blog In an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald (click here for the full story), Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey has made some … interesting claims about Labor’s flagship National Broadband Network project. The newspaper writes:
The broadband network was by far the biggest off-budget initiative ever seen in Australian government, Mr Hockey said … “I mean, it’s multiples of anything that’s ever been off-budget … it detracts from productivity,” he said.
Readers are advised to treat Hockey’s claims with a grain of salt — in a similar vein to Opposition Leader Tony Abbott’s comments on the NBN earlier this week. Hockey is correct when he says the NBN is largely off-budget. However, if the project goes according to plan and at least breaks even for the Government’s investment, which many believe it is likely to do (given the fact that Telstra and Optus will be migrating their customers wholesale onto the NBN’s fibre infrastructure), this won’t matter.
Projects are put in the Federal Budget because they cost money; while the NBN is a capital investment expected to make money. Hockey’s criticism will become valid when it can be proven that NBN Co is not meeting the objectives laid out in its corporate plan — and I wouldn’t expect that to be possible, even if it happens, for at least another five years.
As far as Hockey’s claim about productivity goes … this is simply factually incorrect. About a billion studies have shown that next-generation broadband infrastructure helps drastically improve productivity through the rapid uptake of new technology in the workplace. It appears that Treasurer Wayne Swan understands this. “If it was up to Joe Hockey, we’d still be talking to each other using two cans and a piece of string,” his office reportedly told AAP — ZDNet.com.au story here. A bit of an exaggeration, but apt ;)
Image credit: Office of Joe Hockey
What a moron.
http://i.imgur.com/zedIR.jpg
That’s cruel Hubert Cumberdale.
What have the 3 stooges ever done to deserve that?
;)
‘About a billion studies have shown that next-generation broadband infrastructure helps drastically improve productivity through the rapid uptake of new technology in the workplace.’
Well putting aside the ‘billion studies’ as you maybe getting over excited because you just won a Starcraft 2 game or Australia just winning in Sydney, have you any particular ONE study in mind here on the scale of a 93% rollout to residences/workplaces of any particular country?
well you’ve only got to look at emerging nations to see how infrastructure improvements result in improved productivity.
Which emerging nations and what productivity improvements have been attributed to FTTH?
countries like the ones mentioned here.
http://ftthcouncilap.org/
Thats not proving your point at all…..
Its not relative to the case in hand at Australia
that never stops turnbull and abbott from using overseas examples, which also aren’t relevant to the case at hand in australia.
Actually in terms of population density and similarity in network topologies, NZ and Britain is as close to Australia as you can get (I guess you could also use Canada)
At least its much closer than asia, in every way possible (such as also taking into account economies)
So it’s relative “only when you want it to be”!
“At least its much closer than asia, in every way possible (such as also taking into account economies)”
remind me again where korea is.
Your point is?
you implied that asian countries were less relevant to australia in regards to the nbn.
and you know very well what my point was.
“Actually in terms of population density and similarity in network topologies, NZ and Britain is as close to Australia as you can get (I guess you could also use Canada)”
Australia has 3 people / SQ KM, Canada 3.4, UK 255 and New Zealand 16. So the only one at all similar to Australia in terms of population density is Canada.
It is plain stupid for the Liberals or anyone else to make direct comparisons to costs of rolling out broadband in countries with massively higher population densities, like the UK, New Zealand, or South Korea.
Australia is number 235 on the list of 241, one of the lowest population densities in the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density).
There is no wonder we are having to do something vastly different to almost every other country in the world. Our circumstances are vastly different to almost everyone else in the world.
We never seem to here much about Canada, maybe they have similar challenges to us.
Yeah, but as Conroy put it, 98% of our population lives in like 1% of our landmass
Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaid, Darwin and Perth already hold 70% of Australia’s population, and the population of these cities is comparable to the density of those countries (in general).
You can look up the population densities on wikipedia if you don’t believe me
In any case, countries like South Korea and Japan are by far as different to Australia as you can get in terms of population distribution
and yet, south korea is used as a shining example of what we should be doing in australia with our NBN.
You seem to be implying that you think such a broadband network rollout would decrease productivity.
Quite frankly i think everyone here is tired of your “ZOMG WHERE DID YOU HEAR THAT” AND Z0MG SOURCES NAO” BS.
So that’s a no then, you don’t have anything either.
The logical “null hypothesis” here is that Australia will get similar productivity gains to other countries.
If you think that the actual situation will differ from what seems to be the norm, the burden of proof lies with you to show this.
What productivity gains of other countries?
Here’s a few examples.
But of course for the pedantic, I’m sure although comprehensively proving broadband and infrastructure builds is economically wise, it won’t answer your exact question, exactly as you want, pertaining to 93%. So therefore you will be able to ignore the facts.
Also, I’m sure alain belives that alain knows better than the UN, CSIRO, WSJ, Local Governments, etc, anyway.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904140604576493831749969702.html
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/244770,opinion-broadband-is-needed-and-needed-now.aspx
http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/388778/expert_nbn_audacious_it_exactly_what_we_need/#closeme
http://www.zdnet.com.au/productivity-risked-sans-nbn-local-govts-339317064.htm
http://www.smh.com.au/business/uns-communication-agency-backs-nbn-20110417-1djoo.html
No they are examples of what ‘might’ happen, anyone can spin a roulette wheel, I was after something more substantive like studies of Greenfield estates in Australia that have had FTTH for years , something along the lines that shows per capita income figures in these areas has rocketed because of all the boom IT industries that are queued up at the estate gates waiting to get in as they leave the BB poor suburbs in droves that are ‘suffering’ on HFC and ADSL2+.
I think it’s time to pull out the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations again eh RS?
Higher income does not equal better quality of life, or indicate increased increased productivity. These things are inherently difficult to measure. I think you know this and you are only asking for these studies because you know they couldn’t possibly exist with as specific information as you are looking for.
And there is no need to repeat yourself.
(To clarify, disapearing posts are usually because the post has been flagged for moderation or a bug in wordpress. If you post does not appear, and I learned this early on from Renai, it is best just to wait a few hours, and if that doesn’t work, send a message to Renai, his twitter usually suffices. If he doesn’t have it waiting to be moderated, then you might want to try posting again)
!! Embarrassing typo there. @renailemay
Well it actually kind of does, or its a major contributer
Australia has one of (if not the) highest minimum wage, and one of the highest average national incomes in the world, and we are 2nd on the HDI index (human development index)
No, not in this case. The problem is Alain wants to see if people in estates with FTTH have higher than average income than those that don’t.
If they do have higher income, the question then becomes, do they have higher income because of FTTH, or do they have FTTH because the estate was aimed at higher income families? Normalization becomes to a problem.
So telling us if people with FTTH have higher income than those that don’t doesn’t tell us anything. So even if you could use that data to calculate the higher or lower quality of life or productivity, which is very difficult, especially on such a small scale, how then do you prove that it is FTTH that enabled this?
So then you need to look at it on a larger scale, because the smaller scale has complications, and other problems come into to play, like cultural differences. And it becomes just as much as an educated guess as the reports Alain dismissed off hand as being theorizing bullshit. So we get back to where we started, Alain asking for data that doesn’t exist, instead of taking the existing data and looking at it objectively.
I should say data that doesn’t exist and a) won’t tell us anything useless and b) we can’t actually produce.
There are a few peer reviewed papers based on smaller scale fibre roll outs overseas. Not greenfield fibre but upgrades of existing infrastructure. Most of these are behind university pay walls and but you can often get to the abstract and conclusion. As I’ve notice with Allan he doesn’t seem to interested in educating himself as even a 30 sec google search is too much before sprouting his mouth off.
It’s no wonder he is against the NBN as educating oneself is an advantage offered by the internet and options for that education increase with more readily available bandwidth.
