http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/homes-to-pay-heavy-price-for-internet-from-nbn/story-fn59niix-1225907517167.

Projections for the take-up of the government's $43 billion NBN could prove optimistic once households realise they face costs of up to $3000 to fully exploit the potential of the super-fast internet.

This is on top of the NBN average cost of $5400 per household to run the fibre cable resulting in connection costs to the internet of up to $160 per month for the full 100Mbps speed.

If signing up is not mandatory the NBN will go to the wall as did the Cross city tunnel company and the Lane Cove tunnel company.

SM

Clearly you are stuck in a warp.
Your wording is deceptive the $3000 will be part of the $43 billion Nich wahr?

your prose and your bent seems to suggest that in is an additional out of pocket by the individuals.

What you consistently ignore is that it the service will be competitive priced (cross subsidised) where As I have amply shown is NOT the case today. Telstra is the is the diarrheatic Mastodon in the room/exchanges.

On one hand in addition you still don't accept the reality that what is available today will not even be close to what will be available tomorrow including services, jobs and boosts to the economy.

The other key flaw in your argument is that the $43 billion may never get spent from the public purse.

As stated before your (the coalition's) option is/ will be inadequate, simply maintain status quo.

Given this is the umpteenth time you've raised this topic you should be aware that.
a. Those who support the NBN will continue to do so.
b. Those who won't won't
c You are flogging this Falabella to death as far as most thinking non Conservative go.

In my mind the NBN is more productive and beneficial to Australians that an 'over priced' but ultimately out gunned foreign expeditionary military. And the foreign policy Joke that current afflict both sides.

And the hysterical bollocks put out by Tony Abbot
- HE will decide which boats come here...How? dictator?
- He's not worried by the 10K over stayers because the "had papers"!

Gotta say it, that story is total rubbish. $3000?

I should go into business, years ago I did my house with cat5 myself in about 2 hours, cost me all of 100 bucks. Then a couple of years after I had done it, the speed of wireless routers improved, and I get just as good a speed from my wireless network now anyway.

For most situations this will be entirely unnecessary, and the cost is overstated. Also wireless routers are getting faster and faster. But, having said that, the reasons it is unnecessary is most people don't need all that bandwidth anyway. Which means we don't really need the NBN to go to the home right now.

More lies from the australian and SM.

aaaah..it's a good feeling when the Green at the AEC 'BEGS' you for your vote :) and explaining to him:

"I'll do what I feel is in the best interests of the nation and my family"

at which point he kind of "Oh noooooo...groannnnn"

The LIBS are trying to steal FAMILY FIRST's thunder by placing HUGE "Family Values" lettering on their how to vote cards.

Labor..well.. same old.

NBN.. ah now this is an important issue. I've found what seems to be a reasonable analysis of what confronts us here:

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/43544/20100816/nbn.htm

But Shadow M..thanx for at least mentioning the costs or potential costs.

Exammy.. you seem to be "High" on Labor/Left/Green Ecstasy tablets mate.. you didn't say much of any value there.. just picked on SM.

I don't think the Coalitions position is 'status quo' but honestly.. I've not looked real close at it.

LABOR VERSION will benefit Labor aligned

a) Consultants
b) Construction companies
c) Labor Ex pollies looking for a good golden handshake and a gr8 job post politics.

COALITION VERSION will benefit Liberal aligned

a) Consultants
b) Construction companies
c) Liberal Ex pollies looking for a good golden handshake and a gr8 job post politics.

These "parties" are not about "National Interest" but SELF interest.

The Greens are just insane.. who would vote for their crazed wild eyed creeping, furry things ?

That leaves..FAMILY FIRST yayyyy :)

<< The Greens are just insane.. who would vote for their crazed wild eyed creeping, furry things ? >>

That's quite hilarious, given who wrote it. Pot, meet kettle.

Examinator,

Posting with no reference to the facts is probably the main reason for your wild and unsubstantiated claims.

The modem, and the internal networking in the house is not included.

The prices published for the NBN are higher than presently available. I am guessing that the take up in the cities will be much lower than predicted.

The coalition's plan of upgrading the back bone will enable the restrictions on bandwidth to be lifted, so that the average user will get about 10x the speed.

The NBN is entirely state funded and has never claimed otherwise.

All of these are published. If you disagree, I invite you to provide one scrap of evidence to the contrary.

Not only will I be paying $5400 for something I don't need, but also lose my telephone line. If I then still want to be able to talk with my friends and family (other than in person, note that I conscientiously object to mobiles), I will have to subscribe to this NBN and pay premium charges as if I actually needed anything like that bandwidth.

I rather spend $5400 to retain my ordinary home telephone-line, if that was only possible.

