The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Best uses for $43B

Best uses for $43B

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All
I'm fascinated by how little of the discussion about the proposed National Broadband Network has been about other things the money could have been spent on.

I think it's a dubious proposition (to any but tech-heads, that is)that internet speeds 100 times faster than currently available will provide much benefit to the country at all. I suspect that a version of the 80/20 rule applies to technology and that we are at a point where the productivity dividend from spending an extra dollar on bandwidth is approaching zero.

In which case if I had the money I'd be much more likely to want to spend it on infrastructure. Australia could have done much better in the last boom if our exports could have reached their markets more easily. That requires investments in ports and rail lines.

I think I would also be looking at physical infrastructure around cities. The housing crisis won't be fixed by building welfare housing, but by building more housing in general. And the constraints on that are to do with availability of land, which in turn in a lot of cases hinges on availability of infrastructure like water and sewerage which are supplied by governments. Generally governments wait for private developers to pay them to put the infrastructure in which means that a lot of land is effectively locked-up because no-one owns enough land in a particular catchment to be able to justify stumping-up the readies.

I think I would also be looking closely at education. Perhaps we could get a real education revolution for this money, rather than a computer on every child's desk.

Thinking of which there is a theme here. Seems the answer to many questions facing the government is more IT.
Posted by GrahamY, Saturday, 11 April 2009 10:45:56 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wonder how much of the 43b is to supply rural areas.
Do they deserve a subsidy like this?
Should they be left with dial up or nothing? Satellite if you pay $$$$. Its been left to the corporations to do it for the last 10 years and they havent bothered.

Personally I am all for it.

And interested to witness for myself the same sort of naysaying that apparently went on over modern day icons like the Opera House, Snowy scheme, Harbour bridge etc etc.
Posted by mikk, Saturday, 11 April 2009 11:44:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"And interested to witness for myself the same sort of naysaying that apparently went on over modern day icons like the Opera House, Snowy scheme, Harbour bridge etc etc."

Yes, and how about the dotcom bubble? Is this latest scheme kevin.com, a bubble filled with fantasy, ego, and 43 billion dollars of taxpayers' money? I'm with Graham on this: Spend the money on boring stuff that is a proven wealth generator, not on a polly's temple of vanity.
Posted by Fester, Saturday, 11 April 2009 1:49:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An absolute waste of money.We have more urgent issues like transport.Wouldn't it be nice not to be exhausted travelling to and from work and have more time to spend with your family?

Kevin Rudd is grandstanding again and just like the farce of have each child with a lap top,it will send us into more unproductive debt.If Govt does this,it will cost us a lot more than $43 billion.

I heard that faster modems are solution and individuals can pay for them on a needs basis.What happens if better technology comes in that is far cheaper?
Posted by Arjay, Saturday, 11 April 2009 2:06:55 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
grayham its not intended govt pay for it[i think some reading between the lines is needed]kevo said like australia post[that as many may have noted has become a franchise... so what i see is a lot of franchise oppertuinities[=and an open bidding process[no doudt with intrest bearing security bonds to ensure delivery]

what i also see is telstra privatisation of the infastructure is a failure[sure its a nice litle earner for teslstra but its not working, so govt needs to get back controlover the pipes somehow

[43 billion is enough of a carrot to get back the pipes..[only to re-bundle the new pipes into a diverse franchise..[many little chiefs not one giant colusus]

i have no need for the extra pipes bandwidth..[and many others in the burbs dont either...[but the their franchise wont be the plum's bid up big for]...this is an invotive reply to some real clever sabvotage from the previous govt..[thing is its all still in the designing and planning stage for now]

[think of it as a game of chess]..the all up price is only speculative[and will be in future dollars]..mainly from those who see a chance to own the pipes in their own domain...[franchise]for ever,its a bargin,if its not affordable for them to provide a gold service affordably..then the pipes pass on to the bankruptsy trustee

anyhow see it as a way to do something..[that when thwarted by the opposition in the senet;reveals them for the oppertuinists they allways will be...[they allways seem to reap where labourites did sew[look what howhard did with his keating planted harvest..lol]
Posted by one under god, Saturday, 11 April 2009 2:20:40 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The difference between bringing fibre to nodes at the end of streets and to each household is the difference between $15bn and $43.

As Conroy had no idea what the cost to each house would be, there is also no indication what % of houses would want it.

Maybe I am backward, but I get 1.5Mb/s and I find that it meets all my gaming / video needs. I would not be prepared to pay more to get 100Mb as I would struggle to see the difference.

I am in favour of installing the back bone, and then charging the house holds to install it to the house. The alternative might be a huge white elephant.
Posted by Democritus, Saturday, 11 April 2009 3:30:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy