I know nothing about the relative merits of the technologies, timing, or its benefits to democracy. All I know is that the costs are off budget and pitched as an investment that the government will recover when it sells it off, presumably to a monopoly provider. So at the instant that the government sells the asset, the resulting profit or loss will be added or deducted from whatever the governments debt is at that time.
Or if the government decides not to sell it, the full cost will hit the budget and the governments books. Its a piece of national infrastructure and a monopoly — there is no good reason to throw it to the market.
The economic benefits of the NBN are incredibly hard to determine. It would be like trying to determine the benefit of telephones or highways as people were only starting to use them. Just as disturbing is the influence the media has, no matter how much they flip-flop to suit their own agenda. Where does one get the actual facts these days??? Wendy following a good cross-section of newsmakers and independent thinking journalists on Twitter is a good start.
Now the money has run out. The economy is in trouble. And the dysfunctional politics of the past three years must end. James while I disagree with their view — the government was functional, they achieved more change NDIS, child abuse royal commission, education funding reform etc than the Howard years — they ran their opinion as opinion and not as a front page news item.
The worst gov every. Love how the labor lovers come out defend anything. I think that is the question that needs asking. The NBN is essential and I am sure it will be worth it. I suspect there were similar concerns back in the day over the cost of the Snowy Mountains Scheme. Labour and Liberal wasted cash, no doubt about that.
The Howard baby bonus payments and the first home owners grants were a waste supporting big business. Its the view of the editor of the newspaper and its on the front page of the paper.
My point is less about the content or the view, and more of the point that I have raised here before, and that is that all media, including the public broadcaster, is biased and has been since the invention of the printing press.
The salient point is the one you make and that is to get a balanced view of whats happening in the world it is best to derive your news and views from a range of sources. The US is installing fibre on an ad-hoc basis. The overwhelming consencus from the tech industry is that fibre is the right long term solution. It is designed to last decades. News Corp Australia newspapers are popular — over half the adult population of Australia chooses to read a News Corp Australia newspaper each week.
All of this ignores television, radio and the myriad of online news sources which offer more diversity in opinion than at any time in history.
Why shoud we allow any company to have that level of influence? The media play a significant and important role in politics. This is why they should be held to a higher standard by an independent body. Fox has a monopoly and naturally News Limited wants to keep it.
The NBN will allow others to compete, I believe a good thing. Jarryd How do you regulate circulation? We have media ownership laws that regulate what media in what areas a company owns but circulation is a product of consumer demand. Are you suggesting the government of a democracy legislates what percentage of each newspaper title its citizens must purchase? Nobody in their right mind would object to the NBN but why would people want access to it if they are simply not using it.
The highest no. Who of us can afford to keep spending if the income is not available to spend. I think govt. Surely running government is just the same as us running our businesses and the above still applies. I think you are wrong about this. For example, Facebook is massive among older people as a way of keeping up with their kids and grand kids. Now imagine if Facebook was extended so now you can see and talk to your grand kids on your 42 inch TV in HD not some crumbling low def window. This is a simple example of which there are thousands.
Doing it in two separate stages is vastly most expensive and will cost tens of billions more in the long run. Long term planning is essential for infrastructure. Not at all.
We have competition laws that can dictate the market share of businesses. There is no reason that we should not extend this to media acquisition. We need to recognise the ability of the media to manipulate the public by ensuring that they present news in a more fair and balanced way.
We have huge unemployment of young people for many years to come. There should always be an incentive to work. The interview, conducted by Kelly in New York in May, canvassed the history and ideology of the newspaper as well as current political and economic issues.
Now that caused a lot of unhappiness amongst journalists who were universally, I would say, for Whitlam although the public was almost universally against him. I think the paper has never been better than it is now and the circulation demonstrates that. However, he conceded the print version of the paper may not be around forever. The questions of affordability and rollout delays apply to both plans, so if its the idea they disagree with, its easy to get ammunition against both.
It may not be the only reason but it is definitely a factor and his tweet is not exactly evidence of his support for an NBN just evidence that he would say that. Here is the difference between now and In Netflix was but a dvd mail service and beginning to offer streaming over the internet.
The biggest threat to Foxtel is a level playing field Foxtel need to have an offering that is better than the competition and they can only keep this advantage with an inferior Broadband network where their Satellite network gives them the Bandwidth advantage and they can offer 4K while smaller competitors can not.
If Murdoch and Foxtel are so in favour of the project, then they should be encouraging their Liberal favourites to adopt the policy as bipartisan. A company is required to act in the best interests of its shareholders. News Ltd, Foxtel, Telstra are currently doing what is in their best interests.
Of course these companies are going to do what they can to ensure they retain value. At this time, the best way for them to achieve that is in campaigning for the whole NBN to be looked at and then they can secure more favourable outcomes for themselves in that process.
As a consumer however, I would say that my best interests are served by not letting Rupert or Telstra near anything that can influence my life. The way of the future is program on demand with no ads minus all the stuff nobody want to watch. No ads no Murdochracy business model. To say the NBN is no threat to Murdoch is clearly baloney. Tony has repeatedly stated over the years that wireless is the big thing and that any NBN is a white elephant!
Tony today is now stating after being questioned about revenue to balance his spending proposals is promising a Tax and spending revue after the election.
All telecommunications infrastructure would now be privately funded and built with the government having no role at all. Whatever extra opportunities it might present to his business come at the expense of having to compete. Rupert Murdoch is personally pugnacious and likes his opponents to be nice and crushed. Yes, there are similar problems for him, although to a much lesser extent, through the FTTN alternative. So yes he is attacking the NBN as a way to get at Labor.
The two are not mutually exclusive. If he says anything to indicate that he is not anti-NBN then take it with a huge pinch of salt; he is hardly the most ethical being to ever walk this planet and I assume that he will lie through his teeth quite happily.
I think that yes, Murdoch hates Labor. However Murdoch will benefit or at least cut his losses from destroying the NBN.
0コメント