Re: What's your prediction on the Australian Dollar?
The problem is finance-Why wont the NBN have their business plan reviewed by the Productivity Commission.
Probably because the indirect social and economic benefits are so difficult to quantify - I read a good article on the topic once, which clearly spelled out why trying would be a fruitless exercise. I can try to dig it up if you're interested.
Also some of the financial benefits are overstated.
The savings that some say are possible in Health are unrealistic.In 2005 before the Morris Inquiry into Bundaberg hospital the DG of QLD Health admitted 60% of salaries went on Non-clinical staff.The number certainly has not fallen since then.I guarantee the NBN will not do anything about that problem.There are many other changes occurring in medicine that will almost certainly have more effect than the NBN.
Teleconferences-I have been involved in those in Tasmania pre and post NBN. Really have not noticed any difference.
And saying that public servants,politicians will be able to teleconference instead of travelling to conferences really doesn't take human nature into account.
The financial case for the NBN has been made purely on the
direct cost of the build and the revenue it will generate from subscription fees - it does not take into account any of the "indirect" social / economic benefits like the ones you mention above. So, you could be 100% right about the above and it doesn't result in "the financial benefits being overstated".
That aside, with respect, it strikes me as pretty short-sighted to cite the two examples you did and then conclude that the indirect financial benefits have been overstated. Partly I say this because the history of the internet (and technological progress in general) has shown us time and again that it's often not until we have something that we can
really see - and take advantage of - all the possibilities it brings. But mainly I say this because you've cited two very specific examples of areas you think the NBN won't live up to it's promise, and completely ignored the (many, many) other areas.
And I will admit my bias(for Moody's sake) in saying I do not regard Government's financial predictions as very accurate.
And your scepticism certainly could turn out to be true. However, as I said earlier in this thread in reply to a different contributor:
I'm sure your natural insta-response will be something along the lines of "but it's going to cost [insert far larger than budgeted figure here] and be a financial disaster". This could turn out to be true - no one can predict the future. But it's not the assumption most supported by known facts, reasonable estimates and logic at the present time, which makes it the rational-argument equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "la la la it's going to cost a fortune I can't hear you la la la".
In addition, remember that the financial modelling around the NBN does not take into account - at all - the variety of indirect benefits it will bring to our society and economy. Those give the actual finances of the NBN a
large buffer for error and still have it work out to be a "net positive" project to have undertaken. I hope that buffer isn't needed, and it's not an excuse for it running over-budget if it does work out that way, but it's important to remember that it
is there just in case.
As an aside, what really bugs me on this topic is people who claim the NBN's costings are all wrong but yet are willing to take the costings of the Coalition's version of the NBN at face value (I'm not saying you're one of them drron - I don't think I've seen you express this view - just making a general point). There's no logical justification for this point of view other than bias.
Except that on the current copper network there has already been much consolidation, whereas many of the would-be NBN providers are total newbies.
I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. Firstly, you'll likely find that most NBN RSPs will also be current non-NBN ISPs, just making a gradual transition. If nothing else, that style of RSP will represent the vast, vast majority of consumer connections. And for those that are new, it'll be the same as it is now (and was pre-industry-consolidation) - if a RSP goes bust their customers will be bought by another, or those customers will voluntarily choose another RSP, all with little or no downtime.
I bet you could count on one hand the number of Telstra pits opened around Australia. I would not be surprised to see the final NBN bill to be out by up to $20bn.
If it is, it'll have nothing to do with shoddy ducts. NBNCo is leasing the ducts from Telstra on the basis that they're fit for purpose - if they're not, Telstra has to fix them, it doesn't cost NBNCo a dime.
Uh uh.
Canada has multiple different companies which own telephone (/ADSL) infrastructure, but they don't cross over geographically and hence don't compete. They also have some cable and FttH infrastructure owned by different companies, but it covers a limited geographical footprint. The situation there is more akin to the current Telstra-Optus duopoly, with limited, ineffective competition in a sub-section of the country - and certainly doesn't meet the definition of "
[a country] that has a similar geographical size and population density to Australia where privately owned fixed-line telecommunications competition is working on a national scale".
