Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

lol.....good luck with that.

It's simple year 8 maths buffed. Even someone lazy enough to be allowed to work for the public service like yourself should be able to work it out.

Capital expenditure on infrastructure like roads and bridges don't typically bring in their own revenue (unless you put toll booths on them) so is essentially paid entirely by the taxpayer.

In the case on the NBN they will be renting out the service as they lay it out. Based on their estimated takeup figures they estimated a 7% return on investment while in the rollout phase. In actual fact they have been having a higher takeup figure than expected so it's likely they will get higher than a 7% return.

The bonds they are issuing as they go will attract an average of 4% interest.

You do the rest buffed. What does 7% (return) - 4% (cost) = (profit)

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

so then why do you go around extolling the economic benefits as if they were easily quantified when clearly, you have no idea what those economic benfits will be?

This is the same stupid argument as your opposition to decriminalising drugs. There is a clear rationale for an economic benefit for both but your logic is "I don't believe the existing evidence that says it's going to provide an economic benefit, so that means there must be no evidence, so we shouldn't do it because we can't predict the future".

So where's your proof that building roads instead is going to provide a better economic benefit than an NBN?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griggle

It's simple year 8 maths buffed. Even someone lazy enough to be allowed to work for the public service like yourself should be able to work it out.

Capital expenditure on infrastructure like roads and bridges don't typically bring in their own revenue (unless you put toll booths on them) so is essentially paid entirely by the taxpayer.

In the case on the NBN they will be renting out the service as they lay it out. Based on their estimated takeup figures they estimated a 7% return on investment while in the rollout phase. In actual fact they have been having a higher takeup figure than expected so it's likely they will get higher than a 7% return.

The bonds they are issuing as they go will attract an average of 4% interest.

You do the rest buffed. What does 7% (return) - 4% (cost) = (profit)

lol

how much revenue have they brought in so far?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...-1226207543617

Griggle:

If you think that the opposition or anyone else for the matter is asking for a cost benefit analysis of the internet (which is distinctly different from the NBN). You cant be helped.

http://t.co/0gEWXAcK

my question to the Coalition is: Why do you continue to oppose this project and slam it at every opportunity, when the evidence is consistently showing that Australians far and wide, in the bush and in the city, have read the arguments and want it to go ahead? The nation is speaking here. But I don’t feel like the Coalition is listening.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abziie

Griggle:

If you think that the opposition or anyone else for the matter is asking for a cost benefit analysis of the internet (which is distinctly different from the NBN). You cant be helped.

Dude.

I just posted links of the Coalition's websites where they are clearly calling for a CBA on the NBN. I've never said they were calling for a CBA on the internet. I said they were calling for a CBA on the NBN.

You are trying to put words in my mouth to try and cover the fact I've just destroyed your argument. Someone can't be helped here and it's not me.

Buffed @ the owner of cable tv trying to highlight that if people don't download lots of movies the NBN won't make as much money. Desperation trying to save their dying business model much?

The NBN is behind on returns because they haven't been laying cable while they were negotiating with Telstra for use of their copper network. It's also behind on spending as a result of that so it all comes out about the same in the end.

Worth digging up this piece from 2010.

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics...ns-of-the-nbn/
(Link is down for the moment, use this: http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=au )

I've tuned out of the debate recently as it's a waste of energy, but indeed there were many calling for a CBA.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griggle

The NBN is behind on returns because they haven't been laying cable while they were negotiating with Telstra for use of their copper network. It's also behind on spending as a result of that so it all comes out about the same in the end.

lol, seriously

why don't you just say that you believe the NBN is a an important piece of social infrastructure and therefore the costs don't matter, because you look like an idiot trying to justify it on economic grounds

is a highway social or economic, buffed?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dbb618

is a highway social or economic, buffed?

both.

He doesn't look like an idiot, he's refuted your claims. Several times.

The NBN is also a piece of social and economic infrastructure, same as a highway. Would you have opposed the creation of the national highway system or sealed roads?

http://www.theage.com.au/digital-lif...516-1ypjm.html

"The Australian Bureau of Statistics internet activity report for 2010 shows that in December 2010, Australians downloaded 191,839 terabytes of information, almost twice as much as the year before.

But consider this: Google reckons we will create and exchange more data in the next four years than in the history of the world. Cisco has an index that says global online traffic will rise at 34 per cent each year from 2009 until 2014."

But don't worry, we've got enough infrastructure to take care of it. Shouldn't be a problem, just like we use exactly the same road infrastructure as we did in the 1960s, we shouldn't bother upgrading any telecommunications for a few decades either.

A cost-benefit analysis would almost inevitably sell the NBN short anyway- it's an investment in capacity for future applications, many of which haven't been created or though up yet. If you asked someone in 1992 to give us a cost-benefit analysis of improving internet infrastructure in Australia I doubt that they'd project half of what we are doing now, and would probably fall way short of the the current capacities and usage rates. The point of the NBN is to install as much future capacity as is practical with current technology- because if there's one thing the last few decades have taught us it's that the rate of growth and obsolescence in IT infrastructure is always going to be such that we'll make use of any capacity that we invest in within a reasonable short period. Half arsed solutions like FTTN are like buying a new PC with minimum specs, it'll work for most people for a short period of time but you're just bringing the next upgrade that much closer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abziie

You cant be helped.

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

you look like an idiot

Oh Snap!

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" Charles Darwin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fangoriously

He doesn't look like an idiot, he's refuted your claims. Several times.

The NBN is also a piece of social and economic infrastructure, same as a highway. Would you have opposed the creation of the national highway system or sealed roads?

Again, if the economic case is so strong and justified, why hasn't a cost benefit analysis been undertaken?

I have no problem with people having a view that it's social infrastructure and therefore the cost doesn't matter, that's your view..........but don't come at me with nonsense about the supposed economic benefits as if it's there in black and white when no cost benefit analysis has been done.

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

Again, if the economic case is so strong and justified, why hasn't a cost benefit analysis been undertaken?

I have no problem with people having a view that it's social infrastructure and therefore the cost doesn't matter, that's your view..........but don't come at me with nonsense about the supposed economic benefits as if it's there in black and white when no cost benefit analysis has been done.

Like I said a cost-benefit analysis would be difficult if not pointless given you'd be trying to anticipate a lot of applications that don't even exist yet. Are you familiar with Moore's law?

The cost side isn't hard to determine, as the article below shows. It's fully identifying what all the benefits are going to be over a 50 year time period.

That said, I would settle for a CBA that showed the benefits, even if not fully identified, show that they provide more than what the cost would be.

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics...ns-of-the-nbn/

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fangoriously

The cost side isn't hard to determine, as the article below shows. It's fully identifying what all the benefits are going to be over a 50 year time period.

That said, I would settle for a CBA that showed the benefits, even if not fully identified, show that they provide more than what the cost would be.

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics...ns-of-the-nbn/

Yeah I was referring to the benefit side of things, obviously. I reckon any projected benefits beyond 10-15 years are going to be close to impossible to quantify.

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

Again, if the economic case is so strong and justified, why hasn't a cost benefit analysis been undertaken?

I have no problem with people having a view that it's social infrastructure and therefore the cost doesn't matter, that's your view..........but don't come at me with nonsense about the supposed economic benefits as if it's there in black and white when no cost benefit analysis has been done.

You keep avoiding the question of how a CBA can be done when there are too many future unknowns.

Could you have done a proper CBA on the commercialisation of the internet 20 years ago that would even have come close to the reality of the internet today? There was no Google, for all intents and purposes, 15 years ago. There was no YouTube 8 years ago. There was no iPhone or Android 6 years ago.

there's no doubt that the number of households receiving fibre should be scaled back and a larger portion of the population be allocated fixed wireless

why?

Quote:

Originally Posted by big eddie

why?

'Cause, there's no doubt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by big eddie

why?

Because he got brain damage in the accident that forced him to use a respirator and as a result can't read the rest of the thread.

Buffed, you don't quite get politics do you? SM just explained to you in part why a CBA hasn't been done and the others have clearly answered all of your questions, yet you still act like a zealot who is correct, no matter what.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wahboy

there's no doubt that the number of households receiving fibre should be scaled back and a larger portion of the population be allocated fixed wireless

There's no doubt that a god that rules over all of us exists too. Is this the same sort of unintelligent argument you're trying to make?

No you guys are totally missing buffed's point.

Tony Abbott, the most retarded person in the country wrt to understanding of the NBN, wants a CBA analysis.

Monkey see monkey do

Quote:

Originally Posted by didjeridude

Monkey see monkey do

No I don't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by big eddie

But consider this: Google reckons we will create and exchange more data in the next four years than in the history of the world.

