Huge doubts cast over Coalition's 'cheaper' NBN alternative

[iceblue]

The NBN should have been rolled out in the Capital Cities first...People in th Cities are IT saavy...It is not as important to have super speeds in country areas.. Roll it out first where you get the quickest return on Capital.

Regards Errol 43

Most Rural areas are being by-passed, the main centers are getting it, but basically nothing will change down here, no nbn for us.

From last week: Bass Coast, South, East and Central Gippsland set for fixed wireless 2013-2015

You might end up with fiber anyway, check your address here: http://www.nbnco.com.au/rollout/rollout-map.html

We are already wireless, and my speeds are just as good as the city. It actually makes no sense to me.
I can understand why they dont wont to roll out cable down here, most peoples driveways are longer than a city street.
However that press release says nothing really, we already have that, maybe iam missing something?

 

[Kansas21]

We are already wireless, and my speeds are just as good as the city. It actually makes no sense to me.
I can understand why they dont wont to roll out cable down here, most peoples driveways are longer than a city street.
However that press release says nothing really, we already have that, maybe iam missing something?

Ice - Yes there are a few missing gems of info - chat to you when we next catch up - there's a lot of detail missing in the public announcements regarding the NBN.

 

[Old Codger]

The NBN will be swamped by wireless inside 5 years, about a day after they finish all the fibre optic cables.



OC

 

[bordsilver]

The NBN will be swamped by wireless inside 5 years, about a day after they finish all the fibre optic cables.



OC

Except for a brief 6 month period in 2005 our family haven't had ANY fixed line connections at our last 4 homes for just over 9 years now. (Our offices have high speed fibre already and the NBN won't make a dot of difference wrt whether we close those and work from home).

 

[errol43]

What speeds are we talking about here? No problems with storms and bad weather?

Regards Errol 43

 

[Big A.D.]

The NBN will be swamped by wireless inside 5 years, about a day after they finish all the fibre optic cables.

There was another thread a while ago (I'll try to find it) with a link to a graph that shows projected bandwidth demand over the next 10 years.

The short version is that wireless can't cope with the amount of data we'll want to use in the near future. Wireless can't cope with the total amount of data we use now i.e. if we all switched from using our ADSL connections to using wireless, the wireless networks would go into meltdown.

As the original article says, the copper network is at (or a bit past) it's functional lifespan and isn't being maintained. Even if we wanted to maintain it, the cost would be huge because it's old and corroded and needs huge chunks of it to be completely replaced.

This is one of the things the engineers have been trying to tell the Liberals for the last 5 years - the technology isn't capable of doing what the Liberals want it to. It's not a political argument from Labor supporters, it's the laws of physics and they can't be bent to suit Liberal party policy.

[Edit] Found the link to the bandwidth projection study: http://www.abc.net.au/technology/articles/2012/06/14/3524848.htm

Warning: It's long, but the graphs tell the story pretty well.

 

[dindu5585]

Good link Big A.D.

IMO, the issue is with spectrum and frequency availability
Until the can fit 100 mini antennas in a handset with high procesing speeds, fiber is the easy way forward.

 

[Big A.D.]

surely following the Recession Prevention Model just when it looked like a really bad recession was going to come along and only getting a small dip instead is a little bit more than a coincidence?

I already mentioned China. Coincidence?

You know China also pumped a huge chunk of stimulus money into their system as well, don't you? They waited a bit longer and they didn't target the spending very well, but they used the same basic counter-cyclical spending strategy we did.

I'm not suggesting that giving money away for people to spend at Harvey Norman, JB Hi Fi and on overseas holidays did nothing at all - but rather that there's no way to show that it was the right way to spend the money.

(Moving from the technical side to the 'results' side) What exactly did they supposedly achieve with the stimulus? Like the BER? (ignoring the pink batts fiasco). There was the first home owners grant increases too. Spending to theoretically prevent change to the exact areas of the economy that needed change, not the status quo.

The "right way" to spend the money was to give it to people who would spend it on things they'd usually spend it on, i.e. encourage "business as usual" in the Australian economy. That's it. Keep everyone spending money and allow it to flow through the economy like it normally does.

That isn't to say that the Australian economy doesn't need to ever change at all but changing the way money flows very suddenly is devastating. Entire sectors just crash and burn and the knock-on effects screw up the way other sectors operate.

Ideally, change happens slowly so that everyone has time to adjust. By and large, that's what's happening.

"Better than everyone else" counts for more in a global economy.

That is true.

But... are we in a better position than we were in 2007? Are we in a position to confidently move forward with investment and growth in the economy?

As much as I don't even like to talk about 'growth' (like it is some kind of religion), I think Australia is in a very risky position. We still have a massive housing/debt problem, manufacturing is being ground into the dust, farmers are getting the short end continually, our scientific and research communities have minimal support, our education system (particularly tertiary) is a mess and has been going downhill for years... the list goes on and on.

And Gillard is out and about talking us up, saying we need to boost productivity and become more of a services economy. Like the last PM. And the PM before that. I'd argue that our mines seem pretty productive - they're supporting our false economy after all.

So in this case, better than most other countries is only true in the present, not in the future, and only by virtue of relativity to a host of countries in crisis.

How about: "I've got leprosy, but all my friends have ebola, so i'm doing better than everyone else"

I agree, however would you rather be having this discussion in Australia as it is today or in an Australia with America's 8% unemployment, no growth, no jobs, zero percent interest rates, hard to obtain credit, mass bankruptcies, higher inflation and an impotent federal government unable to even begin the process of figuring out how to make things better?

We bought ourselves time to adjust. Unfortunate I think we might end up squandering that chance through complacency and general intellectual laziness. We are "the lucky country" after all, and who needs a sensible public policy agenda when you're lucky?

 

[bordsilver]

^ Statist, central planning, freedom-hating, Keynesian to the core.

 

[Dogmatix]

I just realise i've written a large response below and I apologise if it is tedious.

You know China also pumped a huge chunk of stimulus money into their system as well, don't you? They waited a bit longer and they didn't target the spending very well, but they used the same basic counter-cyclical spending strategy we did.

Yes, that's what I was saying from the start. I believe this is a core reason that Australian stimulus cannot be proven to have worked.

The "right way" to spend the money was to give it to people who would spend it on things they'd usually spend it on, i.e. encourage "business as usual" in the Australian economy. That's it. Keep everyone spending money and allow it to flow through the economy like it normally does.

That isn't to say that the Australian economy doesn't need to ever change at all but changing the way money flows very suddenly is devastating. Entire sectors just crash and burn and the knock-on effects screw up the way other sectors operate.

Ideally, change happens slowly so that everyone has time to adjust. By and large, that's what's happening.

This idea of maintaining the status quo assumes two things:
1) That the economy was running well before the GFC and there was no malinvestment
2) That the economy after the GFC needs to look exactly like the economy before it

Both of those are incorrect IMO.

I agree that letting sectors of the economy crash and burn is very devastating. And the more the business cycle is fought with stimulating policies, the more devastating the crashing and burning is. So Govt policy and ineptitude helped to make this mess (along with rampant consumerism), and now it has a big problem.

The solution is still the same - crash and burn, maybe with some minor assistance, possibly relating to debt servicing. But ultimately it is the only way you can build a solid foundation from which to begin to prosper again. I expect some resistance on that.

I agree, however would you rather be having this discussion in Australia as it is today or in an Australia with America's 8% unemployment, no growth, no jobs, zero percent interest rates, hard to obtain credit, mass bankruptcies, higher inflation and an impotent federal government unable to even begin the process of figuring out how to make things better?

We bought ourselves time to adjust. Unfortunate I think we might end up squandering that chance through complacency and general intellectual laziness. We are "the lucky country" after all, and who needs a sensible public policy agenda when you're lucky?

We'd be in a much better position with the unemployment, lack of credit, mass bankruptcies. Not sure about all the inflation, ZIRP and the rest, as we are not the USA, and should not be compared to them.

Here's an analogy:

Person A has headaches, caused by severe stress. Rather than reduce the stress, the person takes panadols three times a day to treat the symptom - pain. The panadols allow this person to continue to function, without having to address the stress problem. The person then has a nervous breakdown some months later from all the stress.

Person B has headaches, also caused by severe stress. Rather than taking symptomatic relief, this person takes some time off work and figures out what the problem is. After making some life changes, the person goes back to work, without the headache, and without a nervous breakdown.

Person B took time out of work in the short term, to fix the problems they were having. Person A maintained the status quo and 'hoped' the problem would fix itself if they merely dealt with the symptoms. Ultimately, Person B had a short amount of work downtime, yet Person A continued to work for a while and then was completely out of action after a nervous breakdown.

The problem is, the Australian Govt does not want to take the short-term pain of restructuring the economy through the natural process of a 'bust', but rather wants to address the symptoms in the hope that it will fix itself. Yes it will fix itself with a depression (nervous breakdown).

You say: "Unfortunate I think we might end up squandering that chance through complacency and general intellectual laziness.", which is a good comment. But do you realise why? We were never, ever going to take our chance and make things better. It was never going to happen outside of someone's thought bubble. The reason we would never make things better is that the malinvestment was rewarded and the prudent action was essentially punished. It sent the exact opposite messages to the economy.

An example: If you were a clothes retailer, and took a massive hit in the GFC, rather than to re-evaluate whether clothes retailing is a good industry to be in, and whether there are enough consumers in the market now for you to stay operational, the Govt has altered the market to artificially persuade you to stay in business. Without this persuasion, you might have changed industry, perhaps become a teacher, or a farmer, or stayed at home to look after the kids, anything. You would likely go to work where the demand is. There would probably be some downtime though, maybe a year or two of unemployment, but when you took up your next job, it'd definitely be in a demand industry.

If the economy was an animal, what you are advocating is the use of continual doses of antibiotics to prevent infection, when what it really needs is it's own damn immune system. If you keep along this line of thinking, our animal economy will become like a bubble-boy - doomed to a tragic death at the slightest possible infection.

 

[Big A.D.]

You know China also pumped a huge chunk of stimulus money into their system as well, don't you? They waited a bit longer and they didn't target the spending very well, but they used the same basic counter-cyclical spending strategy we did.

Yes, that's what I was saying from the start. I believe this is a core reason that Australian stimulus cannot be proven to have worked.

So the Chinese stimulus worked and prevented both the Chinese economy and the Australian economy from crashing but the effect of the Australian stimulus is iffy?

Not sure I see how that works. Either counter-cyclical government spending works at preventing a recession (or at least lessens the effect) or it doesn't, and there are plenty of industries and businesses that are affected faster and harder if people here stop buying stuff than if China doesn't buy as much iron ore from us next month.

This idea of maintaining the status quo assumes two things:
1) That the economy was running well before the GFC and there was no malinvestment
2) That the economy after the GFC needs to look exactly like the economy before it

No it doesn't, it means that malinvestments and unsustainable businesses need to be squeezed out gradually over a period of time rather than just going "pop!" and all of them imploding at the same time.

Doing that allows people time after the initial shock to re-examine what they're doing, pay down debt, sell off unproductive assets (maybe at a small loss) to other people who are prepared to take some risk and turn them around (and therefore take a smaller loss if it doesn't work out), postpone or cancel "adventurous" expansion plans that are no longer viable, make targeted redundancies to give staff a chance to find decent jobs that they're qualified for, look for new markets that hadn't been considered before and generally get stuff in order.

Alternatively, you get a whole bunch of businesses that find themselves at the end of the week and unable to make payroll.

We'd be in a much better position with the unemployment, lack of credit, mass bankruptcies. Not sure about all the inflation, ZIRP and the rest, as we are not the USA, and should not be compared to them.

Of course we should compare Australia to America. If we don't then we don't know either how we got where we are now or where we're headed in the future. There are plenty of lessons we can learn from America's screw-ups.

An example: If you were a clothes retailer, and took a massive hit in the GFC, rather than to re-evaluate whether clothes retailing is a good industry to be in, and whether there are enough consumers in the market now for you to stay operational, the Govt has altered the market to artificially persuade you to stay in business. Without this persuasion, you might have changed industry, perhaps become a teacher, or a farmer, or stayed at home to look after the kids, anything. You would likely go to work where the demand is. There would probably be some downtime though, maybe a year or two of unemployment, but when you took up your next job, it'd definitely be in a demand industry.

A year or two of unemployment? Are you serious?

A year of Newstart allowance is $12,800 and you can't live on it. Why put people through that when it isn't necessary?

And why wait for a catastrophic failure to occur and then try to pick up the pieces when it's easier and cheaper to do preventative maintenance and avoid the catastrophic failure all together?

