atw: National Broadband Network issue - very OT now.
- From: "bja" <moo-man@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 21:09:56 +1000
LOL. You have gotta love this list at times. :)
Now it's my turn ...
As I sit here looking at my latest CityLink statement, I am reminded that
sometimes the user is forced to pay for basic infrastructure if they want to
make use of it. To me, this is very annoying when the Scoresby FREEWAY,
which was 20 years in the pipeline as upcoming taxpayer-funded
infrastructure, became the EastLink TOLLWAY, and has the honour of now
making up most of my CityLink bill each month.
And since I am forced to either pay for the tollway or get off the tollway,
I sorta feel the NBN should be the same, because I'm happy enough with
copper and don't want to pay for fibre with my taxes.
I don't download much and my cable connection suits my needs. My real
problem is with Optus, who play with the bandwidth they buy from Telstra to
save money, and I doubt this will change (except 'Telstra' will be replaced
by the NBN). Amazingly though, I haven't heard anyone talking about THAT
very real reason for speed degradation.
As for the NBN, even if it can, in theory, give a zillion bits per second,
if the service providers are not forced to guarantee bandwidth/speed during
peak times, then it will be the
same as it is now, so what's the point?
So I reiterate, why should I pay to help someone else download movies etc at
a faster speed when I don't have that need, and when nobody pays to help me
drive on the tollway to get faster speeds.
User pays everyone. If you live east of Melbourne, that's just what we do so
why should we change now?
And I will make one final point to those running around in little circles
chewing their fingernails with a desperate look on their faces saying "give
me faster", "give me faster". I equate the 'need for broadband speed' as I
do with those wanting a car capable of 200kph when they can only legally
drive around town at half that speed or less. "Regardless of speed, I just
want it faster" is okay, but only if you want to pay for it because I don't
want to?or did I already say that. :)
My 0.03¢.
:)
Cheers,
Bruce
_____
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Marnell
Sent: Wednesday, 18 August 2010 3:49 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: National Broadband Network issue
Hi Rod,
This is rather controversial for a technical writing list, but since you
raise it let me ask you this. Do you think there would ever be an
entrepreneur willing to fund the defence forces? Build roads and bridges?
Provide schools and hospitals accessible by all citizens regardless of
wealth? Might it not be that the NBN policy, for all its warts, has been
proposed precisely because no profit-motivated entrepreneur would put money
into it? Did the first university begin as a profit-driven initiative? Or
did the value of education out-strip the monetary value of the the land,
bricks and mortar? Might not the same argument apply to the NBN?
You can call it socialism if you like, but I'm very happy paying taxes for
initiatives that provide lasting value and aspire to something other than
minimising costs. (On the cost-only model we would have none of the
architectural and artistic wonders of the world. And how emotionally
deadening would that be.) The fact that governments can and do waste money
is no reason not to give money to governments. We need them as much as a
meeting needs a chairperson. And therein lies the contradiction in Margaret
Thatcher. She declares that the homo sapiens is not a social beast but a
purely an individualist assemblage of value-less matter striving for
self-pleasure and then runs for parliament, pouring money into defence and
many other natural monopolies that help the many regardless of their ability
to pay. Show me one neo-liberal who really believes that every function, and
I mean every function, of society can and should be out-sourced to private
enterprise.
I sincerely hope you don't need an ambulance this evening.
Geoffrey Marnell
Principal Consultant
Abelard Consulting Pty Ltd
T: +61 3 9596 3456
F: +61 3 9596 3625
W: <http://www.abelard.com.au/> www.abelard.com.au
Skype: geoffrey.marnell
_____
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rod Stuart
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 3:22 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: National Broadband Network issue
If Australia were a bastion of free enterprise capitalism rather than a sort
of socialist quagmire, some entrepreneur no doubt would have conceived of a
fibre-optic network, completed a comprehensive market survey, created a
business plan, written a prospectus, and floated it as an IPO on the stock
exchange.
How many citizens just itching to download movies faster do you suppose
would have been willing to invest the required $10,000 per household in
shares?
If this ridiculous proposal put forward as a political gimmick is an
"investment", then it should follow that individuals have the freedom to
choose to invest or not to invest. At some future juncture then individuals
would also have the choice as when to sell.
