Common sense prevailed

[melon....]

I agree with him. Common sense has prevailed.

For the Unions maybe....

Its a good short term result for Australia. A Blessing in disguise that will expose the Hawker Britton frauds.

Once the Greens and Labor screw everything with massive tax hikes on air, food, and power, theyll be destroyed at the next poll and then the country can start to heal.

As turncoat Windsor said when asked about returning to teh polls, "They would have won". Says it all really doesnt it? Unions last distch at clinging onto the very last strand of power.

[melon....]

That's why this is a good idea. Providing high quality affordable reliable access to regional areas using fibre will help education, delivery of health services and business. It may appear expensive, but will be viewed as a great nation building exercise in years to come... long after this political cycle is over and forgotten.

Ideas that do not meet some contrived short term economic test don't come along often nowadays. Using that method, we wouldn't have an Opera House, Harbour Bridge or the Snowy River Scheme.

Sometimes we need to do things because they are the right thing to do and sometimes because it is a good idea, This time it is both.

Cost is teeh only issue that will make or break this good idea. Its closer to 120billion...it wont get finished.

I worked with a telco recently on costings. Id like to see Labor's costings. Where are they Fairy?

[melon....]

no actually getting my facts from people in the industry overseas.
And a bit of common sense regarding the use of fibre optics for rural areas.

Fibre optics is a great solution but its only practical in areas of decent population.

Spot on Billy. Teh country needs basic services. They dont buy things like city folk do. We see a bill board and buy the prodct. In teh bush its "Does it work?" "Can I get a dial tone?". Thats all they need because they dont even have basic services. Theyd be wrapped with Satellite or wireless broadband. At a smidgen of the cost. This is what City Greens dont see.

[Guest]

Gillard has shown she is an extremely competent negotiator. She convinced two independants from conservative electorates to back her party over the conservative party, that is no mean feat.

If anyone can hold the parliment together for 3 years it's Gillard, Abbott would have no chance had he won. And should she hold it together and make good policy, which I believe is very archievable, she could be PM for many many years to come.

Chook.

[novice chook]

The problem for Dillard and her backroom bully boys is that they can't backstab and get rid of the new independent bedmates like they did Rudd, not without losing government anyway.

The woman is a control freak and she will quickly get frustrated by the hand she's been dealt, which is a poisoned challice.

She will be able to achieve nothing with the numbers as they are. If the independents and Greens don't block her, the Libs will.

I reckon we'll be back at the polls within 12 months. And hopefully there will be a more workable outcome next time round.

Anyone who thinks that the current situation is workable is deluded. Too many chiefs, too many differing agendas, and each of them wanting to have the final say.

Nothing of relevance will be achieved by this caustic minority government. The country will be on hold until next election.

I will add that it would have been no different if the Libs had formed a minority government. But at least then the Rabid Ranger with that godawful voice would be in the background.



NC

[Guest]

Anyone who thinks that the current situation is workable is deluded.

Actually NC, how the house of representatives is right now is how it is suppose to work. For more than 4 decades one party or the other has had the ability to ram through the lower house any legislation it wanted and the upper house, or senate, is where all the checks and balances occured. Except of course when jackboot Johhny had control of both houses and we ended up with Worknochoices.

I am very excited about this current situation. We will finally see meaningful legislation negotiated and debated in the house of representatives which is exactly how the Westminster system of government is suppose to operate. And by meaningful I mean legilsation that has been debated by labor and the indies and the greens before it is even put on the floor for the Libs to have their say. Gillard has far more ability to shine in this environment than Abbott would ever had, she has shown she is a negotiator which is what is required in a close parliment.

Everyone keeps crapping on about how this is all doom and gloom when it's not. It's probably one of the best things to happen to our parliment on a very long time. Whether Gillard can take advantage of it and show her skills as a political leader remains to be seen.

Chook.

[Guest]

Fact.
Abott is not our leader.