I can tell you there are plenty of clothes retailers out there who are re-thinking the way they're doing things and some are leaving the industry and some are making big changes to the way they do business. The important thing is they didn't all go broke within a few months of the GFC hitting. If they had, okay the rag trade would be "rightsized" but there would be thousands of people who'd be completely wiped out in the process and we'd be just like the U.S. with the aforementioned mass bankruptcies, home foreclosures and no credit to get anything done.

What you're talking about is economic carnage. Change doesn't have to happen like that.

 

[Dogmatix]

So the Chinese stimulus worked and prevented both the Chinese economy and the Australian economy from crashing but the effect of the Australian stimulus is iffy?

Not sure I see how that works. Either counter-cyclical government spending works at preventing a recession (or at least lessens the effect) or it doesn't, and there are plenty of industries and businesses that are affected faster and harder if people here stop buying stuff than if China doesn't buy as much iron ore from us next month.

A person would have to be a fool to think that stimulus has zero effect.

All I argue there is that it is difficult, or perhaps impossible, to prove whether it was Australian stimulus, or in fact Chinese (or other international) stimulus that prevented a technical recession in Australia.

This idea of maintaining the status quo assumes two things:
1) That the economy was running well before the GFC and there was no malinvestment
2) That the economy after the GFC needs to look exactly like the economy before it

No it doesn't, it means that malinvestments and unsustainable businesses need to be squeezed out gradually over a period of time rather than just going "pop!" and all of them imploding at the same time.

Doing that allows people time after the initial shock to re-examine what they're doing, pay down debt, sell off unproductive assets (maybe at a small loss) to other people who are prepared to take some risk and turn them around (and therefore take a smaller loss if it doesn't work out), postpone or cancel "adventurous" expansion plans that are no longer viable, make targeted redundancies to give staff a chance to find decent jobs that they're qualified for, look for new markets that hadn't been considered before and generally get stuff in order.

Alternatively, you get a whole bunch of businesses that find themselves at the end of the week and unable to make payroll.

What you describe is great - if it could work (which it can't).

As I explained, it sends the wrong message. What actually happened, was banks became bigger, retailers went into permanent sale mode (excess competition vs reduced demand), manufacturing kept making the stuff we obviously don't want (at that price), wages stayed high, debt stayed inflated, the property bubble got bigger, and we became the great quarry down-under.

Of course we should compare Australia to America. If we don't then we don't know either how we got where we are now or where we're headed in the future. There are plenty of lessons we can learn from America's screw-ups.

But not directly. We can compare property bubbles, stuff that is the same. But last I checked we didn't have trillions in Govt debt. Although we are similar in some other ways.

A year or two of unemployment? Are you serious?

A year of Newstart allowance is $12,800 and you can't live on it. Why put people through that when it isn't necessary?

And why wait for a catastrophic failure to occur and then try to pick up the pieces when it's easier and cheaper to do preventative maintenance and avoid the catastrophic failure all together?

I can tell you there are plenty of clothes retailers out there who are re-thinking the way they're doing things and some are leaving the industry and some are making big changes to the way they do business. The important thing is they didn't all go broke within a few months of the GFC hitting. If they had, okay the rag trade would be "rightsized" but there would be thousands of people who'd be completely wiped out in the process and we'd be just like the U.S. with the aforementioned mass bankruptcies, home foreclosures and no credit to get anything done.

Shouldn't be a year or two of unemployment, but realistically I think some areas of the economy would have that. It takes time to reskill and to build up demand in the right industries.

I've also underlined a few spots in this part where you are clearing talking about actively manipulating the economy.

The economy is complex. Any manipulation of the economy, by providing money, tax breaks or any sort of preference to one person/group directly takes something away from another. It's central planning!

What you're talking about is economic carnage. Change doesn't have to happen like that.

You're so right.

If more people in politics respected the business cycle, it wouldn't need to occur like that at all - it'd be mild recessions followed by mild booms.

What the Keynesians seek is no recessions and constantly powerful booms. They're like teen rev-heads at the wheel of their first V8. Slow down? Hells no.

 

[Big A.D.]

What you're talking about is economic carnage. Change doesn't have to happen like that.

You're so right.

If more people in politics respected the business cycle, it wouldn't need to occur like that at all - it'd be mild recessions followed by mild booms.

What the Keynesians seek is no recessions and constantly powerful booms.

What you've just called Keyesian economic theory is actually closer to what occurred immediately prior to the GFC and, if I recall correctly, that period was presided over by Western governments with a particularly "classical economics" bent.

This is from just the introduction to the Wiki entry on Keynesian economics:

Keynesian economists believe that in the short run, productive activity is influenced by aggregate demand (total spending in the economy) and that aggregate demand does not necessarily equal aggregate supply (the total productive capacity of the economy). Instead it is influenced by a host of factors and sometimes behaves erratically, affecting production, employment and inflation.[1]

Advocates of Keynesian economics argue that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes which require active policy responses by the public sector, particularly monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government to stabilize output over the business cycle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics

My underlining to show how badly you mischaracterized Keynesian theory.

 

[Dogmatix]

What you're talking about is economic carnage. Change doesn't have to happen like that.

You're so right.

If more people in politics respected the business cycle, it wouldn't need to occur like that at all - it'd be mild recessions followed by mild booms.

What the Keynesians seek is no recessions and constantly powerful booms.

What you've just called Keyesian economic theory is actually closer to what occurred immediately prior to the GFC and, if I recall correctly, that period was presided over by Western governments with a particularly "classical economics" bent.

It was Keynesian from 39-79 according to Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes#The_Keynesian_ascendancy_1939.E2.80.931979

Then brought back again recently according to Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_M...the_Keynesian_resurgence_of_2008.E2.80.932009

But from 79 to 2007 wiki says it was classical economics, which could be true up until the Tech Bubble popping in 2000, after which Greenspan did his thing. And here we are.

Greenspan may have had a liking for classical economics, but it doesn't matter which type of economist you have if the Govt itself is destroying the country with policies. The US is a legal nightmare, a perfect breeding ground for the corruption that killed Greenspans initial desire for the 'free market'.

However this is not what i've been talking about all this time, apart from Greenspans manipulation which falls under this category too. Riding a boom is easy, it's the politicians who think it will go on forever that are the problem, because once things turn bad they turn to bad economic theories to try and make them good again.

We are now going down the path of Keynes yet again (hopefully this time we will learn from this mistake).

This is from just the introduction to the Wiki entry on Keynesian economics:

Keynesian economists believe that in the short run, productive activity is influenced by aggregate demand (total spending in the economy) and that aggregate demand does not necessarily equal aggregate supply (the total productive capacity of the economy). Instead it is influenced by a host of factors and sometimes behaves erratically, affecting production, employment and inflation.[1]

Advocates of Keynesian economics argue that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes which require active policy responses by the public sector, particularly monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government to stabilize output over the business cycle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics

My underlining to show how badly you mischaracterized Keynesian theory.

Well, there is some name-calling involved. It outlines the frustration a lot of us stackers have with Keynesian-styled policies. The frustration creeps into a lot of what we say.

But generally, it looks like i'm right on the money with that underlined part.

Controlling the economy indeed.

 

[AngloSaxon]

The credit crisis has nothing to do with classical economics. It was caused by deliberate legislation intervening in the US housing market under the Keynsian/left leaning US Democrats over the course of many years spanning back to Clintons' presidency. With disastrous results. The GFC started on Bush's watch, yes, but it was the Democrats in Congress voting on legislation that enabled the crisis and prevented reform that may have stopped the disastrous government interventions. The UK Labour Party is hardly a hub of classical economics practitioners.

 

[Dogmatix]

^ Are you referring to the repeal of Glass-Steagall?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–...80.9Crepeal.E2.80.9D_and_the_financial_crisis

 

[ShadowPeo]

God I hope I get some FTTH before they start rolling out wireless shit.

I don't want wireless FFS

God I hope I get some FTTH before they start rolling out wireless shit.

I don't want wireless FFS

Yep you are 100% right..In my areas there is no more ADSL connections available so you have to sign up with satellite service...My mate had to do so...Keeps dropping out all the time especially in overcast, rainy or windy whether. Give me land line any day..Can't wait for the NBN to run past my door.!

I am with you two on this, cannot wait for NBN, working in the industry I have a need for a fast reliable and rout-able internet connection to the public internet, which is not cheap nor easy to obtain with wireless, we have ADSL at the premises now, but I happen to be on one of those lines that gets wet when it rains, dropping the servers off the internet which is not so useful to me, and Hellstra refuse to replace the crappy 50+ year old two pair connection that runs 1KM down the street, just to cross the road, and run 1KM back down the street to the sub-exchange which is practically opposite me.

Now lets provide a bit of balance. Governments of all persuasions take the heat all the time for bad decisions and rightly so and eventually they pay the price..Hit with the baseball bat!

Now lets have a look at Business.

1. Ford, Holden and Toyota have been building fewer and fewer cars for years but when was the last time that any of these manufactures designed , built and sold small cars under $25k in Australia..When their base model 6 and 8's Holdens/Falcons don't sell enough and the industry is going under. What do they do..The blue/red government give them a bailout to keep going..Have they no foresight?

2. Remember the year when a blue PM promised SA that we would build our own submarine in that state to ensure that skilled workers were not lost in the manufacturing industry. So we went ahead and built our own and what a white elephant they turned out to be. Seems like Australian did not have the skills to build such a vessel..Should have tried to acquired the Golan Sub from Sweeden.

3. Free trade agreements signed up with several countries..Everyone in favor. Just think of how many $ we can make selling farm produce to other free market countries..Wait a minute NZ want to sell us apples, Canada wants to sell us pig meat. Malaysia pineapples..Remember we sold wheat to Iraq when we were at war with them! We have viable industries in all these, Why do we have to import? It's the price Stupid! Got to keep Inflation down!Down! Down!

4. Australian Banks too big to fail. Too right. Federal Reserve Bank of th USA propped two of them up during the GFC but nay a mention in MSM.

5. Milk deregulation. What a rip off..Still paying today mind you. Coles and Woolworths sell you crap milk at $1 a litre but don't look at the price of other diary products. All the diary farms that remain will be in Victoria. But wait NZ, wants a slice of the Action!

6. Remember the time when Qantas Management wanted to sell the airline to a hedge fund for $11 billion and it nearly went through. Well if it had there would be no Qantas today! Qantas sponsor the Melbourne Cup, no we will have a fly past of the Emirates airliner!

7. BHP was bailed out over 30 year ago. I wonder did they ever pay it back. Oh thats right, it was only a grant not a loan.

Australian Governments both red and blue, do what they are told or else! International World Bankers and Investors decide what is best for Australians..Your vote doesn't count in these matters. All your vote decide is do you want a red or blue ass hole to pretend to lead your country with a variety of issues that they pull from the hat like a magician. Do you like my hair Tony? I like your togs!

REgards Errol 43

Whilst I agree on most parts, I do think we need the heavy manufacturing industries to stay here, simply from a defense point of view, we need to be fully self-sufficient in defense manufacturing, so I have no real issue helping heavy manufacturing to stay here as to me it is a strategic defense move,

That and its a Gotland class submarine, which yes the Collins is based on, or rather the other way round, although the Goltand class to have AIP ability this was never put into Collins class. these days the Collins class is quite capable, still needs refinement but it is our first attempt. what should be of more concern is the fact we only have enough crew (submarine service is volunteer, you join the navy, then volunteer for submarine service) to keep 3 of the boats at sea full time.

The NBN will be swamped by wireless inside 5 years, about a day after they finish all the fibre optic cables.

Whilst yes possible, it will not be the fibre that is swamped, you want to increase the carrying capability (for the most part) you just increases the active equipment, or light up extra lines, I doubt they are going to run a single pair to a property, its just about cheaper to use 6 core these days.

There was another thread a while ago (I'll try to find it) with a link to a graph that shows projected bandwidth demand over the next 10 years.

The short version is that wireless can't cope with the amount of data we'll want to use in the near future. Wireless can't cope with the total amount of data we use now i.e. if we all switched from using our ADSL connections to using wireless, the wireless networks would go into meltdown.

As the original article says, the copper network is at (or a bit past) it's functional lifespan and isn't being maintained. Even if we wanted to maintain it, the cost would be huge because it's old and corroded and needs huge chunks of it to be completely replaced.

This is one of the things the engineers have been trying to tell the Liberals for the last 5 years - the technology isn't capable of doing what the Liberals want it to. It's not a political argument from Labor supporters, it's the laws of physics and they can't be bent to suit Liberal party policy.

