Support NeoGAF

[Whiteshirt]

Name them. I want all of them. All twenty things that the NBN would have done, that are more important than delivering faster internet.

I've worked in the spatial industry. Let me tell you that decent internet is much, much, much more useful than just giving farmers good, reliable internet. What governments, private industry, and non-profit organisations are trying to do right now is to build a spatial data infrastructure but that needs robust infrastructure...which Labor's NBN would have offered. You cannot share thousands and thousands of spatial datasets between numerous different agencies and data silos easily with the shit we currently have. Its too slow and unreliable. Western Australia has done a lot to try and build something where people can easily access and visualise spatial data (the implementation of Landgate and SCLIP is very top heavy but that's a different topic). That's really nice but the main problem is that everything is amazingly slow as shit to upload and download - spatial datasets are not small.

And really, I know you're being factitious with the whole farmer angle but giving farmers good internet makes them ultimately more productive because you know, internet is very good at gathering and sharing information. That's its whole purpose. You absolutely cannot think short term with infrastructure and unfortunately, people literally do not understand this and only like projects that put out immediate results even if they are awful and suboptimal.

Literally everything to do with spatial requires robust information infrastructure. It so happens that farming is an industry that so obviously benefits from improved spatial information so that's why people keep bringing up how the NBN benefits rural communities.

 

[Arksy]

I teach English online to people living in Japan. My connection is barely fast enough and my latency is ridiculous. I've been pulled up a few times by my manager but there's little I can do but hope tonight it's not too bad.

Yeah that kinda sucks.

 

[shanshan310]

yeah Ah well, at least it sort of works atm.

I agree the stakes are pretty high. Luckily we live in a democracy where we the public were able to have our say and we have as a society rejected Labor's NBN.

You can't really say that. In fact there were people in this very thread saying they voted LNP but wanted the NBN.

EDIT: ooh new thread title, here's an appropriate picture.

 

[markot]

Yeah that kinda sucks.

She can just get a personal loan and buy better internets and charge the Japanese more, permanent satellite connection straight to Japan.

Why should she steal my tax dollars to pay for her internet needs?

Whats next? My tax dollars going to roads I dont drive on? Please, get me out of that statist utopian nightmare post haste!

 

[Jintor]

it always confuses me when markot reveals he has a brain he uses to think with. I'm too used to him calling everybody hitler. truly he is the chevy chase of our times

 

[Arksy]

yeah Ah well, at least it sort of works atm.
You can't really say that. In fact there were people in this very thread saying they voted LNP but wanted the NBN.

That's how our system of democracy works. You consent to everything the person you vote for does, even if you actually disagree.

I'm all for a more robust democratic system. We should totally have votes on specific issues. We should have had them on Workchoices, the Carbon Tax, the NBN and Gay Marriage.

 

[markot]

Please. The majority vote against their best interests all the time and can be swayed easier then patrick swayze.

The last thing we need is more direct democracy. Ill take slow government response to hysterical community reaction any day.

 

[Whiteshirt]

No, the fundamental problem is that people don't participate in the civic process. At all. Ask the common person in Camberwell why they voted for Liberal. You'll get the exact same answers that are lifted straight from the Liberal "How to Vote" sheet. Democracy only works if people are actually try to inform themselves about the issues on hand and what they actually mean. This is why stopping the boats is such a successful emotive campaign from both Labor and Liberal.

So what happens is you get people constantly voting against their own interests. What you're proposing is give these people, who don't do anything but listen to talking points, to have votes on specific issues? Are you being serious here?

 

[Arksy]

I find it arrogant and insulting that people here believe other people don't know how to vote. It's pretty telling that some people just can't accept at all that people disagree with them and hold a different perspective on what a government should do and the scope of its operations.

 

[A More Normal Bird]

Won't be the case while costs of starting up a business are so astronomically high.

People here argue for the NBN for rural communities, yet I'll be willing to bet that no one here has really advocated for any other ideas for helping rural communities, and if you have, I'd love to hear what you've got in mind.

What the hell kind of an argument is that? We're debating a specific policy, not running for office. FYI, I live in rural Australia. I've repeatedly said in this thread that telecommunications infrastructure has a greater utility in regional areas, as it is designed to conquer the tyrannies of time and space and rural areas are where those tyrannies are most pronounced. You could also ask why Oakeshott and Windsor decided to support the ALP in forming government in 2010. There were a few reasons, but the NBN was a big one.

I find it arrogant and insulting that people here believe other people don't know how to vote. It's pretty telling that some people just can't accept at all that people disagree with them and hold a different perspective on what a government should do and the scope of its operations.

It can be arrogant and insulting. Doesn't change the fact that it's by and large true. Do you believe the 5 to 10% of swinging voters who decide the outcomes of elections have strongly formulated ideological beliefs? There's a difference between someone who favours small government and someone who thinks Labor are incompetent economic managers because they heard there's so much debt. One has an ideology, the other is economically illiterate.

 

[Whiteshirt]

I find it arrogant and insulting that people here believe other people don't know how to vote. It's pretty telling that some people just can't accept at all that people disagree with them and hold a different perspective on what a government should do and the scope of its operations.

People know how to vote. What people don't do is participate in the civic process. People do not do any research on the points beyond what they read in the newspaper or from talking points. Ask anyone why they voted for x, y, and z. See if they're able to articulate anything beyond talking points. Most will be unable to do so.

Just this election people have proven they do nothing but tick boxes. NSW voted a Liberal Democrat in because his party had the word "Liberal" in it; Clive Palmer, an obviously self-interested politician, was voted in and taken seriously by people; people voted for the numerous single issue parties even how they were nothing but shell parties to push the flow of votes to other individuals if you did a minute of research. The list goes on but after these things have happened, can you honestly believe people make informed decisions? I cannot say most Australians do.

 

[markot]

I find it arrogant and insulting that people here believe other people don't know how to vote. It's pretty telling that some people just can't accept at all that people disagree with them and hold a different perspective on what a government should do and the scope of its operations.

Well, you realise most people are morons eventually.

Just look at whats popular in music, movies, tv.

Popularity proves nothing.

There is a reason we dont have true democracy, and its because it would be just as bad as true despotism.

 

[Jintor]

I find it arrogant and insulting that people here believe other people don't know how to vote. It's pretty telling that some people just can't accept at all that people disagree with them and hold a different perspective on what a government should do and the scope of its operations.

I dunno man, the Lib Dems getting a seat in NSW clearly out of proportion to their party vote in the rest of the nation when nobody knows who the Lib Dems are is preeeeetty weird

 

[Arksy]

What the hell kind of an argument is that? We're debating a specific policy, not running for office. FYI, I live in rural Australia. I've repeatedly said in this thread that telecommunications infrastructure has a greater utility in regional areas, as it is designed to conquer the tyrannies of time and space and rural areas are where those tyrannies are most pronounced. You could also ask why Oakeshott and Windsor decided to support the ALP in forming government in 2010. There were a few reasons, but the NBN was a big one.

I'm not saying, nor have I said that the NBN won't have utility in rural communities. So your argument is moot because I basically agree. My point which was different was that the NBN would help rural communities, but they're still getting decimated. This would barely stop the bleed into our big cities. How about building more cities in Australia? Having five-six big cities is too few, especially considering that those big cities have sprawl in their metropolitan areas and problems with traffic and congestion that would put many cities in the USA to shame.

How about bringing people from overseas and putting them into fledgling cities so they can grow, instead of swelling Western Sydney further?

How about we build some fucking highways in this country? Or some high speed rail?

Digital infrastructure is important, but I'd much rather the money spent on more important infrastructure, like roads, highways, rail and buildings.

 

[Dead Man]

I'm not saying, nor have I said that the NBN won't have utility in rural communities. So your argument is moot because I basically agree. My point which was different was that the NBN would help rural communities, but they're still getting decimated. This would barely stop the bleed into our big cities. How about building more cities in Australia? Having five-six big cities is too few, especially considering that those big cities have sprawl that would put metropolitan areas and problems with traffic and congestion that would put many cities in the USA to shame.

How about bringing people from overseas and putting them into fledgling cities so they can grow, instead of swelling Western Sydney further?

How about we build some fucking highways in this country? Or some high speed rail?

Digital infrastructure is important, but I'd much rather the money spent on more important infrastructure, like roads, highways, rail and buildings.

Half your argument in the last page has been based on the presumption that rural people don't need fast internet :/

Edit: And we can afford to do all of that, we just have to decide to. Whynotboth.gif.

 

[Jintor]

I could get behind high speed rail.

 

[Arksy]

Half your argument in the last page has been based on the presumption that rural people don't need fast internet :/

Edit: And we can afford to do all of that, we just have to decide to. Whynotboth.gif.

They need a reliable way for their goods to reach distant markets far more than they require faster internet. You've (I'm sure) used the Interstates in the US and experienced how incredible the system is. The sheer amount of economic advantage from a system like that is staggering. It's no surprise that China is basically trying to overtake them with the sheer scope of their road networks.

 

[Dead Man]

They need a reliable way for their goods to reach distant markets far more than they require faster internet.

Again, we can afford all of what you listed. There does not need to be a choice made between them. Improved infrastructure for physical goods is absolutely important, but so is digital infrastructure. It is not an either/or situation.

 

[Whiteshirt]

If you argued that, then I'd definitely agree with you. Australia's infrastructure in general is...not that good.

There was Melbourne 2030, which was kind of an attempt decentralise urban Melbourne by building so-called activity hubs but the reality is that our existing transportation systems, like rail, are based on a radial system which encourages congestion. So you need huge investment in changing urban structures and building infrastructure. The issue is that building things like additional rail routes would bother a lot of people for the same reason people are against the NBN: "I don't use it therefore I don't want to pay for rural routes and won't listen how it will benefit me in the long run".

It doesn't help that wealthy cities like the City of Boorondara don't want any fucking thing to ever change. They don't want their little fiefdom to increase in density, they don't want their rail station to change (~you can't change our community's character~), and they don't want urban spawl. Its a combination of "got mine, fuck you" and "not in my backyard".

 

[A More Normal Bird]

I'm not saying, nor have I said that the NBN won't have utility in rural communities. So your argument is moot because I basically agree. My point which was different was that the NBN would help rural communities, but they're still getting decimated. This would barely stop the bleed into our big cities. How about building more cities in Australia? Having five-six big cities is too few, especially considering that those big cities have sprawl in their metropolitan areas and problems with traffic and congestion that would put many cities in the USA to shame.

How about bringing people from overseas and putting them into fledgling cities so they can grow, instead of swelling Western Sydney further?

How about we build some fucking highways in this country? Or some high speed rail?

Digital infrastructure is important, but I'd much rather the money spent on more important infrastructure, like roads, highways, rail and buildings.

I'm glad that you agree, notwithstanding your "rich farmers" comment, but the construction of your statement implied that support for the NBN due to its benefits for rural areas was somehow invalid if the person voicing that support didn't have other ideas about improving rural Australia. This was what I disagreed with, whether it was intentional or not.

Kind of going out on a limb here, but judging by your posts in this thread it seems you perceive the Australian economy as one where the government must raise revenue through taxes and the like in order to pay for its spending and that consequently that spending must be extra carefully considered. This is not actually the case, and this fact is relevant to your ideas about rural Australia for the reason Dead Man outlined.

 

[Arksy]

I'm glad that you agree, notwithstanding your "rich farmers" comment, but the construction of your statement implied that support for the NBN due to its benefits for rural areas was somehow invalid if the person voicing that support didn't have other ideas about improving rural Australia. This was what I disagreed with, whether it was intentional or not.

Kind of going out on a limb here, but judging by your posts in this thread it seems you perceive the Australian economy as one where the government must raise revenue through taxes and the like in order to pay for its spending and that consequently that spending must be extra carefully considered. This is not actually the case, and this fact is relevant to your ideas about rural Australia for the reason Dead Man outlined.

I don't follow, the Australian people are ultimately liable for every cent the government spends.

 

[A More Normal Bird]

I don't follow, the Australian people are ultimately liable for every cent the government spends.

Define liable. Every cent the Government spends ends up in the hands of the Australian people (simplifying the external sector a bit here). Taxation exists to ensure that the private sector uses the currency the Government issues, to achieve social and structural goals and to remove money from circulation to limit inflation. As the monopoly issuer of the currency, the Government could conceivably spend as much as it wants to, it's just that doing so would cause massive inflation and wreak havoc with the private sector. Deficits do not necessitate debt, it is voluntarily issued as bonds. Basically, the constraints to Government spending in a country like Australia (floating currency, single issuer) are inflation and political will, not revenue. The same does not apply to State Governments as they do not issue currency, which is why the situation in WA atm is so funny (speaking as someone who doesn't live there).

 

[D.Lo]

I find it arrogant and insulting that people here believe other people don't know how to vote. It's pretty telling that some people just can't accept at all that people disagree with them and hold a different perspective on what a government should do and the scope of its operations.

I regularly have discussions with people who have strong opinions about certain parties or politicians based on 100% incorrect information that was fed to them by talkback radio, murdoch media, or wacky conspiracy nonsense.

I'll informed, non-discerning, willfully ignorant dullards who are happy to be angry (usually at Labor for 'ruining the economy') because it's an outlet they've been given by the masters of their incredibly narrow worldview.

Arrogant yes. Insulting yes. Also true.

 

[hidys]

I could get behind high speed rail.

Its hard to know with something like this if it really worth the cost. I like it in theory but man it would be expensive (probably more than twice the cost of the Labor's NBN).

 

[Arksy]

I regularly have discussions with people who have strong opinions about certain parties or politicians based on 100% incorrect information that was fed to them by talkback radio, murdoch media, or wacky conspiracy nonsense.

I'll informed, non-discerning, willfully ignorant dullards who are happy to be angry (usually at Labor for 'ruining the economy') because it's an outlet they've been given by the masters of their incredibly narrow worldview.

Arrogant yes. Insulting yes. Also true.

I dunno man, the Lib Dems getting a seat in NSW clearly out of proportion to their party vote in the rest of the nation when nobody knows who the Lib Dems are is preeeeetty weird

Well, you realise most people are morons eventually.

Just look at whats popular in music, movies, tv.

Popularity proves nothing.

There is a reason we dont have true democracy, and its because it would be just as bad as true despotism.

People know how to vote. What people don't do is participate in the civic process. People do not do any research on the points beyond what they read in the newspaper or from talking points. Ask anyone why they voted for x, y, and z. See if they're able to articulate anything beyond talking points. Most will be unable to do so.

Just this election people have proven they do nothing but tick boxes. NSW voted a Liberal Democrat in because his party had the word "Liberal" in it; Clive Palmer, an obviously self-interested politician, was voted in and taken seriously by people; people voted for the numerous single issue parties even how they were nothing but shell parties to push the flow of votes to other individuals if you did a minute of research. The list goes on but after these things have happened, can you honestly believe people make informed decisions? I cannot say most Australians do.

It can be arrogant and insulting. Doesn't change the fact that it's by and large true. Do you believe the 5 to 10% of swinging voters who decide the outcomes of elections have strongly formulated ideological beliefs? There's a difference between someone who favours small government and someone who thinks Labor are incompetent economic managers because they heard there's so much debt. One has an ideology, the other is economically illiterate.

So I take it everyone here is against universal franchise? That seems to be the inference from your arguments. Please correct me if I'm wrong but what would you propose to reduce the 'economic illiteracy' and 'people voting against their interests' amongst the public? Do you guys want some committee set up to screen people to give them voting licenses? Cut mandatory voting? I personally think that such an idea is disgusting and basically reduces groups of people into slaves.

As far as I'm concerned I don't find the lack of engagement surprising at all, far from being uncaring. They do care, it's just that they've all resigned to the fact that our system of democracy is so far removed from the elector that people feel like they have no power and have given up. Far from showing their ignorance it shows that they're actually pretty clued up, being able to realise how rubbish it actually all is. We've become a reactionary population, basically only really giving a shit when we perceive a government to be doing a shit job. The system breeds the politics, not the other way around. Change the system, you'll change the politics.

Give people some real power and watch how quickly they start acting like the Swiss. Who constantly hold votes on issues ranging from taxation, to immigration to civil rights.
Giving the people a vote on the issues would basically guarantee gay marriage becomes law in Australia, it would have also seen the swift boot to Workchoices, and the Carbon Tax and people would probably vote for labor's NBN as well. Far from becoming a despotic country, we would get a country with policies that we'd all prefer.

 

[viciouskillersquirrel]

What the hell happened to this thread?

My 2 cents:

NBN is vital infrastructure for Australia's future akin to roads, sewage systems and the electricity grid. It will (eventually) be a public good that people will rely on and everyone will benefit from economically because it will enable new, data-driven businesses to become possible as new markets are opened up.

The same concept can be applied to road and rail infrastructure in the 19th century. Towns boomed when rail lines and highways came to them. Expanding infrastructure makes living and doing business in far-off markets viable, which increases the wealth and standard of life for everyone, not just those who were formerly at the periphery.

Unfortunately, there are big downsides to building infrastructure from a private enterprise point of view.

First is the gigantic capital cost required to get even the smallest projects off the ground. The amount of credit required to build a power plant, for instance, bars all but the biggest players from even contemplating such a thing. It's hard enough trying to run a profitable business using existing plant, let alone trying to manage acquiring it in the first place.

Second is the fact that the economic dividends of building infrastructure aren't necessarily immediate upon completion. The growth of a small town into a bustling regional centre is a process that can take a generation and even after the infrastructure is built, it may generate negative revenue for you for decades.

Then there is the issue of gathering that revenue in the first place. A business can only generate revenue from a plant by asking its end users to pay fees, subscriptions or tolls. That's fine when you're talking about non-vital services, like a phone sex line, but what about stuff that everybody benefits from? Farmer Giles and Hipster Sven both benefit from Trucker Jimmy having use of the road between the Giles farm and the organic food market in Sven's filthy hipster enclave, but only Jimmy ever uses the road or pays the toll. This means that Sven is bearing the brunt of the cost (as it's passed on directly by Jimmy), drives down the prices Giles is able to charge for his goods and limits his customer base only to people like Sven who are prepared to pay Jimmy's outrageous prices. However, if you could levy a fee on everyone who will benefit or potentially benefit from the road being there, you're able to spread the cost around and no individual ever needs to be charged $5 for a mango. This way, Office Worker Wilma can head down to the same food market and buy Giles' goods without feeling ripped off and everyone in our little story benefits. There! Everyone just benefited from being taxed.

Taxation to pay for infrastructure is a well-trod concept and I'd hate to beat a dead horse here, but it's really important. Consider street lights. Street lights can do a lot to improve safety in an area, either by moving potential criminal activity elsewhere, enabling business to continue beyond sunset or by simply allowing night traffic to see all hazards. Everyone in a neighbourhoods benefits, even if they never drive at night. Trouble is, if you make that a user pays system, nobody will ever put one in. They're individually expensive, tricky to maintain and the benefits you get are diminished by the fact that your neighbours down your street opted to not pay for one. One light does not make a lit street. If you owned a restaurant and lived in a world where street lights are user-pays, you'd be forgiven for concludibg that it's not worth the investment.

This is why the Australian Federal government's decision to install Fibre to the Node broadband Internet over FIbre to the Premesis is a bad idea. By making it so that that last connection is user-pays, you limit the benefits of everybody having access. This means that if, in five or ten years time, virtual offices relying on (say) VR headsets and streaming, high definition 3D video and stereo sound were to become viable on entry-level computer hardware, businesses couldn't take advantage of the savings a distributed office network offer (no renting office space, no facilities management, employees are able to work flexible hours without impacting the bottom line etc.) because they couldn't rely on their employees having Internet connections fast enough to handle the data requirements.

Same goes for potential realtime medical monitoring, future distributed computing applications, cloud-based anything, IP telephony or on-demand HD or 3D television services.

The FTTN plan will probably be okay for now. Perhaps it'll still be okay in five years. In ten though, in twenty? We'll be getting spanked by Swedish firms that don't even bother to rent office space anymore. FTTP could last us another fifty years or so, once the fibre is in the ground. What's valuable about it is the reliable channel that will only get faster as switching technology is improved and upgraded at the exchange.

Right now we're routinely doing things that are so data intensive they would have been unimaginable in 2003, let alone 1998. The government is being penny wise and pound foolish and crippling the Australian economy for years to come.

 

[markot]

The swiss didn't even fight Hitler.

 

[lexi]

What the hell happened to this thread?

My 2 cents: Distilled wisdom

Awesome post. You are awesome.

 

[Arksy]

What the hell happened to this thread?

My 2 cents:

NBN is vital infrastructure for Australia's future akin to roads, sewage systems and the electricity grid. It will (eventually) be a public good that people will rely on and everyone will benefit from economically because it will enable new, data-driven businesses to become possible as new markets are opened up.

The same concept can be applied to road and rail infrastructure in the 19th century. Towns boomed when rail lines and highways came to them. Expanding infrastructure makes living and doing business in far-off markets viable, which increases the wealth and standard of life for everyone, not just those who were formerly at the periphery.

Unfortunately, there are big downsides to building infrastructure from a private enterprise point of view.

First is the gigantic capital cost required to get even the smallest projects off the ground. The amount of credit required to build a power plant, for instance, bars all but the biggest players from even contemplating such a thing. It's hard enough trying to run a profitable business using existing plant, let alone trying to manage acquiring it in the first place.

Second is the fact that the economic dividends of building infrastructure aren't necessarily immediate upon completion. The growth of a small town into a bustling regional centre is a process that can take a generation and even after the infrastructure is built, it may generate negative revenue for you for decades.

Then there is the issue of gathering that revenue in the first place. A business can only generate revenue from a plant by asking its end users to pay fees, subscriptions or tolls. That's fine when you're talking about non-vital services, like a phone sex line, but what about stuff that everybody benefits from? Farmer Giles and Hipster Sven both benefit from Trucker Jimmy having use of the road between the Giles farm and the organic food market in Sven's filthy hipster enclave, but only Jimmy ever uses the road or pays the toll. This means that Sven is bearing the brunt of the cost (as it's passed on directly by Jimmy), drives down the prices Giles is able to charge for his goods and limits his customer base only to people like Sven who are prepared to pay Jimmy's outrageous prices. However, if you could levy a fee on everyone who will benefit or potentially benefit from the road being there, you're able to spread the cost around and no individual ever needs to be charged $5 for a mango. This way, Office Worker Wilma can head down to the same food market and buy Giles' goods without feeling ripped off and everyone in our little story benefits. There! Everyone just benefited from being taxed.

Taxation to pay for infrastructure is a well-trod concept and I'd hate to beat a dead horse here, but it's really important. Consider street lights. Street lights can do a lot to improve safety in an area, either by moving potential criminal activity elsewhere, enabling business to continue beyond sunset or by simply allowing night traffic to see all hazards. Everyone in a neighbourhoods benefits, even if they never drive at night. Trouble is, if you make that a user pays system, nobody will ever put one in. They're individually expensive, tricky to maintain and the benefits you get are diminished by the fact that your neighbours down your street opted to not pay for one. One light does not make a lit street. If you owned a restaurant and lived in a world where street lights are user-pays, you'd be forgiven for concludibg that it's not worth the investment.

This is why the Australian Federal government's decision to install Fibre to the Node broadband Internet over FIbre to the Premesis is a bad idea. By making it so that that last connection is user-pays, you limit the benefits of everybody having access. This means that if, in five or ten years time, virtual offices relying on (say) VR headsets and streaming, high definition 3D video and stereo sound were to become viable on entry-level computer hardware, businesses couldn't take advantage of the savings a distributed office network offer (no renting office space, no facilities management, employees are able to work flexible hours without impacting the bottom line etc.) because they couldn't rely on their employees having Internet connections fast enough to handle the data requirements.

Same goes for potential realtime medical monitoring, future distributed computing applications, cloud-based anything, IP telephony or on-demand HD or 3D television services.

