Simon Hackett wrote:"The National Broadband Network (NBN) is the subject of promises from the government that consumers will pay comparable prices to current day ADSL2+ and phone service bundles in order to access entry level NBN based services, and that NBN based retail pricing will be nationally uniform," said Hackett.
"Unfortunately, a number of pressure points in the wholesale pricing model exist which will make these promises (from the government) untenable in practice, unless serious issues with the underlying pricing model are addressed by NBNCo and the ACCC."
Personally, I think Simon hit the nail on the head...
personally, I think that you totally missed the point of what Simon was saying.
Simon Hackett was the first influential person (that I know of) to suggest FTTH. years and years ago there was talk of building a FTTN network, and he came out strong saying that simply won't do. it would be a waste of money, and the government needed to do it once and do it right. he wanted FTTH. years later, he got his wish. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they based part of their choice on his recommendations and speeches on the topic.
in that statement it seems Hackett was talking about the current bureaucracy behind the NBN. it doesn't seem like he was trashing the whole plan/idea. I'm not 100% sure of the details (but don't kid yourself, neither are you), but his recommendations seem to be more accounting and paperwork than actual engineering.
and from that zdnet article.
However, in a blog post this afternoon, Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull pointed to Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data that said that most Australian customers do not use high speed broadband, instead opting for speeds between 1.5 and 24Mbps
what a **** stupid statement. they opt for speeds up to 24mbps because that is the highest you can go in a reasonable price range. also, the network is supposed to be for the future. sure, we could go for another few (maybe several) years on our current network, but beyond that it starts to fall apart, speed wise and physically.
this project is pumping billions of dollars back into the economy. JOBS. the catchphrase of our time. jobs are being created, infrastructure is being created.
Ap0ca1yps3 wrote:both ill timed, and ill conceived, given the state of the global economy
America is going down/not going down regardless of our carbon tax.
what period of time in the last 100 years do you think we could have done something like this?
also. could you clear some things up for me?
how much more expensive is this carbon tax going to make raw materials we export? how much %? let's say it's 10%. are the companies going to pass on the cost to buyers, or are they going absorb it all? is it something in between?
if they absorb the cost, doesn't that (in this example) mean that instead of making a profit of $1000mn, they only make a profit of a measly $900mn? if those companies are cutting jobs because they only make $900mn a year instead of $1000mn, is the carbon tax really the thing to blame?