Not even close to fact SM.
It cost me just a bit more than $400 to get land line to this home trench and all.
About that or less to get new NBN if it can Be done here.
I am on satellite, tax payers paid a lot for that.
WIRLESS will notwork here dead spot.
NBN is supported by most country people, no votes to be won in the bush by bending the truth on this SM.

It's the wholesale component of the NBN that is State funded.

It will be up to the retailers (such as Telstra) to provide any required consumer hardware, which they would do on a competitive basis.

The government at one time considered providing every household with a digital tuner when the analogue TV system was going to be retired and that was estimated to cost no more than $35 each, due to supply volume. This would be even cheaper now.

I can't see where there are plans to remove existing copper infrastructure just because a new fibre may run past your house, nor can I see where Telstra will no longer support the POTS system just because there is an alternative available.

I also can't see what those figures are based on. Maybe a 100% return in 12 months? Who knows. The Australian is pretty much a Liberal newsletter anyway.

Installation should be no more complex than for satellite TV and that also requires telephony accreditation.

There are a lot of roads and a hospital near my house that are yet to pay for themselves too but I guess that's what public infrastructure is. Costs are returned to the community indirectly through benefits.
At least this will generate revenue from the retailers.

NBN is supported by most country people, no votes to be won in the bush by bending the truth on this SM.

I here in lies the problem, the bush!

You see, people who chosse to live in the more 'remote' regions, usually do so for several reasons, one being that of affordabillity of land/house.

If one looks at a country area (mining towns excluded), you can expect to pay around 5 to 10% of city values for your land.

The restrictions as to what you can build are generally looser, so the available cost to build is usually much cheaper.

Now, one can not expect to 'go bush', saving a S-load, then complain because the internet services are poor, or, it takes to long to see a doctor, or for an ambulance to reach me.

You pay less for a reason and if you want all the 'mod cons' that a city provides, then simply move closer to where they are or be happy with what you have.

My opinion is that for those who want the speed, simply spend the money as I am sure there are expensive gadgets out there.

In any case, with labors track record, and let's not kid ourselves, it's not pretty, who can trust them to get it right.

SM,

Please don't try again your response is still spin spin and more spin.
oh yes, failing to acknowledge let alone address any of my points.

I won't respond to you any more on this thread unless you address all previous stated facts. My criticism have been said on other related posts. I have no interest in :
a. repeating them
b. breaking the rules about re posting.

Other than that Have an acceptable day. Party politics is so compromised a result either way is going to alienate a large minority of voters regardless

So it's only going to cost $65 billion to get what we already had, but had taken away from us?

When Optus first started, they offered a download rate that cannot be bought from any Tel-co anymore. We could download 20 songs simultaneously in the same time it now takes to download 3.

I'd like to know what it is that we're supposed to get for that $65 billion. We had fast Internet, but it was taken away so that the Telco's could make more profit than they already did. They introduced quantified download and speed rates, which they could charge differently, and more for.

Can you imagine telephones working on the same basis, and yet, it is basically the same technology today? Can you imagine your telephone calls being limited by the amount of conversation? Because that's what we currently accept as standard with the Internet.

I used to get unlimited Internet access from Optus at breakneck speed for $40 per month, and their best plan today is not as fast, nor does it allow as much data, since it is capped, as they all are amongst the major players.

My point being, they have been ripping us off blind for years with an inferior service geared towards profit and not service provision...you only have to try to call them to work that out...if you want to purchase something, you get an operator immediately. If you require assistance or have a complaint, there's a complex and convoluted menu system to get through to finally be put on hold. And hopefully, you'll be making that call from your mobile, and so just burning money waiting for "service".

Ergo, they don't require tax-payer funding, nor do they deserve it. They have tendered to gain license to provide electronic communications services. So then, provide it! Why should we throw another $65 billion at them? What's in it for us?

So-called "competition" from the privatisation of electronic communications, has created competition of who can profit most. It's who gives a better return to their investors, not who gives a better service and rate.

The cost of the NBN seems to be of no importance to very many individuals because the Government will pay for it.
$43 billion divided by the whole Australian population of 22 million equals $1954.54 for each individual.
Apply the average family, 2.4 and each family will have to contribute $4,691 to have the roll out completed.
It may have escaped the notice of many Australians that the Government doesn't have its own money. It has yours and mine.
It tries its hardest to get your money through taxes. I know I try my best to stop tham getting mine but I'm not that clever.
I read somewhere that a big part of the cost of the NBN rollout was bringing it to every household; that it would be very much cheaper to bring the cable to the end of the street and those who want it can pay to have it extended to their property.

phoenix94>>I read somewhere that a big part of the cost of the NBN rollout was bringing it to every household; that it would be very much cheaper to bring the cable to the end of the street and those who want it can pay to have it extended to their property.

Now that make sense. A user pays approach. It would have been nice to have had some costings released on this option.