mike smith wrote:
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 7:52 AM, David Connors <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 3:21 AM, Les Hughes <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
My opinion: Labor's NBN is a good idea. In reality it will
probably take 2, 3, or more times as long, and be the same in
cost. Is fibre great? Sure. Is fibre great at $10,000+ per
house. No. Is $10,000 fibre per house even better when it's
all controlled by a government monopoly? Yes! Whoops, I mean
@#*&#*&*$ NOOO!
If one accepts the idea that fast broadband will economically
revolutionise the country by allowing people to do all sorts of
high bandwidth stuff, then the CVC charges need to go - full stop.
The direct result of that is that the project needs to be not
treated as an investment with a financial return, but just treated
as a social welfare project and moved onto the appropriate place
in the budget with health, education, etc.
Somewhat ironically, I would have a lot less of a problem with the
project if the government did that: Call a spade a spade.
Bonus question: If you were spending your personal money on a
project that was proceeding at <1% of its stated goals, how long
would you continue investing?
How long did people invest in Amazon? For years it ran in the red,
and I bet that wasn't a goal.
And if they failed, it didn't cost me $1000's. If they run over budget,
and their products were unviable, the market would punish them. No such
mechanism exists with government "investment".
There is a big difference regarding public risk that will benefit
corporations vs. corporate risk.
--
Les Hughes
[email protected]