The FTTN plan will probably be okay for now. Perhaps it'll still be okay in five years. In ten though, in twenty? We'll be getting spanked by Swedish firms that don't even bother to rent office space anymore. FTTP could last us another fifty years or so, once the fibre is in the ground. What's valuable about it is the reliable channel that will only get faster as switching technology is improved and upgraded at the exchange.

Right now we're routinely doing things that are so data intensive they would have been unimaginable in 2003, let alone 1998. The government is being penny wise and pound foolish and crippling the Australian economy for years to come.

I get how public spending on infrastructure is supposed to work (at least in theory, without all the blowouts and delays and contractors rorting the government because hey, it's the government!'. But here is a situation where private companies can and will install good FTTP in large metro areas, so that's preferable to having to raise taxes in order to pay for it. Also FTTN is going ahead, but we could always extend it that little bit further down the line. The backbone of the system will be in place.

Not that I personally think that's a good idea, after finding out how little money we're actually going to save by going to the FTTN instead of FTTP. If the price difference was staggering then I'd say go to FTTN for now and extend it later for all those who haven't voluntarily taken up that extension themselves, but it's simply not. At only 10bn.

I just don't understand why we can't go both FTTP and allow private companies to compete.

 

[A More Normal Bird]

I get how public spending on infrastructure is supposed to work (at least in theory, without all the blowouts and delays and contractors rorting the government because hey, it's the government!'. But here is a situation where private companies can and will install good FTTP in large metro areas, so that's preferable to having to raise taxes in order to pay for it. Also FTTN is going ahead, but we could always extend it that little bit further down the line. The backbone of the system will be in place.

Not that I personally think that's a good idea, after finding out how little money we're actually going to save by going to the FTTN instead of FTTP. If the price difference was staggering then I'd say go to FTTN for now and extend it later for all those who haven't voluntarily taken up that extension themselves, but it's simply not. At only 10bn.

I just don't understand why we can't go both FTTP and allow private companies to compete.

There you go again (in reference to the bolded). That's not how our economy works. Even if it was, the NBN is financed off budget by bond sales.

Also, as much as people like to joke about "this person's vote is worth just as much as mine/yours" whenever they encounter some staggering new level of idiocy, despairing at the misinformation the general public receive doesn't automatically make one an opponent of universal suffrage. I would prefer a proper fourth estate, but apparently that makes you into Stalin or Mao or somesuch.

 

[Arksy]

There you go again (in reference to the bolded). That's not how our economy works. Even if it was, the NBN is financed off budget by bond sales.

I'm sorry, who services the interest for those bond sales? Is it some magical unicorn? Or more bond sales? To the point where we burden many future generations with our debt? Or worse, spiral inflation so far out of control it completely destroys our economy. Like I said, whatever action the government takes, it's the taxpayers who are ultimately liable for it. Printing money, as you seem to be advocating usually leads to some kind of disaster.

Also, as much as people like to joke about "this person's vote is worth just as much as mine/yours" whenever they encounter some staggering new level of idiocy, despairing at the misinformation the general public receive doesn't automatically make one an opponent of universal suffrage. I would prefer a proper fourth estate, but apparently that makes you into Stalin or Mao or somesuch.

Absolutely does. I'm absolutely ok with breaking up the Murdoch press into smaller units, privatising the ABC (as it's basically a fourth estate), introducing more papers to compete and to offer different views. I'm absolutely not ok with the Government telling us what to think. I'm also not ok with a censorship board telling us what's appropriate to talk about or not.

 

[roosters93]

Your argumentative skills really need some work Arksy. One is talking about disinterested voters, oh you want to take away universal suffrage! One is talking about how the economy works in reality, oh you want to print money! Your logic leaps are a sight to behold.

I'm absolutely not ok with the Government telling us what to think. I'm also not ok with a censorship board telling us what's appropriate to talk about or not.

Did I miss the memo where we were all transported from Australia to Airstrip One?

 

[Arksy]

Your argumentative skills really need some work Arksy. One is talking about disinterested voters, oh you want to take away universal suffrage! One is talking about how the economy works in reality, oh you want to print money! Your logic leaps are a sight to behold.

