| Comments on: Unwarranted |
| The Government continues to trumpet the need for an FTTP NBN, but the facts say that the benefits aren't as big as they say. Do you agree? |
| |
|
Add your comments, thoughts, critisisms and support. Any publically offensive content will be sensored by the moderator.
|
|
| Todd Hubers [2010-09-07 09:10:01] |
| That's what this website is for. To cut through the politics and just display the figures from our side of the fence. "26bn over 10 years is $2.6bn" - that's a poor method of debate, because 1. The total cost is $43bn 2. and that will result in higher monthly subscription rates. 3. A more affordable option - say the coalitions $6bn over 10 years is 0.6bn. "What if I told you we spend $560bn on Healthcare" If we lost the internet for a day we wouldn't lose lives, if we lost health care for a day we would. "What about $1.1 trillion on welfare", everything is budgeted for where there is need. "$26bn is chickenfeed for the government", no it's not, you only spend money you have. The government would have to borrow that amount of money. The benefits of an NBN are marginal at best, so why waste $43bn on that when there are many more affordable options, which provide the same or even better marginal benefits? |
|
| Gav [2010-09-05 19:16:44] |
| I don't understand why people think the NBN is so expensive.
Stop looking at the NBN as only a price tag, I would rather a $26bn something than Abbot's $6bn nothing.
But that aside, $26bn over 10 years is $2.6bn/year - what would you say if I told you we spend $560bn on Healthcare in the same time? nothing? What about $1.1 trillion on welfare?
$26bn is chickenfeed for the government. |
|
| Todd [2010-08-17 08:51:56] |
| Hi Jamm, that's exactly the feeling the Government is trying to give people - that's what they're marketing - prestige. But if you look at the facts, and not the spin, you will see - yes there are benefits, but none that justify the cost. |
|
| Jamm [2010-08-16 19:58:06] |
| This is absolutely guess-work... NBN will make you happy in the end so stop living under a rock and live a life where everything is seamless. Seamless internet = the future of 1st world nations. |
|
| Todd [2010-07-28 14:46:15] |
| Sorry about the delay (I've been busy). Certainly true, that you can't stream several channels over ADSL2+. 1) Why do that when we already have a successful established DTV system? 2) HD TV is no more productive than SD TV. It can certainly boost the economy, but doesn't export anything from the country. 3) IPTV is about watching shows when you want - a replacement of FTA TV. Your TV caches your favorite shows and new releases, and they're waiting for you when you want them.
Finally, I've maintain that affordable broadband is still up for grabs. I point out the Unwarrented graph to show that you can't claim "productivity" as a reason for allowing a $43bn NBN plan. If it's affordable and as fast as 100Mbps, then who cares about productivity, it's simply another successful product on the market.
I claim that the NBN plan is flawed and could be executed more cost effectively. |
|
| Daniel Brown [2009-12-19 17:22:15] |
| On your point of: Those who have broadband today could watch HD TV
While a small precent of people can watch HD TV now over the internet, the ability for the major of TV to come over the interest is not possible.
This is due to the limitation of bandwidth at the back end and the over-subscription of ISPs now. |
|
| Todd Hubers [2009-11-17 16:56:35] |
| The figures are indeed "guesswork" - albeit common sense. Given the productivity line has no scale, it's there to just show where productivity goes "down". You are invited to argue any of the data points, but I think it's safe to say that watching Terminator 3 is less productive than sending emails at work. |
|
| Simon Shaw [2009-11-17 16:35:48] |
| Can you please site the exact source of the figures below. Productivity is shown as indicative. Does this mean the figures are sourced from somewhere or just guesswork? |
|