You can probably get a university paper that supports any position nowadays, you have to be very careful about providing some random paper to try and prove your argument, what matters is the arguments put forward
As has been shown here (http://www.commcham.com/superfast), a lot of such papers did things incorrectly/incorrectly and in some cases mathematically implausible. References in that paper are well document, and the proof is given there
So that’s a yes then!!!!!!
You know more than the CSIRO, UN and well everyone.
@Never again, I mean alain.
No they are examples from intelligent people, like the UN, CSIRO, local Gov.
So again that’s a yes, you claim to know more than them all.
*rolls eyes*
So how is that report about EXISTING ESTABLISHED FTTH areas here and overseas going, that tells all about why rolling FTTH to 93% of Australia’s homes so the majority can use it as a PSTN emulator and as the most expensive email retrieval and internet browser system in the history of BB infrastructure rollouts in the WORLD!!
All that simultaneous HD video conferencing that goes on behind the closed curtains in FTTH Greenfield estates here , it must be mind boggling!
@ Never Again alain, do you know better than the UN, CSIRO, LGA and WSJ?
I am not never again!
Perhaps it’s time to pull out the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations eh Never Again alain?
Here are a few examples.
Although, I’m sure you believe you know better than the UN, CSIRO, WSJ, Local Governments.
Of course, it won’t answer the question, exactly as you want. So therefore you will be able to ignore the overwhelming facts and continue on your own blinkered outlook. But the rest can gauge it logically.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904140604576493831749969702.html
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/244770,opinion-broadband-is-needed-and-needed-now.aspx
http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/388778/expert_nbn_audacious_it_exactly_what_we_need/#closeme
http://www.zdnet.com.au/productivity-risked-sans-nbn-local-govts-339317064.htm
http://www.smh.com.au/business/uns-communication-agency-backs-nbn-20110417-1djoo.html
Yes we can all quote stacked biased links until the cows come home, of course that is all based on what ‘might happen’, I can roll dice as well.
How about some actual historical data and not future theorising BS, something along the lines that Greenfield estates that have had FTTH for years have a higher per capita income than areas that do not have FTTH, based on all those IT companies established and start-ups flocking to those estates from ‘BB poor suburbs’ that have to ‘suffer’ using ADSL2+ and HFC.
This not a deliberate repeat, my first post disappeared now has reappeared again??
No when you are dealing with immaturity it is always best to say it twice.
So did you get it 2nd time?
Higher income does not equal better quality of life, or indicate increased increased productivity. These things are inherently difficult to measure. I think you know this and you are only asking for these studies because you know they couldn’t possibly exist with as specific information as you are looking for.
Well it’s mazing when the question is asked you respond with the specific information is not available, but that doesn’t stop the BS when it comes to promoting the NBN FTTH when it suits to push an agenda.
Much of NBN promotion is based on generic BS political based terms like ‘nation building’, ‘social benefits’, ‘we will be left behind in the digital age’ etc etc.
When pinned down to explain how you quantify all of this and what has FTTH in use here and overseas shown us it all gets too awkward and waved off with a dismissive glib ‘that sort of info is not available’.
In the meantime we have to keep that rollout to 93% of Australian residences going.
No, alain, I was first pointing out that the specific thing you asked for, higher income, is a useless metric. I then further pointed out to you that metrics that would give you the information you want are difficult to measure, like productivity and quality of life.
So much so that studies that focus on these areas do not actually have as fine grained as you’re requesting (looking at only FTTH estates vs the rest of the country), nor can they easily effectively isolate the broadband infrastructure as the cause of higher productivity and quality of life.
The fact is, it is always going to be “iffy” with the data. You rejecting “theoretical” studies out of hand only serves to limit the data pool you have available to you. Instead, why don’t you actually show intelligence and find specific problems with the assumptions and modeling these theoretical studies have made.
