NBN3 Wireless plan needs 4G spectrum fast-track

[Rod Speed]

terryc wrote

Mr.T wrote
keithr <keith@nowhere.com.au> wrote

And the taxpayers should subsidise all that, WHY exactly?

Work out who it is that will be using these services.
And the answer is - (Tada) Taxpayers!

NO, the answer is only SOME taxpayers. In any case if exactly the
same people were paying, AND they actually wanted to pay, then
private industry would get on with the job WITHOUT any need for
government to be involved.

Not quite the full story.

Your line in spades.

The private sector would simply cherry pick the profitable and screw the rest.

How odd that they dont with the mobile networks. You have noticed
that Telstra has been part of the private sector for quite a while now ?

The whole NBN is about providing the same cross subsidies that
were considered wrong when Telstra was 100% government owned.

which cross subsidies?

The use of the huge revenues from basic phone services to pay for the broadband rollout.

And why are they wrong in tele comms, but not
in other areas (mining royalties being redistributed,

Not within the mining companys they arent.

taxes from all tax payers being redistributed to subsidise all private motor vehicles).

Pigs arse they are. It is in fact public transport thats subsidised instead.

>> They seem FAR more wrong when left to private enterprise IMO.

 

[terryc]

On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 19:54:43 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

The private sector would simply cherry pick the profitable and screw
the rest.

How odd that they dont with the mobile networks. You have noticed that
Telstra has been part of the private sector for quite a while now ?

The whole NBN is about providing the same cross subsidies that were
considered wrong when Telstra was 100% government owned.

which cross subsidies?

The use of the huge revenues from basic phone services to pay for the
broadband rollout.

You would have preferred all taxpayers to pay for it, rather than users?
The cost of basic phone services has shrunk significantly any way, so it
can hardly be argued that there was any huge revenues unless your use was
high.

And why are they wrong in tele comms, but not in other areas (mining
royalties being redistributed,

Not within the mining companys they arent.
Well, actually they are. Failed to notice how much public funds are used

to pay for infrastructure to enable mining companies to ship their
products overseas?

taxes from all tax payers being redistributed to subsidise all private
motor vehicles).

Pigs arse they are. It is in fact public transport thats subsidised
instead.

Correct, but it is insignificant to the amount of resources that are
taken for fat arses to drive their own motor vehicles. Rego & fuel tax
does not pay for roads. It can also be argued that public transport
returns significant benefits to the community as a whole.

 

[Rod Speed]

terryc wrote

Rod Speed wrote
terryc wrote

The private sector would simply cherry pick the profitable and screw the rest.

How odd that they dont with the mobile networks. You have noticed
that Telstra has been part of the private sector for quite a while now ?

The whole NBN is about providing the same cross subsidies that were
considered wrong when Telstra was 100% government owned.

which cross subsidies?

The use of the huge revenues from basic phone services to pay for the broadband rollout.

You would have preferred all taxpayers to pay for it, rather than users?

I never said a word about what I would prefer, I was JUST rubbing your
stupid pig ignorant nose in the FACT that we did see those cross subsidies.

The cost of basic phone services has shrunk significantly any way,

Thats just plain wrong too with the line rent. They have in
fact hiked very dramatically indeed, more than tripled in fact.

so it can hardly be argued that there was any huge revenues unless your use was high.

Another pig ignorant lie with the line rent.

And why are they wrong in tele comms, but not in
other areas (mining royalties being redistributed,

Not within the mining companys they arent.

Well, actually they are.

Nope.

Failed to notice how much public funds are used to pay for infrastructure
to enable mining companies to ship their products overseas?

Pity it aint mining ROYALTYS that are paying for that.

taxes from all tax payers being redistributed to subsidise all private motor vehicles).

Pigs arse they are. It is in fact public transport thats subsidised instead.

Correct, but it is insignificant to the amount of resources that
are taken for fat arses to drive their own motor vehicles.

Wrong again. Nothing like most of even just the petrol excise is spent on roads.

Rego & fuel tax does not pay for roads.

Corse they do, and a hell of a lot more than just roads too.

It can also be argued that public transport returns significant benefits to the community as a whole.

Irrelevant to your pig ignorant lie about it being subsidized.

 

[terryc]

On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 02:34:55 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

The cost of basic phone services has shrunk significantly any way,

Thats just plain wrong too with the line rent. They have in fact hiked
very dramatically indeed, more than tripled in fact.

Could you provide a couple of comparative years and cost to support your
claim?

Pigs arse they are. It is in fact public transport thats subsidised
instead.

Correct, but it is insignificant to the amount of resources that are
taken for fat arses to drive their own motor vehicles.

Wrong again. Nothing like most of even just the petrol excise is spent
on roads.

You have figures of petrol excise Vs total cost on roads at Federal,
state and LOCAL government levels?

Rego & fuel tax does not pay for roads.

Corse they do, and a hell of a lot more than just roads too.

If that is the case, lets use it to do away with income tax {;-).

It can also be argued that public transport returns significant
benefits to the community as a whole.

Irrelevant to your pig ignorant lie about it being subsidized.

Nope, you said it was subsidized, I agreed that it might be argued such,
but not in the wider picture.

 

[Mr.T]

"terryc" <newsninespam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:i64jpc$85k$11@speranza.aioe.org...

NO, the answer is only SOME taxpayers. In any case if exactly the same
people were paying, AND they actually wanted to pay, then private
industry would get on with the job WITHOUT any need for government to be
involved.

Not quite the full story. The private sector would simply cherry pick the
profitable and screw the rest.

Which is as it should be for a PRIVATE enterprise. *IF* telecommunications
were so important that they CANNOT be left to private enterprise, it should
never have been sold. Which is what I said all along. Since it WAS sold,
they should obviously be left to get on with it, OR renationalise it.

The idea of building another network at taxpayers expense, AND then selling
that down the track as proposed, is the WORST of both worlds IMO!!!

The whole NBN is about providing the same cross subsidies that were
considered wrong when Telstra was 100% government owned.

which cross subsidies?

Country people paid the same as city people for almost a century, despite
the higher costs of providing their service. That's fine for a *government*
owned enterprise, if the government believes it's appropriate of course.

And why are they wrong in tele comms, but not in other areas (mining
royalties being redistributed,

Would be good IF the public got something for the sale of their non
renewable mineral resources.

taxes from all tax payers being
redistributed to subsidise all private motor vehicles).

You've got that arse about, income from motorists subsidises public
transport and other government spending.
Hell we even had the absurd situation of the Bi-Centennial road levies being
spent on tram line extensions!

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

"terryc" <newsninespam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:i66h9e$3uk$1@speranza.aioe.org...
On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 02:34:55 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

You have figures of petrol excise Vs total cost on roads at Federal,
state and LOCAL government levels?

I'd love to see them too, please post yours. But include ALL government
motoring income and expenditure including traffic fines, registration, etc.
Can't find the total cost/income breakdown, why do you think that is?

It can also be argued that public transport returns significant
benefits to the community as a whole.

It could be argued that getting trucks off the road by subsidising rail
freight would be a good idea too, but it doesn't happen. Too many truck
drivers protest. Strange why motorists never do when there are FAR more of
them.

In any case public transport mainly benefits those who have access to public
transport. MANY motorists simply do not!!!

Irrelevant to your pig ignorant lie about it being subsidized.

Nope, you said it was subsidized, I agreed that it might be argued such,

But you agreed there was no need to argue whether it was subsidised, since
it clearly is. The only argument is whether you think it's a good thing, AND
IF you think forced cross subsidies are appropriate for private companies.

MrT.

 

[Rod Speed]

terryc wrote

Rod Speed wrote

The cost of basic phone services has shrunk significantly any way,

Thats just plain wrong too with the line rent. They have in
fact hiked very dramatically indeed, more than tripled in fact.

Could you provide a couple of comparative years and cost to support your claim?

I dont bother to record the detail, but the line rent was
below $10 just before the monopoly was stripped away.

taxes from all tax payers being redistributed to subsidise all private motor vehicles).

Pigs arse they are. It is in fact public transport thats subsidised instead.

Correct, but it is insignificant to the amount of resources that
are taken for fat arses to drive their own motor vehicles.

Wrong again. Nothing like most of even just the petrol excise is spent on roads.

You have figures of petrol excise Vs total cost on roads at Federal, state and LOCAL government levels?

Yep. And roads within new subdivisions paid for by developers are irrelevant to what is being discussed.

Rego & fuel tax does not pay for roads.

Corse they do, and a hell of a lot more than just roads too.

If that is the case, lets use it to do away with income tax {;-).

Income tax pays for a hell of a lot more than just roads.

It can also be argued that public transport returns
significant benefits to the community as a whole.

Irrelevant to your pig ignorant lie about it being subsidized.

Nope, you said it was subsidized,

Corse it is.

I agreed that it might be argued such, but not in the wider picture.

Irrelevant to your pig ignorant lie about what is being subsidized.

 

[Rod Speed]

Mr.T wrote

terryc <newsninespam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote

You have figures of petrol excise Vs total cost on
roads at Federal, state and LOCAL government levels?

I'd love to see them too, please post yours. But include ALL
government motoring income and expenditure including traffic fines,
registration, etc. Can't find the total cost/income breakdown,

All you have to do is add up the budget figures on those other inputs.

why do you think that is?

The budget papers never have that sort of breakdown.

Its completely routine to get them from the budget papers if you want to do the breakdown.

It can also be argued that public transport returns
significant benefits to the community as a whole.

It could be argued that getting trucks off the road by subsidising
rail freight would be a good idea too, but it doesn't happen.

It does, actually.

Too many truck drivers protest.

They never protest about stuff like that.

Strange why motorists never do when there are FAR more of them.

They have enough of a clue to realise what drives policy.

In any case public transport mainly benefits those who have
access to public transport. MANY motorists simply do not!!!

And hordes who do arent interested in using it anyway.

Irrelevant to your pig ignorant lie about it being subsidized.

Nope, you said it was subsidized, I agreed that it might be argued such,

But you agreed there was no need to argue whether it was subsidised,
since it clearly is. The only argument is whether you think it's a good thing,
AND IF you think forced cross subsidies are appropriate for private companies.

But he never established that private motorists are in fact subsidised at all
when nothing like even the entire fuel tax revenue is spent on roads etc.

 

[Rod Speed]

Mr.T wrote

terryc <newsninespam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote

NO, the answer is only SOME taxpayers. In any case if exactly the
same people were paying, AND they actually wanted to pay, then
private industry would get on with the job WITHOUT any need for
government to be involved.

Not quite the full story. The private sector would
simply cherry pick the profitable and screw the rest.

Thats another pig ignorant lie, most obviously with mobile networks.

Which is as it should be for a PRIVATE enterprise.
*IF* telecommunications were so important that
they CANNOT be left to private enterprise,

The mobile networks clearly work fine like that.

it should never have been sold. Which is what I said all along.

More fool you. We done even have govt banks anymore, for a reason.

Since it WAS sold, they should obviously be left to get on with it, OR renationalise it.

No one world wide is actually THAT stupid.

The idea of building another network at taxpayers expense, AND then selling
that down the track as proposed, is the WORST of both worlds IMO!!!

More fool you.

The whole NBN is about providing the same cross subsidies that were
considered wrong when Telstra was 100% government owned.

which cross subsidies?

Country people paid the same as city people for almost
a century, despite the higher costs of providing their service.
That's fine for a *government* owned enterprise, if the
government believes it's appropriate of course.

Its also fine to force on private enterprises too.

And why are they wrong in tele comms, but not
in other areas (mining royalties being redistributed,

Would be good IF the public got something for the
sale of their non renewable mineral resources.

They always do. They're called royaltys.