Fact.
Australia is not a christian fundamentalist state

Fact.
Australia enjoys separation of church and state

Therefore:
We have a wranger atheist unmarried childless female pm

conclusion
a healthy modern australia

[novice chook]

Whether Gillard can take advantage of it and show her skills as a political leader remains to be seen.

Chook.

That's where the problem lies Chook. Dillard's skills as a political leader. I'm yet to see much evidence of it. She nearly lost the seemingly unloseable election as it was.

Only time will tell if she can deliver. But that former hairdresser boyfriend of hers had better have plenty of red hair dye on hand because I reckon she will getting a few more grey hairs each day trying to keep the peace and actually achieve anything.


NC

[stephenj]

perhaps a few blue streaks to go with her red and white hair would greatly enhance the appearance of greatness?

[Guest]

perhaps a few blue streaks to go with her red and white hair would greatly enhance the appearance of greatness?

That's true and she does support the Red, White and Blue afl side so she can't be all that bad can she? NC?

Personally I think she'll shine. Her only anchor will be of course the labor party itself. But if she can keep them in line and in turn they let her be herself, she is one very smart ranger. Don't let all the bullshit about debt and deficit get to you NC, our economy is more than strong enough to pay back 6% of our GDP, it's a big scare campaign. The main reason Abbott was so desparate and willing to hurl money at the independants is thart he knows we'll be back in the black probably as early as next budget. That's why Swan wants the mining tax legislated as soon as possible. Labor will have the budget back in the black long before the next election and watch em spend it on infrastucture = Australian people win win!

Our economy is strong on the back of a mining industry making money hand over fist. Believe me they can handle a bit more taxing. But as a country we need to take advantage of that mining boom cause it won't last forever. The tax accomplishes two things, it funnels money into the government coffers so they can spend it on us AND it slows down that mining boom and gives us more time to upgrade our infrastucture. Look at the rest of the world, they are treading water. We need to spend while we can NC.

Chook.

P.S - Oh and you need to stop listening to Allan Jones and Ray Hadley.

[Guest]

Why does the country need super fast broadband? People do not need 100Mbps in their house. They are talking about it being upgraded to 1Gbps. WTF? What the hell can you do with that?

The fastest speed that we need is video streaming. It is no good downloading a movie in 7 seconds if it still takes you 90 minutes to watch it.

Businesses need fast broadband in some cases but residences do not.

Not saying it is a waste of money as I do agree that it will be something that will be of benefit but it is like given a farmer a Lamborgini and telling him to take out at to speed in the paddock.

[Guest]

Why does the country need super fast broadband? People do not need 100Mbps in their house. They are talking about it being upgraded to 1Gbps. WTF? What the hell can you do with that?

Lots of things, doctors can diagnose online in real time while the patient is sitting a thousand miles away hooked up to a health monitor. You can face to face without the need to travel. Online universities where you can live at home and get a secondary education in real time, the possibilities are endless.

The fastest speed that we need is video streaming. It is no good downloading a movie in 7 seconds if it still takes you 90 minutes to watch it.

It's not all about movies and porn.

Businesses need fast broadband in some cases but residences do not.

So you'd give businesses access to fast broadband but not their customers? Kinda defeats the purpose.

Not saying it is a waste of money as I do agree that it will be something that will be of benefit but it is like given a farmer a Lamborgini and telling him to take out at to speed in the paddock.

Infrastructure spending is never a waste of money and building a NBN now will be cheaper than building it in 10 or 20 or 30 years time. Yes it's using the best fibre optic cable currently available and yes it's a lamborgini, but so was the copper network when it was rolled out 100 years ago. And I'm quite sure Ray Hadley's father was there saying things like "we don't need some fancy copper wire, carrier pidgeons will do fine."

Australia needs and deserves and can afford to lay the best NBN there is and I'll argue that point with anyone.

Chook.

[Guest]

Lots of things, doctors can diagnose online in real time while the patient is sitting a thousand miles away hooked up to a health monitor. You can face to face without the need to travel. Online universities where you can live at home and get a secondary education in real time, the possibilities are endless.

The possibilities might be endless but the reality of how it will be used are not.