I think they're counting all the re-posts

Here is an idea that I am interested in that will be possible with a NBN some day in the future.....

Currently there is a growing amount of research and development into "smart garments". These are garments that contain sensors for various vital signs such as ECG, respiratory rate and depth, skin temperature, skin electrical conductance, movement (via accelerometry), and blood oxygen saturation. Complex signal processing of the ECG signal has been shown to be able to predict the onset of myocardial infarctions. Various algorithms have been developed to determine metabolic rate from HR and movement. There are many ways to determine stress levels and/or physiological states that are potentially life threatening.

Since vital signs monitoring and total numbers of hospital beds is a very expensive business, plus the fact we have an aging population, there is a growing understanding that a huge potential exists to save on health care costs by utilising remote monitoring of vital signs. A patient in their own home wears a smart garment and the signals are monitored in real time via the NBN. The potential for early warning signs to save lives is also inherent.

At present the stability, reliability and bandwidth of the current network just isn't good enough to accommodate this sort of (near) future health care solution.

Anyone else know of interesting uses for a NBN??

Something as simple as a HD video link between a patient, a doctor and a specialist. Australia is a huge country and it's a giant drain on money and time if someone in the bush has to drive/fly all the way to a major capital city and consult with a specialist.

With a three way, high quality video link, a patient on a rural property could consult with both their doctor a few hours away and a specialist in Sydney with relative ease. Then they could decide whether a face-to-face in Sydney is necessary.

That's revolutionary stuff in terms of medicine, and it's just the tip of the iceberg.
They are now working on robotic, microsurgery robots that can be controlled in that room or from anywhere else. If you have a major brain haemorrhage in a rural town, even getting to a hospital without a neurosurgeon could be pointless.
Now imagine that one of these machines sits in a rural hospital. The specialist in Sydney gets the call and remotely operates on that patient from hours away, while the local doctors and nursing staff provide the support and post-care.

The potential in the entertainment industry (both at the content creation and delivery ends) is immense as well. The ability for daily shoots to be wrapped and delivered electronically to post-production staff working in different locations is a massive advantage and cost-saver, while in the music industry it renders the traditional studio partially obsolete, or at least means people will basically be able to collaborate in real time from different locations.
It's a massive advantage for software developers too who often have to compile or move large chunks of data around, it pretty much means that the majority of them can work as effectively from almost any location.

The kind of potential Fledz talks about for specialist medical care can be applied equally to education, it will expand the ability for kids in rural areas to have access to all sorts of specialised stuff immensely.

^That's ridiculous stuff. I've never needed that and neither have my friends so it's a waste of money by the worst government this country has ever seen. Get Juliar out now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fledz

There's no doubt that a god that rules over all of us exists too...

well that's just common sense really isn't it, why would you explain something so simple?


ps.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hitchens

'That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence

I was being sarcastic. There's absolutely no proof at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fledz

Something as simple as a HD video link between a patient, a doctor and a specialist. Australia is a huge country and it's a giant drain on money and time if someone in the bush has to drive/fly all the way to a major capital city and consult with a specialist.

With a three way, high quality video link, a patient on a rural property could consult with both their doctor a few hours away and a specialist in Sydney with relative ease. Then they could decide whether a face-to-face in Sydney is necessary.

That's revolutionary stuff in terms of medicine, and it's just the tip of the iceberg.
They are now working on robotic, microsurgery robots that can be controlled in that room or from anywhere else. If you have a major brain haemorrhage in a rural town, even getting to a hospital without a neurosurgeon could be pointless.
Now imagine that one of these machines sits in a rural hospital. The specialist in Sydney gets the call and remotely operates on that patient from hours away, while the local doctors and nursing staff provide the support and post-care.

As a nurse that works in one of Brisbanes larger hospitals that also accomodates an acute stroke unit, there has certainly been talk regarding video conferencing & its potential effectiveness in helping rural communitites & hospitals that currently aren't equipped to deal with stroke & neurosurgical patients. Very, very preliminary stuff at this stage but certainly exciting if you live well outside of a major city anywhere in Australia I'd imagine.

the cost of providing so many people with fibre cannot be justified.

these people are hardly using the internet and will have no need for the sort of speeds that fibre will bring. they will be fine on fixed wireless.

some interesting reading from malcolm turbull

"Can Australians afford (and afford to wait for) Labor’s particular version of the NBN?

•Labor’s 2009 version of the NBN offers what is arguably the most expensive, most disruptive and slowest policy that could conceivably been have been chosen to remedy the situation. After four years in government, its policies have led to meaningful gains in broadband for only a few thousand households across Australia – a tiny fraction of those who need it.
•If Labor had instead persisted with the $1 billion OPEL plan for wireless and satellite broadband in regional Australia that it inherited from the Coalition in 2007, broadband would already be vastly improved in most non-metropolitan areas. Instead, the contract was abruptly cancelled in 2008. As a result, some parts of regional Australia are going to have to wait for up to a decade for the situation to improve, although most will benefit when NBN Co finally introduces its satellite and fixed wireless networks in the next year or so.
•Labor’s version of the NBN also fails any test of value for money. No other country in the world is spending more than a fraction of the amount per capita Australia is investing in next-generation broadband. Even excluding related payments to Telstra and Optus, the NBN will cost around $3000 per household or business. That is roughly 10 times the public sector subsidy for superfast broadband in Korea or Singapore and 100 times US government funding for its national broadband plan.
•While Australia is a wealthy nation which largely dodged the 2007-2009 global financial crisis, the resources available to governments are always more limited than the worthy uses to which they could be put. Projects have opportunity costs – a billion invested in broadband is a billion that cannot be invested in new roads or public transport links, better schools or hospitals, scientific or medical research, or human capital"

i'm working on the hobart cluster for the fixed wireless component and there's people out there who have very little to no idea of what the NBN actually is. I asked a landowner what internet connection he has, dial-up or other wise and he replied by saying "my wife dials up from time to time but i don't know what it is."

more people on fixed wireless, less on fibre

turbull's site http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/fa...ns-on-the-nbn/

Quote:

Originally Posted by wahboy

the cost of providing so many people with fibre cannot be justified.

these people are hardly using the internet and will have no need for the sort of speeds that fibre will bring. they will be fine on fixed wireless.

some interesting reading from malcolm turbull

"Can Australians afford (and afford to wait for) Labor’s particular version of the NBN?

•Labor’s 2009 version of the NBN offers what is arguably the most expensive, most disruptive and slowest policy that could conceivably been have been chosen to remedy the situation. After four years in government, its policies have led to meaningful gains in broadband for only a few thousand households across Australia – a tiny fraction of those who need it.
•If Labor had instead persisted with the $1 billion OPEL plan for wireless and satellite broadband in regional Australia that it inherited from the Coalition in 2007, broadband would already be vastly improved in most non-metropolitan areas. Instead, the contract was abruptly cancelled in 2008. As a result, some parts of regional Australia are going to have to wait for up to a decade for the situation to improve, although most will benefit when NBN Co finally introduces its satellite and fixed wireless networks in the next year or so.
•Labor’s version of the NBN also fails any test of value for money. No other country in the world is spending more than a fraction of the amount per capita Australia is investing in next-generation broadband. Even excluding related payments to Telstra and Optus, the NBN will cost around $3000 per household or business. That is roughly 10 times the public sector subsidy for superfast broadband in Korea or Singapore and 100 times US government funding for its national broadband plan.
•While Australia is a wealthy nation which largely dodged the 2007-2009 global financial crisis, the resources available to governments are always more limited than the worthy uses to which they could be put. Projects have opportunity costs – a billion invested in broadband is a billion that cannot be invested in new roads or public transport links, better schools or hospitals, scientific or medical research, or human capital"

i'm working on the hobart cluster for the fixed wireless component and there's people out there who have very little to no idea of what the NBN actually is. I asked a landowner what internet connection he has, dial-up or other wise and he replied by saying "my wife dials up from time to time but i don't know what it is."

more people on fixed wireless, less on fibre

turbull's site http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/fa...ns-on-the-nbn/

There's a massive flaw in that argument. While it may be true that 90% of homes and businesses could be adequately served by fixed wireless NOW (and that may not hold true in even the medium term future s things evolve), You can't neatly place the remaining 10% into a tidy geographical area. Those with requirements for fast fixed broadband are spread quite evenly all over the country in line with the population, and so the infrastructure still needs to be implemented everywhere. The only bit thats contentious is the final run to the household- and by the time you factor in the extra cost of implementing more fixed wireless to cover them instead of fibre, plus the additional cost and complexity of incrementally connecting households to fibre, it makes sense to do what the NBN is doing now and pushing FTTH.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wahboy