Thats about it, as much as I despise labor, or any politician or political party really they are right on this, this not not the cheapest way to do it, it is not the best way to do it (best way would be FTTH everywhere) but it is the best compromise way without spending truly exorbitant amounts on full FTTH as they have in Japan and Korea etc, which in their cases is similar to our model as the rural areas for the most part are not FTTH, but large swathes are, this is made possible by the fact that their population density is so high, so thereby bringing the cost per residence down



Edit: just to put this into context I use Cisco (not linksys, Cisco) gear at home, 2800 series routers, 2960-24 PoE switches (that way the wireless points and security cameras are powered centrally by the switches, meaning less battery backups required) and soon to be Aerohive based wireless network.


Why... Because I can, plus I get it cheap through work

 

[Big A.D.]

However this is not what i've been talking about all this time, apart from Greenspans manipulation which falls under this category too. Riding a boom is easy, it's the politicians who think it will go on forever that are the problem, because once things turn bad they turn to bad economic theories to try and make them good again.

We are now going down the path of Keynes yet again (hopefully this time we will learn from this mistake).

You're speaking as if Keynesian theory that made the all governments who were in power immediately prior to the GFC act like raging socialists.

Bush certainly wasn't a raging socialist. Neither was Tony Blair. Nor was John Howard.

The decade or so before the GFC was all about free market fanboys deregulating everything they could find and removing decades worth of structures that provided stability to the economy.

That's almost the exact opposite of the philosophy Keynes' proposed because Keynes' theory was that the private sector often gets things wrong (to one degree or another) and government needs to step in and provide support when that happens. There's a reason you shouldn't be giving loans to people with No Income, No Job or Assets. Removing all the rules that prevented lenders from doing that, like Bush did, certainly got rid of a lot of pesky government regulation but the regulation was there for a good reason - left to it's own devices, the free market does stupid things and the government has the choice of either trying to prevent the worst of it from happening in the first place or picking up the pieces when the whole lot comes crashing down.

Well, there is some name-calling involved. It outlines the frustration a lot of us stackers have with Keynesian-styled policies. The frustration creeps into a lot of what we say.

But generally, it looks like i'm right on the money with that underlined part.

Controlling the economy indeed.

Intervening in the economy when the market fails, yes.

Generally, the market isn't perfect but it works pretty well - this is according to Keynes - but there is no other force capable of preventing the effects of the market's excesses from inflicting long lasting damage than government.

 

[Dogmatix]

Funny how people continually say that the US market is anything but 'free'.

You can remove one regulation out of 1000, and suddenly it is deregulated?

You can repeal the one regulation designed to prevent banks from speculating, and that's somehow 'classical' deregulation? It was the one good regulation they had!

I know you know what 'too big too fail' is. Who do you think creates this situation, the market our the Govt?

The answer is the Govt, by it's implicit guarantee to bail out financial behemoths. If the Govt refused to do such things, 'too big to fail' would not exist.

I don't we're ever going to agree. The crux of this argument is still the difference between a centrally managed economy vs. the natural selection processes of the market (and its participants).

 

[Big A.D.]

I know you know what 'too big too fail' is. Who do you think creates this situation, the market our the Govt?

The answer is the Govt, by it's implicit guarantee to bail out financial behemoths. If the Govt refused to do such things, 'too big to fail' would not exist.

Sure it would.

Those U.S. banks weren't actually "too big to fail" they were "too big for any sane person with influence to allow to fail". Letting those banks go under was always an option, but the cost to the rest of the country would be that the United States would plummet into a depression worse than the one in the 1930s and take a large part of the rest of the world down with it. That's why the (U.S.) Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was created after the 1929 crash - sure you could allow banks to just fail but standing by and letting it happen means things get really messed up and way out of proportion to the actual failures themselves.

Ultimately, the huge cost to the U.S. of bailing out those banks was still less than the cost of letting them fail.

The crux of this argument is still the difference between a centrally managed economy vs. the natural selection processes of the market (and its participants).

Sure, but remember it's not a binary option. Government can still guide the direction of an economy without actively intervening in particular aspects of it and businesses can still fail perfectly well by themselves.

Without something to provide a counter-balance to the market, it's very nature means that it behaves like a manic depressive going through phases of exhilarating highs and soul crushing lows. It isn't really hard to see why individuals with bipolar often get counselling and medication to prevent the swings from being so wild.