Because rejecting the entire study on account of it being “future theorizing bullshit” shows that all you have here is political bias. In all cases, including FTTN, we are making an educated guess. But if you want to play it safe and wait until someone else has done it first, and then further wait to see what impact it had on their societies development, and then further wait until another few societies copy the original society to confirm the findings and isolate the infrastructure upgrades as the actual, rather than probable, cause of the changes, go right a head. Just don’t do it here in Australia, because if there is someone we can agree on, our Broadband Infrastructure is inadequate and requires investment.
Why ask if you re not mature enough to comprehend the answer?
You’re a fxcking LEGEND Joe!!!
commonsense tells us Labor’s wasteful NBN detracts from productivity from a macro perspective.
why is that?
well, why won’t the “private sector” undertake such an extravagant project with dubious/low ROI in the first place?
simply because the same precious resources that the Labor fools are misdirecting into this grand white elephant project would have been more profitably employed in other higher yielding projects. this goes right into the heart of the concept of “opportunity cost”.
by subverting market signals and commandeering national resources into a wasteful project which promises little (or, most likely, negative) return, the productivity benefits to the macro economy from deploying capital in an efficient manner are reduced.
does that mean individual entities won’t gain from the NBN (at the expense of broader national welfare)? of course, not. among others, people who wish to run a business from home, but are too cheap to fork out for a business grade internet connection will benefit.
as an analogy, when the State Governments throw taxpayer subsidies at domestic car plants to postpone the inevitable closure of uneconomic factories, narrow segments within the local car industry benefit. but, the State economy, as a whole, suffers in the long run because the precious capital extracted from taxpayers is malinvested in dud projects at the whim of ignorant politicians.
Common sense tells us that the government has different responsibilities than a private sector organisation, whose only responsibility is to legally acquire as large a profit each financial year as possible. Fortunate are we that our government is not bound to seek a monetary return on every investment they make, allowing our elected representatives to invest in loss leading projects that will ultimately have a positive benefit on the lives of all Australians.
Furthermore the government are neither subverting market signals nor are the commandeering national resources. You must be listening to very different market signals than other people! And it is impossible for a government to commandeer national resources as it is their responsibility to manage and direct national resources for the good of its citizens.
Also, your analogy is terrible. The NBN is more akin to upgrading road infrastructure than a state government injecting funds into domestic car plants, but like much of your comment it looks like you spent time typing it out simply because you object to the NBN. I trust you are consistent and object to the Liberal alternative as well?
+1
-5.
— “allowing our elected representatives to invest in loss leading projects” —
this is the only correct statement (or inference) you have made in your entire reply.
spot on. Labor’s NBN will destroy value. forget about interest on capital or a positive return. NBNco will not even be able to recover the gross capital outlay (or principal) sunk into this white elephant project.
there’s only one comment made by Quigley in the Senate hearings you should pay attention to: “i’m an engineer, not an economist”.
this explains why the so-called “business plan” is a crock of shit…. full of unsubstantiated assumptions and projections, with zero benchmarking to international market experience. a complete embarrassment and an insult to the Australian taxpayer.
but, since you agree Labor’s NBN is a loss-making project, i don’t need to elaborate any further.
That fact that you think a business even needs to repay its gross capital outlay tends to indicates you have no experience in private enterprise. Gross capital debt on business investments often doesn’t get paid down until until sold, unless the business is doing particularly well and is not ready for expansion. When making large purchases we ask ourselves a few questions. How much debt does this purchase require us to take on? How much revenue will this generate? Will it reduce costs in other areas(labour being the main one)? Will it allow to generate extra revenue from other investment already made? If the extra revenue generated exceeds the cost to services debt taking into account depreciation on the asset purchased plus some profit(amount of profit needed depends on how mush risk is involved), items in your core business is usually lower risk. This is the reason why business will sell off profitable business not in their core business because the risk profile is considered higher for those non core arms.