•Labor’s 2009 version of the NBN offers what is arguably the most expensive, most disruptive and slowest policy that could conceivably been have been chosen to remedy the situation. After four years in government, its policies have led to meaningful gains in broadband for only a few thousand households across Australia – a tiny fraction of those who need it.
•If Labor had instead persisted with the $1 billion OPEL plan for wireless and satellite broadband in regional Australia that it inherited from the Coalition in 2007, broadband would already be vastly improved in most non-metropolitan areas. Instead, the contract was abruptly cancelled in 2008. As a result, some parts of regional Australia are going to have to wait for up to a decade for the situation to improve, although most will benefit when NBN Co finally introduces its satellite and fixed wireless networks in the next year or so.
•Labor’s version of the NBN also fails any test of value for money. No other country in the world is spending more than a fraction of the amount per capita Australia is investing in next-generation broadband. Even excluding related payments to Telstra and Optus, the NBN will cost around $3000 per household or business. That is roughly 10 times the public sector subsidy for superfast broadband in Korea or Singapore and 100 times US government funding for its national broadband plan.
•While Australia is a wealthy nation which largely dodged the 2007-2009 global financial crisis, the resources available to governments are always more limited than the worthy uses to which they could be put. Projects have opportunity costs – a billion invested in broadband is a billion that cannot be invested in new roads or public transport links, better schools or hospitals, scientific or medical research, or human capital"
[/url]

These arguments can be boiled down to the following:-
* It's expensive and takes too long
* We should've used the existing noalition plan (good because its cheaper and quicker, addressing point #1)
* Durka Durr too expensive (I think I've already heard this one)
* Even though we are a wealthy nation we shouldn't spend 48bn on infrastructure, we should spend it on stuff that MATTERS, like infrastructure.

Seriously though, you seem to be missing the point wahboy. Just because you have heard some bloke say he doesn't know what kind of internet he has now, doesn't mean his son or grandson won't need it 5 - 10 - 25 years down the track.

As Geezah pointed out, internet heavyweights such as YouTube, Facebook and Google weren't even conceived 10 years ago. That is how fast technology moves. Based on this exponential demand for data, I would wager that the OPEL wireless plan would become outdated in no time at all.

PLUS all the other stuff people have written in this thread.

As for other uses for NBN, my industry (agriculture) has been using satellite imagery as a means to sow, harvest and maintain crops and pasture using dummy machinery. They also use satellite imagery and other data collection tools to ascertain conditions of the soil and other relevant data (N/P/K levels, erosion data, etc etc). The NBN promises to expand the quality and quantity of data collected which gives a clearer picture of where the crop stands and what action needs to be taken to maximise the harvest. This would involve massive amounts of data, but the NBN promises to pass the info onto an agronomist (quickly) and important decisions can be made regarding the future of the crop.

This is groundbreaking stuff. Particularly since we need to double food output in the next 40 years whilst dealing with reduced arable land and an oppressive climate .

So to those thinking we don't need it in the sticks. That's where we need it more than ever

Some of those examples used to justify the NBN can easily be done with our current internet capacity.
I teleconference into health meetings all the time that run across the state.

If you argue a CBA can't be done because we cant predict the future then don't use the future as an argument for the NBN.

You have a stable connection, so that means everyone else does. Yea, well done there. Good argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dAvoZ

Some of those examples used to justify the NBN can easily be done with our current internet capacity.
I teleconference into health meetings all the time that run across the state.

Not in most locations, a lot of that stuff requires stable symmetric connections, ADSL2+ doesn't really cut it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dAvoZ

If you argue a CBA can't be done because we cant predict the future then don't use the future as an argument for the NBN.

Why not? There are plenty of indicators pointing to our future capacity requirements, but just because we can predict the sorts of capacities we'll need doesn't mean we can quantify their exact economic benefit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dAvoZ

If you argue a CBA can't be done because we cant predict the future then don't use the future as an argument for the NBN.

Do you actually believe that nonsensical rubbish?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dAvoZ

Some of those examples used to justify the NBN can easily be done with our current internet capacity.
I teleconference into health meetings all the time that run across the state.

If you argue a CBA can't be done because we cant predict the future then don't use the future as an argument for the NBN.

