Mmmm … As it stands, most estimates nowadays are that the MTM NBN will redeem less than $30 billion of its capital costs when on-sold to a gullible private industry. Thats a $30 billion capital loss on the books after sale.
Personally I doubt whether it’s worth even $20 billion …. but a non-gullible Telstra or other big player may be able to depreciate it quickly on their books … and hey, Telstra has gotten $11-15 billion out of the government for the initial build anyway - for ducts and services - before they have to go to/build fibre as they should have done in the first place. Hey, the telcos will have a clientele (the Australian public) trapped in 20th Century network performance envelope … but that won’t worry them. Mr Broadband is building us a $60 billion White Elephant that everybody seems t think is a colossal waste of money … and all for politics. All because the MTM ‘idea' (and I use that term loosely) isn’t Labor’s. Sadly, if this matter is allowed to die in the coming long election campaign nobody will be held accountable for this debacle - and Mr Broadband really deserves some real public attention for this waste of public monies and ever so damaging politicking. Just my 2 cents worth … ---- > On 22 Mar 2016, at 6:41 AM, Paul Brooks <[email protected]> wrote: > > By building for the far-off future - which doesn't require significantly more > upfront cost - makes it more likely to make a financial return, not less > likely, by extending the time period they can receive wholesale rental > revenue by a decade or more. > > > -------- Original Message -------- > From: David Boxall <[email protected]> > Sent: 21 March 2016 8:53:16 pm AEDT > To: Link <[email protected]> > Subject: [LINK] NBN chief seeks advice of US tech giants as broadband > technology debate rages > > <http://www.afr.com/technology/web/nbn/nbn-chief-seeks-advice-of-us-tech-giants-as-broadband-technology-debate-rages-20160318-gnlxcp> >> He said those advocating for NBN to build for the far-off future were >> ignoring the fact that it was set up as an enterprise required to make >> a financial return, rather than as a public service. > > Can't have government providing services, can we? > > -- > David Boxall | "Cheer up" they said. > | "Things could be worse." > http://david.boxall.id.au | So I cheered up and, > | Sure enough, things got worse. > | --Murphy's musing > > _______________________________________________ > Link mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link > > -- > Sent unplugged > _______________________________________________ > Link mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link _______________________________________________ Link mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