It's not all about movies and porn.

I was making an example of the type of speeds that are needed and the fact that it does not have to be delivered by fibre.

So you'd give businesses access to fast broadband but not their customers? Kinda defeats the purpose.

Not at all. A financial institute requires a massive amount of speed and bandwidth to service all their clients and transactions. Do I in order to commnicate online with that business? No I don't.

Infrastructure spending is never a waste of money and building a NBN now will be cheaper than building it in 10 or 20 or 30 years time. Yes it's using the best fibre optic cable currently available and yes it's a lamborgini, but so was the copper network when it was rolled out 100 years ago. And I'm quite sure Ray Hadley's father was there saying things like "we don't need some fancy copper wire, carrier pidgeons will do fine."

Australia needs and deserves and can afford to lay the best NBN there is and I'll argue that point with anyone.

Chook.

I agree that we need better infrastructure but to roll out fibre to the home is overkill and far too expensive. Fibre to the node is more than sufficient. Again it gets back to the question in how fast do you need the delivery? The speed of ADSL 2+ is more than enough for most people. We do not need 100Mbps and I can't think of why we would need 1Gbps.

When the cost blows out - as it always does - is there a point where you think, this has cost to much?

[Guest]

The possibilities might be endless but the reality of how it will be used are not.

I was making an example of the type of speeds that are needed and the fact that it does not have to be delivered by fibre.

Not at all. A financial institute requires a massive amount of speed and bandwidth to service all their clients and transactions. Do I in order to commnicate online with that business? No I don't.

I agree that we need better infrastructure but to roll out fibre to the home is overkill and far too expensive. Fibre to the node is more than sufficient. Again it gets back to the question in how fast do you need the delivery? The speed of ADSL 2+ is more than enough for most people. We do not need 100Mbps and I can't think of why we would need 1Gbps.

When the cost blows out - as it always does - is there a point where you think, this has cost to much?

When you are talking about a broadband network, speed and capacity is everything and both of these can be future proofed for the next 50-100 years with the fibre currently being rolled out. ADSL 2+ may be more than enough for most people now, but it won't be in 10 or even 20 years time. As more and more services come online, the backbone network of this NBN will be able to handle it. And we can take advantage of wireless as that technology develops.

I look at the NBN in the same way as I look at roads, electricity or phone lines. It will become an integral part or our country's future infratstructure and should be available to everyone as everyone is paying for it.

And of course there is a point where I'd believe it has cost too much. But the 43 billion is not what it will actually cost taxpayers, that is more like 26 billion. Private companies are already signing up to the NBN as fast as they can and they will pay for that access, hence the less amount taxpayers will have to pay to build it.

Let me ask you this, do you think it would be cheaper to build it now or wait 10 years and do it then?

Chook.

[Guest]

Let me ask you this, do you think it would be cheaper to build it now or wait 10 years and do it then?

Chook.

Of course it will cost more in 10 years time. Silly question. Why don't we build freeways now instead of waiting for 10 or 20 years? We need those. Why don't they build a better transport system for commuters? The train from Newcastle to Sydney actually takes LONGER to get between the 2 points than it did 20 years ago. The question is do we need it at all? Now don't misunderstand the question, of course we need broadband, of course we need infrastructure but do we need it at 1Gbps?

You say that more and more services will come online and that may be true but will people take them up? It is all about interactivity. If you are on the net surfing for information, you won't be playing you x-box with someone on the other side of the world. If you are watching an on demand movie, you won't be listening to the radio via a online digital radio station over broadband. There is only so much you can be doing at any one time. Go to a library and ask to borrow 300 books. They won't give them to you even if you say you are going to read them all.

Why would we want to take advantage of wireless technology when we have already spent a motza on fibre? There are other technologies that will suffice for a lot of areas that can be used now.

Once we roll out this you beaut infrastructure, we will be the envy of the world. Will the town that has 100 residents use all of the bandwidth potential provided? Maybe when they pick up their Lamborgini at the local dealership they can discuss it with the salesman.