As Margaret Thatcher is attributed with saying, "Eventually, Socialists run
out of other peoples' money to spend." That day of reckoning is not far
away.
Socialism is nothing if it is not a jackboot on the face of humanity.
On 18 August 2010 13:17, WongWord@xxxxxxxxx <wongword@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In a few years time a govt can privatise the NBN for who knows what ...$430
million?
I agree not everything needs to be privatised at all costs. But what I am
saying is that the current NBN doesn't mean it needs to be a public
enterprise for ever and ever if that is your economic/politcal bent.
But let's give the whole of Australia a fair go. I feel the need and I'm
only on the outskirts of Sydney.
I am originally from Tasmania and let me tell you that if it wasn't for ABC
radio my childhood would have been a far more isolated one. I would never
have been exposed to the information and entertainment what was available by
a truly national broadcaster.
Irene Wong
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Johnson <mailto:peterjohnson.oz@xxxxxxxxx>
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 11:09 AM
Subject: atw: Re: National Broadband Network issue
Thanks for that Rhonda. I think your email sums it up pretty well. It's
about time we as a society departed from the market "god" concept &
"privatisation at all costs" attitude. There are some things that need a
national unified approach & I think in this instance it is appropriate for
government to at least initiate it. The NBN is an investment, just like
education, roads, rail, public health etc.
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 08:24, Rhonda Bracey
<rhonda.bracey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi all
I've never been one discuss politics (or even been interested too much
in the 'issues' surrounding an election). And I have no intention of
starting a discussion about politics here.
However, for many of you who work from home (whether in the city or
not), or who would like to work from home, the National Broadband
Network issue is one that affects you directly.
I blogged about my stance on this critical issue to my ability to work
here:
http://cybertext.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/letter-to-local-member-of-parl
<http://cybertext.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/letter-to-local-member-of-parl%0A
iament-re-the-nbn/>
iament-re-the-nbn/ (or http://bit.ly/aewMZq)
The NBN is something I feel very passionate about, and even more so
since having an email discussion yesterday with Helen, a member of
another list I'm on. Helen has moved from Pemberton, WA to a property
about an hour south of Perth. She cannot even get phone, let alone
internet on her new property. As her internet access is severely
limited, I'll quote from an email she wrote to me today when she was
back in Pemberton:
"We are fed up with them, whoever 'they' are. We have had to have
satellite internet here because we are 100m from a hub/rim, in spite of
campaigning to get internet here, which everyone else does have now,
except us. The phone line (180m) was laid and connected on Friday only
for them to 'discover' there is a fault on the town side of the line.
The fault is, just like your cake, there was one 'pair gain' whatever
left for us to have and it has a fault. You can't tell me they didn't
know that, and that is why it was left. So no phone and no internet."
And this is an hour out of a major capital city, not woop-woop.
Some 50+ years ago an Australian government had the vision to lay copper
lines throughout the country to provide us with an (almost) universal
telephone service. Now a government wants to do a similarly large
infrastructure project, this time with materials that should last a
further 50+ years, but the opposition wants to keep us in the dark ages
of a failing copper wire network (and boy, have I had experience of it
failing!), or build thousands more mobile phone towers to provide us
with a slow satellite service.
I'll shut up now.
Rhonda
Rhonda Bracey
rhonda.bracey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.cybertext.com.au
CyberText Newsletter/blog: http://cybertext.wordpress.com
Author-it Certified Consultant
**************************************************
To view the austechwriter archives, go to
www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter
To unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
"unsubscribe" in the Subject field (without quotes).
To manage your subscription (e.g., set and unset DIGEST and VACATION modes)
go to www.freelists.org/list/austechwriter
To contact the list administrator, send a message to
austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
**************************************************
--
Rod Stuart
6 Brickhill Drive
Dilston, TAS 7252, Australia
<rod.stuart@xxxxxxxxx>
M((040) 184 6575 V(03) 6312 5399
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.441 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3079 - Release Date: 08/18/10
06:35:00
Other related posts:
- » atw: National Broadband Network issue - very OT now. - bja