Is the NBN core business of government? I think making infrastructure available to business and the general public is one of the reasons governments exist.
Will the revenue from NBNco service its debt and cover any depreciation in value? Highly likely
Will NBNco be able to repay its debt? Maybe not, Labor thinks so the CLP don’t. It doesn’t actually matter as long as it can service debt and maintain capital value relative to the debt. CLP seem to think repaying debt is king, the general public have been told for the last decade or so government debt is bad, not all debt is bad, debt that you can’t service or maintain value on is bad.
Is 7% return worth the risk? The government seems to think so. 7% is only the direct monetary return, improving infrastructure does see an increase in productivity over time. Most infrastructure is built with that increase in productivity as the only return, NBNco is expected to service its debt and pay 7% on top of that.
The CLP repaid the debt is their economic credential they like to quote they primarily achieved this by selling off assets; Telstra was the big one. Should Telstra have been sold? Maybe.
Telstra was able service a debt worth it realised capital value when sold plus a bit extra for government. Don’t have the figures handy but say telstra was sold for $50billion, it cost $2.5billion a year to service a $50billion debt, telstra brings is $5billion a year paying $2.5 billion to service the debt leaving $2.5 billion to either pay down the debt or spend elsewhere. Would you sell Telstra? Yes only if they 5% return isn’t enough to cover the risk of $50billion dollar debt. The one thing that pushed the risk up for the government is Telstra retailing direct to customers is non core business. Could they have sold the non-core components owned the infrastructure, while still maintain the debt of the core component. We will never know mostly because of the mantra all debt is bad it wasn’t even considered. NBNco is an attempt to rebuild that core component in way that services it debt.
— That fact that you think a business even needs to repay its gross capital outlay tends to indicates you have no experience in private enterprise. Gross capital debt on business investments often doesn’t get paid down until until sold, unless the business is doing particularly well and is not ready for expansion. —
there is no such thing as gross capital debt. you are confusing the asset sitting on the balance sheet with how it is funded on the liabilities side of the ledger.
capital investments require a finite payback period and are depreciated accordingly. this is why viable infrastructure companies generate huge cash flows (EBITDA) but make very little “accounting profit” (NPAT).
— Will NBNco be able to repay its debt? —
NBNco will not be able to service its debt (let alone repay it) because the assets sitting on its balance sheet will never generate the required revenue to support carrying them at full historical cost.
the rest of your reply is just plain nonsense.
The cost of the NBN on the balance sheet has nothing to do with the ability to repay the cost of the NBN, its just an accounting function.
what will determine the ability of the NBN to repay its debt will be its ability to generate enough revenue to cover the interest / capital payback and running costs of the company.
This IMO will not happen for a long time yet (post 2035) as the NBN is not been implemented on a commercial basis, it is been rolled out on a for social good basis which means that profit and cash generation are a long way last to social benefits to society.
the cost on the balance sheet only comes to play when you want to refinance / raise funds etc.
cost and cash generation are two completely different things.
— The cost of the NBN on the balance sheet has nothing to do with the ability to repay the cost of the NBN, its just an accounting function. —
the Labor Government is capitalising the entire cost of building the NBN in a separate entity with its own balance sheet. this is not because the eventual cost will be recoverable from future revenues, but simply because there is no room in the Federal Budget for such an extravagant project. Labor’s NBN is purely a political stunt.
when the Liberals inherit this mess, not only will they have to halt this crazy universal fibre scheme, they will also have to write down the book value of the white elephant assets sitting on NBNco’s balance sheet to the true value and realise (or expense) the loss immediately in the Federal Budget. this is completely unavoidable and is in keeping with proper fiscal accounting (something Labor politicians are only too happy to flaunt).
— This IMO will not happen for a long time yet (post 2035) as the NBN is not been implemented on a commercial basis, it is been rolled out on a for social good basis which means that profit and cash generation are a long way last to social benefits to society. —
Labor’s NBN is not commercial and will never be. the words “NBN” and “commercial” do not belong together in the same sentence. there are no “social benefits” to building white elephants.
