Yeah I know cable pay tv is more reliable, i have the satellite version and yes in a storm you can lose reception for a bit... but is $30-40 billion worth it just to make sure my pay tv or internet doesn't drop out for a few minutes every coupole of months?? I assume the Pay TV operators found a pretty good way to get their products out to people's houses without the ruinously expensive process of laying all that cable???
When i saw that picture about the ICC unit or whatever, i was going to comment something along the line of - of course they will put up some attention grabber like that, but how many people will really need their life saved liked that per year??? 3? 5? And why couldn't you use any number of ways we currently use for doing live crosses on tv or connecting hospitals up some other way?? I mean $30-40 billion is a LOT of money to spend, in terms of saving lives it could probably fund a host of things that would save more lives than just the hospital hook up initiative, you could probably fund a jet aircraft to fly doctors around if necessary... Its a nice idea, but does it really stand alone justify spending that much money...
I've heard buisness say it is necessary and such a productivity tool... I don't know what new sectors will benefit by it, i doubt we are suddenly going to replace silicon valley etc as a place of wold beating software and hardware design, digital creativity etc?? I imagine if so it will be more niche stuff while is there better ways of spending the $30-40 billion for inudsty support?? And yes businesses interent will be a bit quicker, their online payment and transactions will be a bit quicker... All this super fast teleconferencing could well do away with all this frequent flying, which i doubt the flyers will like all that much... but again, is there no other system that would give us a majority of these benefits for cheaper and could the businesses themselves invest in it rather than public money??
As for homes, yes i imagine the very large part of the benefits will be for people to download things more (and probably the usual load of stuff people download pron and tv series and movis etc), and whether that is worth the $30-40 billion or so i don't think i have really been sold either, at least in comparison to is there another system out using wirless or satellite etc that will deliver a good proportion of the capability with hopefully only a fraction of the cost...
I guess like proposals for a high speed train network down the east cost, while these things would be nice, are they the only solutions and are they desperately needed or nice to have? and will at the end of it in 5-10 years live up to its billing or be a whie elephant.. I wouldn't trust too much else of what the current mob have been attempting to do....
) for them, but depending on who owns which network it will be interesting to see how the political interest tests on mergers and take-overs work if Stokes wants to buy more parts of Seven/Prime or if Lachlan Murdoch tries to own more of or buy Ten or Southern Cross regional. Don't forget that Gina Reinhart owns some of Ten and Fairfax so I suspect more of a mogul specific outcome that Conroy made a deal with the Greens about, that is not widely advertised or known about yet.