And they pay tax on their profits just like everyone else does too.

taxes from all tax payers being redistributed to subsidise all private motor vehicles).

You've got that arse about, income from motorists
subsidises public transport and other government spending.

Yes, particularly with the fuel taxes.

Hell we even had the absurd situation of the Bi-Centennial
road levies being spent on tram line extensions!

 

[Rod Speed]

terryc wrote

Mr.T wrote

Which is as it should be for a PRIVATE enterprise. *IF*
telecommunications were so important that they CANNOT
be left to private enterprise, it should never have been sold.

Agreed. At the very least "the electronic roads"
should have been kept in public ownership.

No one world wide has actually been stupid enough to that route.

The NBN will provide an opportunity/method to redress that.

Nope, because even Labor arent actually THAT stupid.

 

[Rod Speed]

terryc wrote

Rod Speed wrote

it should never have been sold. Which is what I said all along.

More fool you. We dont even have govt banks anymore, for a reason.

They were sacrificed to give cheaper consumer loans

Pigs arse they ever were. They werent even 'sacrified' at all,
and we didnt see cheaper consumer loans as a result either.

at the loss of national security.

You wouldnt know what national security was if it bit you on your lard arse.

Our banks did fine in the worst financial crisis in a fucking century.

They didnt the last time when some of them were govt owned.

You've got that arse about, income from motorists
subsidises public transport and other government spending.

Yes, particularly with the fuel taxes.

Keep up the mantra.

Taint a mantra, its a fact, fuckwit.

It doesn't prove your case.

Its completely trivial to compare the amount raised in fuel taxes alone with what
is spent on roads and even you would notice the difference if you tried that if
someone was actually stupid enough to lend you a seeing eye dog and a white cane.

 

[Rod Speed]

terryc wrote

Rod Speed wrote
terryc wrote
Rod Speed wrote

The cost of basic phone services has shrunk significantly any way,

Thats just plain wrong too with the line rent. They have in fact
hiked very dramatically indeed, more than tripled in fact.

Could you provide a couple of comparative years and cost to support your claim?

I dont bother to record the detail, but the line rent was
below $10 just before the monopoly was stripped away.

taxes from all tax payers being redistributed to subsidise all
private motor vehicles).

Pigs arse they are. It is in fact public transport thats subsidised instead.

Correct, but it is insignificant to the amount of resources that
are taken for fat arses to drive their own motor vehicles.

Wrong again. Nothing like most of even just the petrol excise is spent on roads.

You have figures of petrol excise Vs total cost on roads at Federal,
state and LOCAL government levels?

Yep. And roads within new subdivisions paid for by
developers are irrelevant to what is being discussed.

That is if they are fully paid for.

They are now.

In any case, it is your council rates that maintain them.

Wrong. They dont require any maintenance for a long time.

they are not paid for from fuel excise.

Never said they were. What matters is that the nothing like
the total of what is collected in fuel taxes is spent on roads.

THATS what determines whether there is a cross subsidy for private car use or not.

Federal funding only flows down on deemed arterial/major roads. The states also kick in.

Irrelevant to whether there is a cross subsidy for private car use or not.

In fact its the exact opposite, car users pay a lot more in fuel taxes alone
than is spent on roads by all govts in total, so there is no cross subsidy.

 

[terryc]

On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 12:15:15 +1000, Mr.T wrote:

In any case public transport mainly benefits those who have access to
public transport. MANY motorists simply do not!!!

Nope. One of the prime beneficiaries of public transport are the people
not using it. If those people were not on public transport, they would
all be fat arsed cagers in their individual motor vehicles adding to road
congestion. By them travelling on public transport, they are reducing
road congestion, thus reducing wear and tear on your motor vehicle and
saving you money and time.

Further, public tranport benefits all those people who live along major
traffic routes from reduced health impacts. .........................

 

[terryc]

On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 12:24:00 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

terryc wrote
Rod Speed wrote

The cost of basic phone services has shrunk significantly any way,

Thats just plain wrong too with the line rent. They have in fact hiked
very dramatically indeed, more than tripled in fact.

