up
Modem. Both of these is Looney tunes. Unless each of these
schools only have ONE PC, and that is also Nuts.

 

[atec77]

If you use Wireless in rural areas as suggested....

They you are going to have a school either having one wireless
connection shared across all PC's or all PC's with their own
wireless.

strawman

The cost of all the Wireless stations would be more

than a Fibre link or the speed of each PC will be that of a Dial-up
Modem. Both of these is Looney tunes. Unless each of these
schools only have ONE PC, and that is also Nuts.

it;s your suggestion thats nuts
school normally are close to facilites hence will have coper and or
fibre presented

 

[terryc]

And spending another $43Billion will reduce the cost, HOW exactly?

Well, it would certainly be cheaper than they are forced to pay now for
decent broadband, however, I am assured that there are cheaper ways than
that. Bottom line is that the backhaul should be in public ownership as
an equity service and to provide a "level playing field" for competitive
delivery of services.

 

[terryc]

terryc wrote


That is not very different to what those in the citys pay.

That is a meaningless statement.

There is no lag with other than satellite and most of that 10% dont use
satellite.

Another meaningless statment to hide a goal post shift.

 

[terryc]

Exactly, why should taxpayers subsidise movie downloads?
suck.

So you are suggesting that NBN fees would be a standard monthly
connection fee, aka sewerage/electricty/water service access fee, plus
another fee charged by the NBN to the ISP for data carried, which the ISP
allows for in their data plans?

 

[Rod Speed]

keithr wrote

Mr.T wrote

Work out who it is that will be using these services. And the answer is - (Tada) Taxpayers!

Doesnt mean that the taxpayers should be spending anything like $50B extra.

 

[Rod Speed]

If you use Wireless in rural areas as suggested....

No one is suggesting that for schools.

They you are going to have a school either having one wireless
connection shared across all PC's or all PC's with their own
wireless. The cost of all the Wireless stations would be more than a Fibre link or the speed of each PC will be that
of a Dial-up Modem.

Both of these is Looney tunes.

So is spending $50B for schools.

Makes a hell of a lot more sense to run a fibre connection to
the school from the nearest exchange that already has fibre.

Unless each of these schools only have ONE PC, and that is also Nuts.

Even tiny little one teacher schools, and there are **** all of those now,
it makes absolutely no sense be spending anything like $50B on schools.

The tiny little schools should have a decent satellite feed.

 

[Rod Speed]

Well, it would certainly be cheaper than they are forced to pay now
for decent broadband, however, I am assured that there are cheaper
ways than that. Bottom line is that the backhaul should be in public
ownership as an equity service and to provide a "level playing field"
for competitive delivery of services.

No thanks, Telecom fucked that up the last time we were stupid enough to go that route.

Aussat was such a complete abortion that it made sense to sell it to Optarse who could run it properly.

 

[Rod Speed]

terryc wrote

Rod Speed wrote

That is a meaningless statement.

You never ever could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

The cost of a decent broadband service is not very different to what those in the city pay.

Another meaningless statment to hide a goal post shift.

Just another desperate attempt by you to bullshit your way out
of your predicament, fooling absolutely no one at all, as always.

 

[Rod Speed]

So you are suggesting that NBN fees would be a standard monthly
connection fee, aka sewerage/electricty/water service access fee, plus
another fee charged by the NBN to the ISP for data carried, which the
ISP allows for in their data plans?

Nope, he is saying you lied.

 

[keithr]

keithr wrote


Doesnt mean that the taxpayers should be spending anything like $50B extra.

We seem to have some price creep here up from $43B to $50B, anyway isn't
the theory that the taxpayer will only pick up half the bill?

 

[Rod Speed]

keithr wrote

Rod Speed wrote

We seem to have some price creep here up from $43B to $50B,

Its always been a suspiciously precise number, particularly when
its some of the most important figures were never know when it
was specified, like how much Telstra would be paid, whether the
entire copper pair system would be scrapped so consumers wont
have any choice on whether they use the NBN if they want a fixed
line service, what price end users will be charged etc. And EVERY
SINGLE ONE of those govt of clowns major projects has cost
a lot more than was originally claimed, most obviously with the
home insulation scheme, the schools building program, the
green loans and green power schemes.

anyway isn't the theory that the taxpayer will only pick up half the bill?

Where the hell is the other half coming from ?

