Broad Shoulders

...or maybe it comes down more to the fact thtat the output of a desal plant is highly polluting?

Deancm_MKII

The government sold it.

Broad Shoulders

...which government?

fish.01

it is not the ownership that counts, it is the splitting of the wholesale retail monopoly so that all companies have access to the backbone on a level playing field.

fish.01

I think the argument that you can do what you do now fast enough is missing the point. Apart from helping the millions of Australians in regional areas and cities that cannot do what they want, it will be the new services offered, some of which are now inconceivable, that will improve business, leisure, health, wealth, relieve the need to cram everyone in the same large cities etc. etc.

When copper wires were first laid 100 years ago who would have conceived the uses they were put to throughout the following century. I believe this infrastructure is pivotal to the advancement of our country. We will be on the forefront of new cross country applications that will help thousands live healthier, wealthier lives. This sort of nation building is vital to a geographically diverse and challenging nation like ours. Imagine the phone system if it was left to private corporations. Optic fibre will continue to increase in speed over the coming decades while copper chokes in the backwaters. Australia will then sell its experience and expertise to the world in countless areas.

This network will help across the whole spectrum of health, roads, education, environment, business, community, leisure, family etc. There is no better investment in my opinion and cancellation would be a huge loss. If it does go ahead I believe almost all people and businesses will look back in relief in the decades to come that it was not cancelled and admire one of the few visionary projects implemented by either political stripe in recent times.

keel

If you are going to borrow to invest in the countries future I don't think that money should be spent on healthcare and school buildings. Borrowed money should be spent on something were the return is greater than the outlay+interest. Thats called a return on your capital (I think).

The opinion column in yesterdays West Australian ran a story on the new network. When it was first mentioned by Rudd 3 years ago it was going to cost 4 billion and thats whe we had a surplus of 20 billion. This then rose to 15 billion and now it is 43 billion whilst running a deficit. What's to say it won't now blow out to 50 billion.

I think it's a good idea till you look at the sums. I don't work in IT but in general industry the existing network works but is not perfect. Why not just intoduce this new technology to where it's most needed. From what I can make out it's like the square mile of London being given state of the art broadband but then giving it out to the outer hebrides to make everyoune equal.

I would hate this country go into even more debt purely for an election gimmick.

Keel

keel

This all seems good but during election time is not a good time to plan these things. Has there been consultation/different plans looked at etc.

I'm like Abbott "I'm not a tech head" but I know a little but I might have missed these consultations/plans if they have happened.

Keel

anawanahuanana

Absolutely. Let's see. High level of debt and looking to spend lots of money on some technology that isn't really required right now, but is desired partly so we can be better than the neighbours. Sounds just like people with masses of credit card debt buying a new TV that they don't really need.........

It's all well and good people talking about how we'll be able to watch HD TV through it, but do we really need to? Sure it'd be great, but if HD was a priority for the population, everyone would have Foxtel at the moment. 15 years ago people were saying that soon airlines would have no business passengers because everyone would host meetings via videophone but it hasn't happened, and the boradband that's been around for a few years is more than capable of that. It won't mean that suddenly our population centres will move away from the crowded capital cities. People won't move out into the freezing cold and stinking hot, bone dry parts of Oz, far from the coast just because their internet connection allows it.

How about we pay off our debts before grandstanding about how we'll lead the world with this?

Broad Shoulders

Haha. You lot make me laugh! You keep going on about the only use for the NBN is HD TV!!!!

Look outside the box guys!

fish.01

You must have missed it...it was not proposed during the election period but a long time ago.

fish.01

Bit of a strawman argument. HDTV and boasting is not what it is about. Australia has far more population centres worth growing than the "freezing cold and stinking hot, bone dry" parts.

anawanahuanana

But I think that is part of the problem with winning over the general population. What are the benefits we can expect in the short and medium term? I'll leave all of the "things we can't even conceive yet" and longer term things out of this. All people hear is what the mass media put out, which amounts to HD TV, and seeing your doctor via video link etc.

Can I just reiterate that I'd love faster braodband, but not everyone feels the same, and to sell the idea you have to offer them some tangible benefit. Saying "it'll change the way businesses do business" isn't tangible enough I'm afraid. Besides, what we are saying in effect is that to pay for this huge (and it is huge) spend the money will have to come from somewhere else. Where? Will it come out of funding for rail improvements to take trucks off the roads? Will it come at the expense of more hospital beds and staff to treat the ever aging population? Will it come at the expense of a larger police force to protect the increasing population?

I just think that the "if only"s and "imagine the possibilities" have to be worth $50 billion or whatever the final figure ends up being. Could we improve access for people in remote areas far cheaper?

At the end of the day Australia is backwards in much of it's thinking. Just take nuclear power for example. Yet all of a sudden it's imperative that we lead the world with our broadband network? We are going to struggle to supply enough water and electricity to the population in the future. Is the NBN the biggest priority we have?

fish.01

I agree it is a hard sell. I imagine selling the copper network hundred years ago was even harder. I think it helps to not think of it as just a scale up of broadband speed, like going on a faster plan with your ISP, but instead a dramatic increase combined with universal access which will then make the economies of scale enough to totally and radically change how we do business. It will make us money for decades. It will help across all the areas you mention. If you had a backwards mate who "all of a sudden" became smart, would you want to talk him out of it

Broad Shoulders

As for the economic argument. I agree that this country is in shortage of many things, especially health (but then what country isn't). However, investing $43 billion in hospitals will not produce any revenue or wealth for the country, in fact it would only drain as it is a social service. Investing $43 billion in a communications network will produce returns. How much over how long is the difficult question. Obviously, it will produce direct returns from people and businesses who use it and pay for the service. There is much more to it than that though, business' horizons are now open and unlimited by bandwidth and will allow for some great innovation in our lands. Remember, if our businesses are succesful then the country and its people will also be. Who's to say that in 10 years the time of commuting to the office during the week may be over. Instead everyone works from home? Sounds proposterous I suppose, but the technical limitations will no longer be there to stop us. This would mean that businesses no longer have to pay exorbitant inner city rents for office space. It would mean that there would be less congestion on our roads, less investment needed on roads, less investment needed on public transport, hell you never know, maybe even less road toll? They are all quite out there ideas, but they are all quite feasible too.

anawanahuanana

I gues this is the bit that I, as a layman, need explaining. How will it change? Will more people buy stuff off Amazon? Will more data be stored remotely? Will there be more teleconferencing and less physical travel? Maybe so, but is it worth the cost over the other things the money could be spent on? I guess my issue is the price. If it was going to cost $1 billion I'd be all for it as it is a comparitively small price in the grand scheme of the total economy. If the country had a $100 billion surplus and wanted to spend $50 of it on the NBN, I'd be all for it. But that isn't the position we are in. Will it really be so detrimental to the country as a whole if the project was shelved for 2 or 3 years to allow the deficit to be reduced and the details refined?
Not being smart. I'm genuinely asking all of these questions.