----
I'm not going to specifically respond to the rest of the discussion that has occurred since my last Big Post(TM) as I'm a bit late to the party. I do want to make some broad comments on the common anti-NBN arguments that have been brought up during it, though:
Those who somehow think that wireless will render the NBN obsolete / provide all the bandwidth we need in a few years time / etc:
Seriously, this is the dumbest anti-NBN argument out there. I'm sorry if that comes across as rude, but it really is, given it's one rebutted (time-and-again) through simple fact. There is not enough spectrum available for wireless to replace fixed telecommunications - it's that simple.
If we dumped all our current fixed-line traffic onto wireless everything would basically stop - there just isn't anywhere near the bandwidth available to handle it all using current technology. Yes, improved modulation techniques will continue to be developed and lead to increased maximum speeds, some new spectrum being unlocked and more efficient spectrum use (cramming more data into the same amount of spectrum). However, people peddling this argument are ignoring the fact that the amount of data we transmit is
also quickly increasing all the time. Both will go up, and we will still remain in the same situation as now, where we have (far) more data to transmit than wireless can possibly handle.
Clearly myself and others stating the above (and variants of this) over and over again is not getting through to some people, so if you still hold the point of view that wireless can (now, and/or in the foreseeable future) be a viable
replacement for fibre, I
implore you to go and find an expert on the topic - a telecommunications engineer, a physicist specialising in the area, or similar - and ask them about it. The
vast majority will tell you the same thing I am. Perhaps you'll believe them.
Those who say they don't need any more bandwidth than they have now:
To those holding this point of view, I'd suggest you're probably forgetting the past - I bet you were likely pretty happy with a 56Kbps modem at the time, and then 512Kbps ADSL, and so on. But if you had to go back a few steps now, you wouldn't be so happy. Bandwidth (and data usage) needs have continually increased over the life of the internet, and there's absolutely no reason to think that progress will stop now, even if you can't yet "see" the next step (or ten).
And even if you really, truly would be happy with what you have now for all time, I doubt that experience would be replicated across the vast majority of the wider population. Luckily (and I mean that genuinely, not sarcastically), public infrastructure projects are planned for the nation, not the individual.
Those who think the NBN is a waste because it'll just let people download movies/music/cough/whatever faster:
If you think the NBN is being built so that people can access entertainment more efficiently (or this will be the primary benefit it delivers), you're missing the point by a long, long way. Any argument built around this premise is a complete red herring. This will no doubt be
one of the benefits of the NBN - and perhaps the one which represents a majority of the traffic which will flow over it - but it absolutely is not the main reason why the NBN is being built, nor the main benefit benefit it will deliver - not even close. As I said earlier in this thread:
The NBN isn't being built so people can download movies faster - if you think it is, I'm not surprised that you're against it, but you're also forming that opinion based on incorrect fundamentals. You (genuinely) should go back and educate yourself about the benefits of ubiquitous and fast broadband - both what it delivers now, and what social and economic (and so on) benefits increased availability and speed of internet access have delivered historically. You might change your mind...
We're building the NBN to improve services and save money in health, education, government and business, to enable new commerce and improve existing commerce (and gaining the tax revenue, jobs and company profits that flow from this), to better enable telecommuting, to drive growth in regional and rural Australia, to continue Australia's progress towards being a knowledge-based economy, etc, etc, etc. If it also helps people consume more or better or faster or cheaper entertainment then that's nice - but it's
not why we're building the NBN.
On a different note, I'll close by making the point that there seem to be a lot of people in this thread who pop up and make an anti-NBN argument, but once that argument has been are thoroughly and logically rebutted just completely go to ground, or alternatively come back and make exactly the same point again while ignoring the responses. Not everyone anti-NBN, but a significant proportion. (And I'm not saying that I'm the only one putting forward logical arguments here, nor that all of my arguments are logical or correct - I'm making a general point.)
For those that choose to do this, it is of course absolutely your prerogative. But, it does seem pretty counter-productive and closed-minded. Why bother participating in a discussion like this if not to share ideas and critically evaluate your opinions and views of the world? I can't speak for everyone, but I know I participate in this discussion not to
tell everyone that the NBN is a good thing, but to
convince everyone that the NBN is good thing using fact and reasoned argument - or, alternatively, to have someone else
convince me that I'm wrong, and it is a project we shouldn't be undertaking (and yes, I am open to that if someone can mount a strong enough logical argument, believe it or not
).