@Chris
‘Fortunate are we that our government is not bound to seek a monetary return on every investment they make’
Except the Labot Government have stated the NBN investment will have a monetary return and it is quoted at 7%.
‘ allowing our elected representatives to invest in loss leading projects that will ultimately have a positive benefit on the lives of all Australians.’
The term loss leading indicates that they make their money from the NBN from elsewhere, also I would agree with you if the quoted ROI was -7% not +7%, and the positive benefits is just an assumption, not a given.
‘Furthermore the government are neither subverting market signals nor are the commandeering national resources.’
No paying billions so that Telstra and Optus shut down their fixed line choices so that everyone is forced onto the NBN is not ‘commandeering’ at all. lol
‘Also, your analogy is terrible. The NBN is more akin to upgrading road infrastructure than a state government injecting funds into domestic car plants’
What you fail to mention is that existing working infrastructure is ripped up to ensure the new infrastructure is used.
The existing ‘obsolete telephone network’ which was never meant for internet access and simnply can’t handle internet access, is being ripped up?
Yeah so, it’s obsolete, like gramophones and 50’s conservatives like Abbott.
By the way, did you see Kodak are apparently going to file for bankruptcy? Apparently because we have all been ‘forced’ to use digital cameras.
Your such a dumbsh!t Whingecommander, Kodak helped INVENT digital cameras & media….do some reading you fool….ooh shit that’s right, unless it comes as official Labor Party memo you through all else in the bin…utter utter moron!!
Yes thank you alain.
Regardless they look as though they are filing for bankruptcy, so speaking of morons and uneducated morons at that.
http://www.zdnet.com.au/kodak-wont-be-the-last-digital-photo-victim-339329080.htm
So please carry on alain, you are entertaining us all immensely, with your even sillier than usual, alter ego.
That is NOT me, you are really so desperate to point score in here, which is a losing battle, always has been in your many name changes to avoid Delimiter bans.
Yes we know thats NOT ;-) you, never again alain.
Quick question…back to basics.
How is a NBN supplied broadband service going to make a business flourish over their current broadband service from Optus/Telstra/iinet etc, as most (if not all) of the rollouts so far are already covered by similar services?
And a comment on the line about Optus and Telstra “handing over their customers”.
The only customers affected will be those currently with Copper based (mainly ADSL) services.
Renai, you seem to forget about the extensive fibre networks that the carriers currently have spanning the country (and in most NBN zones) which will remain with the carriers and servicing their existing enterprise and government customers.
The majority of people affected will be the mums and dads(grandmas and grandpas) that have their phone cut off and are told they HAVE to have this amazing new invention.
@TimB
” The majority of people affected will be the mums and dads(grandmas and grandpas) that have their phone cut off and are told they HAVE to have this amazing new invention. ”
Since when have phones going to be cut off?
Migrated to fiber installed by NBN Co I understand.
Cut off sounds like pure unadulterated bullshit.
Are you a Coalition IT adviser by any chance?
Thanks Bob.
Well, as the copper is being decommisioned the general public using PSTN and an analogue handset will have to find alternate means of communication/connection.
Most service providers will offer a VOIP style service, but no costs have been set as yet.
Whatever the outcome it means you, me and everybody will be paying more for not much more…and so will our great, great grand kids.
Biggest waste of money every…
You need to get up to date with your research, in particular the legacy capabilities of the ONT.
Yes we all know about the ‘legacy capabilities’ of the ONT, as in a service hung off the UNI-V port, it has been flogged to death in Delimiter discussions before, what we need to know is what a residence pays for legacy capability assuming ALL they want is a legacy capability service.
!!
Yes, this has been flogged to death. Including the FAQ entry at NBN.gov.au that we keep giving you, and the fact that until retails actually release pricing all you are doing is trolling and spreading panic.
So would you please, for the love of humanity, shut the hell up about PSTN until we have more information. There is absolutely NOTHING you can say at this point in time that a) has not already been said or b) will change the fact that we don’t know yet. However we have it right there, in plain text, a promise that people will not pay more than they pay now, which logically means that NBNCo will need to release an emulation only connection for less than the minimum $24.
I understand it not being available during the trial period, NBN Plans are commercially available from a number of ISP’s and have been for a few months now, where is it?
I assume a residences in current active NBN areas that only have Telstra Homeline Budget and no fixed line BB and a free install of a ONT box powers the ONT box and stays on PSTN until further notice, why?
What part of we don’t know yet do you not understand?
Well we do understand, the quoted minimum wholesale in the NBN Business plan NBN $24 + GST + reatil margin does not equal Telstra HLB, you and I can fully understand the -cough-cough- ‘delay’ eh?
I swear one day someone is going to lose patience with you, track you down in real life, and punch you in the face. Fortunately for you, I have better things to do.
I take that as a personal attack.
I said twice we don’t know and twice you attempted to distract from that fact and ask us for information we couldn’t possibly know the answer to.
It wasn’t a person attack, it was a hint to STFU and be patient by waiting until we have more information.
So much for this “never again alain”
http://delimiter.com.au/2012/01/04/the-five-nbn-misconceptions-of-tony-abbott/#comment-294685
The lack of common sense and immaturity in relation to the ‘real world’ is bewildering, from some here, not mentioning any names never again (also known as alain). But then I guess the mission statement is to demolish the NBN.
We have those like you here here who will argue that we are being forced onto fibre (but will ignore that we have, using your own guidelines, been forced onto copper, forced from analogue to digital, from dirt to sealed roads etc).
If the Coalition win the next election and build FTTN are we being forced to use their fibre/Telstra’s copper too?
Perhaps I should start arguing, about being doubly forced? *rolls eyes*
Now we have another petty argument based around legacy capabilities (or voice only, I assume). Seriously it’s a bit like arguing that TV reception has hundreds of stations available but what about those people who only watch the ABC. Or a closer to home analogy! How about those who purchase a mobile phone and only want to make phone calls, gasp. Where’s the universal legacy capability, why are they paying for data?
But I suppose we should pity those sent out on the mission who are being disproved at every turn. They must at least try something, no matter how utterly ridiculous it is and foolish they come across as/are!
‘The lack of common sense and immaturity in relation to the ‘real world’ is bewildering,’
That coming from you as the most frequently banned poster in the history of Delimiter is one of the best examples of blatant hypocrisy you will ever see in your long history of blatant hypocrisy posting in your many multiple name disguises to avoid bans.
Do you always go the personal route when your lack of common sense comes inevitably flooding through?
i find it interesting that hockey is the one who claimed it is detracting from productivity and yet the nbn supporters are the ones who have to provide proof on why it isn’t.
where is hockey’s proof that it is detracting from productivity?
I read that as he meant the government could be more productive with the resources (time & $ doing something else.
I didn’t see it as meaning that the NBN or higher network capabilities would not be productive.
@Hitchy
Yes, that is how I read it too. But it still doesn’t make sense.
Is Hokcey suggesting a Coalition government would spend that $30 Billion…..what? Roads? Nope, has to be on-budget, no return. Hospitals? Same. Education? Same.
What does Joe think is “more” productive to do with the money? What is MORE likely to generate a return for government?
Someone let Joe know that Tony Abbott detracts from productivity in the Coalition.
Irony: a politician complaining about productivity losses.
Ugh, not getting involved in this commenting today. Trolls, idealists and non-logic is out in force….
But for posterity….
Joe…..you’re a numpty. I don’t like Swan and I’d trust him more with my OWN money than I’d ever trust you even with the Budget…..
you did observe the date on that post yeah..?. lol
@Anthony
lol….nope. People always said I was slow….
Comments are closed.