 

[Rod Speed]

kreed wrote

In the end, it ALL comes from the taxpayer,

Nope, quite a bit of it comes from those who pay no federal income tax.

or from higher broadband prices

You aint established that there will necessarily be higher broadband prices,
particularly if the NBN has to compete with other forms of broadband.

which end up in a small way contributing to higher wages and prices

Thats just plain wrong, its a tiny part of the cost of what
business does, so wont produce higher wages and prices.

which we all get stiffed with one way or another.

Those whose entire income is welfare dont pay for it.

Short of them doing something like physically seizing and nationalising Telstra

They dont have to do that if they can get Telstra to agree to flog them the copper pair network.

or anyone else with a network with no compensation to the shareholders

Not even possible legally.

and using their network it isnt going to come from anywhere else.

What I said in a lot more words.

 

[SG1]

We seem to have some price creep here up from $43B to $50B, anyway isn't
the theory that the taxpayer will only pick up half the bill?

When I lived in Newcastle NBN3 was a tv station, am I missing something
here?????

 

[Mr.T]

Work out who it is that will be using these services. And the answer is
- (Tada) Taxpayers!

NO, the answer is only SOME taxpayers.
In any case if exactly the same people were paying, AND they actually wanted
to pay, then private industry would get on with the job WITHOUT any need for
government to be involved. Telecommunications were privatised a while ago
you do realise????
The whole NBN is about providing the same cross subsidies that were
considered wrong when Telstra was 100% government owned. They seem FAR more
wrong when left to private enterprise IMO.

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

Well, it would certainly be cheaper than they are forced to pay now for
decent broadband,

ONLY IF you ignore the taxes needed to pay the $43Billion. That's the
trouble with governments, it's all about shifting costs around to make it
impossible to work out how much anything REALLY costs us.


MrT.

 

[terryc]

NO, the answer is only SOME taxpayers. In any case if exactly the same
people were paying, AND they actually wanted to pay, then private
industry would get on with the job WITHOUT any need for government to be
involved.

Not quite the full story. The private sector would simply cherry pick the
profitable and screw the rest.

The whole NBN is about providing the same cross subsidies that were
considered wrong when Telstra was 100% government owned.

which cross subsidies?
And why are they wrong in tele comms, but not in other areas (mining
royalties being redistributed, taxes from all tax payers being
redistributed to subsidise all private motor vehicles).



They seem FAR

 

[Rod Speed]

Mr.T wrote

ONLY IF you ignore the taxes needed to pay the $43Billion.

There arent necessarily any taxes needed to pay for that, most obviously
if part of what was raised by flogging off Telstra was used to pay for that.

That's the trouble with governments, it's all about shifting costs around

Not necessarily, particularly if they get much of that $43B back when they flog off the NBN.

to make it impossible to work out how much anything REALLY costs us.

Its MUCH more complicated than that mindless conspiracy theory.

 

[Rod Speed]

terryc wrote

Mr.T wrote

Not quite the full story.

Your line in spades.

The private sector would simply cherry pick the profitable and screw the rest.

How odd that they dont with the mobile networks. You have noticed
that Telstra has been part of the private sector for quite a while now ?

which cross subsidies?

The use of the huge revenues from basic phone services to pay for the broadband rollout.

And why are they wrong in tele comms, but not
in other areas (mining royalties being redistributed,

Not within the mining companys they arent.

taxes from all tax payers being redistributed to subsidise all private motor vehicles).

Pigs arse they are. It is in fact public transport thats subsidised instead.

 

[terryc]

How odd that they dont with the mobile networks. You have noticed that
Telstra has been part of the private sector for quite a while now ?



The use of the huge revenues from basic phone services to pay for the
broadband rollout.

You would have preferred all taxpayers to pay for it, rather than users?
The cost of basic phone services has shrunk significantly any way, so it
can hardly be argued that there was any huge revenues unless your use was
high.

Not within the mining companys they arent.

Well, actually they are. Failed to notice how much public funds are used
to pay for infrastructure to enable mining companies to ship their
products overseas?

Pigs arse they are. It is in fact public transport thats subsidised
instead.

Correct, but it is insignificant to the amount of resources that are
taken for fat arses to drive their own motor vehicles. Rego & fuel tax
does not pay for roads. It can also be argued that public transport
returns significant benefits to the community as a whole.