longweekend58 wrote on Feb 28^th, 2013 at 9:18am:


The only people I hear objecting to the NBN are vested interests & those here who want a Liberal government.

Everyone I talk to in R/L is bitching that they have to wait.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 28^th, 2013 at 9:25am:


and it only costs $50BILLION to get more payTV???  marvellous. no wonder you support labor. you obviously cannot concieve of just how much that is.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 28^th, 2013 at 9:30am:


Obviously  you are trolling, but the NBN is a lot more than pay TV. 

NBN is the only high speed telecommunications proposal that actually treats rural people the same as city people. Im constantly suprised that the nationals are against it.... or are they ?

PayTV providers (more than one in this new wholesale market) will be paying the NBN to use its infrastructure, rather than being shut out of the foxtel infrastructure.   Phone carriers, internet providers will be PAYING to use the NBN.  New interactive services in education, health and sciences will be PAYING to use the NBN. 

This is how the NBN will generate money, generate money to pay for itself and be a lucrative asset, so, in the due course of time a future liberal government can sell it off as a private monopoly which can again screw its customers (like airports), while patting themselves on the back that they produced a surplus.... and so the cycle will begin again. 


One thing you can rely on is a liberal government to take something that was free and cheap and make it exclusive and expensive.

Maqqa wrote on Feb 28^th, 2013 at 9:55am:


Stupid question, by the party hack.

Leaving party hacks aside, as a political issue the NBN is simple.   If you believe in creating and supporting private monopolies (and Howard created a few) then you are against the NBN.

If however, you believe that an open telecommunications industry will be part of our services economy long after the last mine has poluted the last river, then you are in favour of NBN like infrastructure.

If you want a programme to pay for itself, you roll it out where it makes the most economic sense.

Rolling it out first to people who live in the middle of fking nowhere makes no sense whatsoever.

You should have a 2 tier system with the capital cities receiving the most expensive, fastest network and then the countryside receiving it later on down the track when the additional capital can afford to do it.

Rolling it out to the hillbillies who live about 5 miles from each neighbour makes no economic sense whatsoever.

Honestly, I don't think public servants ever have the first clue as to how to run something within budget.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 28^th, 2013 at 10:28am:


Stupid statement again by the one whose short term horizon doesnt extend past 6 months.

In Australia, most city resident have access to "broadband" (I use the term loosely), so it makes sense if you are rolling out an AUSTRALIA-WIDE scheme, you target those who do not have broadband at all (rural) first.  Biggest impact first.

Anyway, the NBN Co doesnt seem to be playing politics at all. City vs Country vs labor vs liberal seats seem to be given equal weighting in the rollout.

Maqqa wrote on Feb 28^th, 2013 at 10:37am:


Even Christopher Pyne wouldnt say something that stupid, party hack.

The deliverable of NBN has changed a lot since the first figure (which wasnt a promise).  In fact anyone with a brain would say they were two seperate things.