Could you provide a couple of comparative years and cost to support
your claim?

I dont bother to record the detail, but the line rent was below $10 just
before the monopoly was stripped away.

taxes from all tax payers being redistributed to subsidise all
private motor vehicles).

Pigs arse they are. It is in fact public transport thats subsidised
instead.

Correct, but it is insignificant to the amount of resources that are
taken for fat arses to drive their own motor vehicles.

Wrong again. Nothing like most of even just the petrol excise is spent
on roads.

You have figures of petrol excise Vs total cost on roads at Federal,
state and LOCAL government levels?

Yep. And roads within new subdivisions paid for by developers are
irrelevant to what is being discussed.

That is if they are fully paid for. In any case, it is your council rates
that maintain them.they are not paid for from fuel excise. Federal
funding only flows down on deemed arterial/major roads. The states also
kick in.

 

[terryc]

On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 11:57:53 +1000, Mr.T wrote:

Which is as it should be for a PRIVATE enterprise. *IF*
telecommunications were so important that they CANNOT be left to private
enterprise, it should never have been sold.

Agreed. At the very least "the electronic roads" should have been kept in
public ownership. The NBN will provide an opportunity/method to redress
that.

 

[terryc]

On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 12:36:06 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

it should never have been sold. Which is what I said all along.

More fool you. We done even have govt banks anymore, for a reason.

They were sacrificed to give cheaper consumer loans at the loss of
national security.

You've got that arse about, income from motorists subsidises public
transport and other government spending.

Yes, particularly with the fuel taxes.

Keep up the mantra. It doesn't prove your case.

 

[terryc]

On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 15:48:43 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

Our banks did fine in the worst financial crisis in a fucking century.

Correct. BECAUSE?

<Hint, it was government regulation laid down by Keating that did it>

 

[Rod Speed]

terryc wrote

Rod Speed wrote
terryc wrote
Rod Speed wrote

it should never have been sold. Which is what I said all along.

More fool you. We dont even have govt banks anymore, for a reason.

They were sacrificed to give cheaper consumer loans

Pigs arse they ever were. They werent even 'sacrified' at all,
and we didnt see cheaper consumer loans as a result either.

at the loss of national security.

You wouldnt know what national security was if it bit you on your lard arse.

Our banks did fine in the worst financial crisis in a fucking century.

Correct. BECAUSE?

Nothing to do with your stupid pig ignorant claim about national security.

Hint, it was government regulation laid down by Keating that did it

Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.

Plenty of foreign banks that were allowed into the country by Keating ended up in very deep shit indeed.

 

[Mr.T]

"terryc" <newsninespam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:i676fv$f36$1@speranza.aioe.org...

In any case public transport mainly benefits those who have access to
public transport. MANY motorists simply do not!!!

Nope. One of the prime beneficiaries of public transport are the people
not using it. If those people were not on public transport, they would
all be fat arsed cagers in their individual motor vehicles adding to road
congestion.

So anyone who hasn't got the luxury of government provided public transport
is a "fat arsed cager"?
You could at least add IN YOUR OPINION.

By them travelling on public transport, they are reducing
road congestion, thus reducing wear and tear on your motor vehicle and
saving you money and time.

Further, public tranport benefits all those people who live along major
traffic routes from reduced health impacts. .........................

Of course there is *some* benefit, but as I said the MAIN people who benefit
are those with access to publicly subsidised transport.

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

"terryc" <newsninespam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:i676ua$f36$3@speranza.aioe.org...

Which is as it should be for a PRIVATE enterprise. *IF*
telecommunications were so important that they CANNOT be left to private
enterprise, it should never have been sold.

Agreed. At the very least "the electronic roads" should have been kept in
public ownership. The NBN will provide an opportunity/method to redress
that.

Nope, since the plan is to sell it when it is completed. I'm ready to bet it
will be at a loss to taxpayers!

MrT.