Whatevs. If this were a liberal party policy the truth is that you, buffed and all the other liberal party fanbois would be in here telling everyone how awesome the NBN will be for the future of the country and why it is necessary to ensure the future economic growth and international competitiveness of the country. You would also be telling everyone that it is being paid for by users and is expected to be paid off in full in a little over 20yrs. To highlight the stupidity of the logic being used by the critics you would point out the analogy that people shouldn't buy houses with a 25yr bank loan because the monthly loan repayments are higher than the cost of renting

The biggest and main argument that seems to be in the negative is the cost factor, but this has been explained already over and over. If users think that they can do what they need with the old slow network, then let them continue using it and pay higher prices. In this event the NBN will take longer than expected to be paid off (maybe 25-30yrs instead of 20-25). If users decide that they want to pay lower prices for faster broadband, let them sign up to a FTTH plan.

My prediction is that you and all the rest of your hypocritical liberal party supporters will be signing onto FTTH as soon as it is available to you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davoz

If you argue a CBA can't be done because we cant predict the future then don't use the future as an argument for the NBN.

Please explain how you conduct a CBA on the benefits of "improved quality of life" ?

You work in health, you've seen the figures for the supposed social cost of tobacco smoking (ie: the intangible costs associated with loss of life). If you were to include those costs into a CBA on the NBN you obviously would realise the outcome would be massively in favour of an NBN?

edit I just looked it up again.... total intangible social cost of tobacco smoking was estimated at $20 billion in 2004-2005 alone. So wake up and get real. A CBA on the NBN will basically conclude that for a $40 billion outlay to be paid for not through taxes but by user subscriptions, will probably provide social benefits totalling up to $20 billion per year. Wow at that rate it will be paid off in 2yrs!!

I work for a fixed wireless telco, and let me tell you: It's not the messiah, it's a very naughty boy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Astro-Boy

I work for a fixed wireless telco, and let me tell you: It's not the messiah, it's a very naughty boy.

This is the thing that is ridiculous about the opposition policy. Malcom Turnbull keeps repeating that "no other country is spending so much money on a NBN" but then he goes on to highlight the opposition NBN policy.... wireless..... and conveniently forgets to mention that no other country or telco anywhere in the world is even building or has plans to build a wireless NBN. So with that in mind, we would be spending an infinite amount more than anyone else under a lib govt.

From my reading of the IT news pages, a wireless NBN will be obsolete before it is even finished, and by that time we'll have no choice except to install a fiber optic network because that will be the international ICT standard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fledz

I was being sarcastic. There's absolutely no proof at all.

oh, carry on then

This is liberal party fanboi logic in a nutshell....

We have a bumpy single lane dirt road with potholes that we pay a toll to use to get us from point A to everywhere else. There are plans to build a 20 lane super highway that will get us from point A to everywhere and the toll will be lower.

We oppose the super highway and what we prefer, is to keep the bumpy old dirt road because a) we are self centered and as long as we can get from point A to everywhere else eventually (at slow speed), we couldn't give a shit about trucking companies that would really save heaps of money from having a super highway, and b) we erroneously think the govt is paying for the highway with our hard earned tax dollars and <go to point (a)>

Quote:

Originally Posted by didjeridude

Please explain how you conduct a CBA on the benefits of "improved quality of life" ?

!!

please give me a break........improved quality of life from faster internet? People talk about improved health delivery. You could build 20 major hospitals with $40bn

Quote:

Originally Posted by didjeridude

We have a bumpy single lane dirt road with potholes that we pay a toll to use to get us from point A to everywhere else. There are plans to build a 20 lane super highway that will get us from point A to everywhere and the toll will be lower.

)>

well it's not bumpy enough to prevent you from polluting the internet with this nonsense

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

please give me a break........improved quality of life from faster internet? People talk about improved health delivery. You could build 20 major hospitals with $40bn

Here we go again with the retard broken down record. Users pay for the NBN, taxpayers pay for hospital infrastructure. Private health insurance (ie: users) pay the cost of hospital admissions, medical procedures and pharmaceutical benefits.

You obviously are too retarded to understand the difference between a physical piece of network cable that once it is built provides ongoing benefits with minimal ongoing costs versus the ongoing need for medical procedures, ambulances or consuming medication and their associated ongoing costs which remain the same (or go up in the future).

How do you build a heart bypass surgery doctor that you no longer have to pay once it is built buffed? How do you make a drug that only needs to be taken once and cures a chronic disease such as diabetes? Answer that genius.