Your reading skills need a bit of brushing up mate. It was a question. I followed by asking for some solutions to the problem of disinterested voters from your point of view, because no one here liked the idea of making society more democratic.

Also the printing money wasn't a stretch in logic at all considering that's exactly what A more normal bird was talking about with the government being the sole supplier of currency and therefore revenue not being a problem.

Did I miss the memo where we were all transported from Australia to Airstrip One?

You may have missed the government's ridiculous attempts at giving a lot more power to the media regulator last year.

 

[legend166]

It's not arrogant and insulting to suggest that the majority of voters don't know anything.

It's arrogant and insulting to suggest that only the majority of voters who didn't vote for the same party as you don't know anything.

 

[A More Normal Bird]

I'm sorry, who services the interest for those bond sales? Is it some magical unicorn? Or more bond sales? To the point where we burden many future generations with our debt? Or worse, spiral inflation so far out of control it completely destroys our economy. Like I said, whatever action the government takes, it's the taxpayers who are ultimately liable for it. Printing money, as you seem to be advocating usually leads to some kind of disaster.

Your reading skills need a bit of brushing up mate. It was a question. I followed by asking for some solutions to the problem of disinterested voters.

Also the printing money wasn't a stretch in logic at all considering that's exactly what A more normal bird was talking about with the government being the sole supplier of currency and therefore revenue not being a problem. .

Here's an interesting fact. Did you know that taxation revenue and government expenses never interact? There are no "coffers" to speak of, money just goes out one way and comes in another. That's basically moot, but it helps to keep it in mind. Here's another fact. Do you understand that basic sectoral balances show that without an external surplus (i.e. more money coming in from overseas than going out), a government surplus must shrink the economy? If there are only 1 billion Australian dollars in the world and the external sector is either in balance or deficit, how does the economy grow to be worth 2 billion? Answer: the government injects more money into the economy than it takes out. Of course there is another way, as we saw during the Howard years, and that is for the private sector to rack up enormous amounts of debt which it can default on, unlike the government. BTW, the only thing that saved us from that bomb going off was the GFC. If you want to call the government's unique ability to create or destroy net financial assets 'printing money' or talk about magic unicorns then go ahead, just know that your attempts at being condescending are proving rather amusing.

Yes, the government pays the interest on those bonds. No, that does not have to be financed by the taxpayers. If you'd read my earlier post you'd know that I'm aware of the inflationary limits on government spending, in fact, it is probably the most significant economic constraint there is (along with debt sustainability, which ties back into it). If the government is spending on improving the productive capacity of the nation, i.e. the capability to absorb extra liquidity and put it to use, how does inflation spiral out of control? This isn't digging holes and filling them back up again. Once again, bond sales are simply a means of altering the make-up of financial assets in the private sector.

I find it kind of funny (and kind of sad) that it's generally people who favour smaller government that also think the government's default fiscal position should be take money out of the private sector and give it nothing in return. Sure it will drive down wages and increase unemployment which I guess is a positive for those at the higher end of capital accumulation, but most seem to be unaware that the concept of a government surplus as an arbiter of economic management was more of a Trojan horse aimed at decreasing the overall size of government, the idea being that if governments were to achieve surplus they would have to cut spending and that gradually they would shrink as societies weaned themselves off. That didn't really eventuate in most cases and now we're left with mid to large sized governments chasing what in many instances is a pointless goal just because it sounds good.

 

[bomma_man]

I'm sorry, who services the interest for those bond sales? Is it some magical unicorn? Or more bond sales? To the point where we burden many future generations with our debt? Or worse, spiral inflation so far out of control it completely destroys our economy. Like I said, whatever action the government takes, it's the taxpayers who are ultimately liable for it. Printing money, as you seem to be advocating usually leads to some kind of disaster.

If you're talking about hyperinflation, as far as I know that only happens when the government is unstable, ie there is a fear over whether the currency will be worth anything soon.

'Burdening future generations with our debt' is ridiculous. We're burdening future generations with our crappy infrastructure. The American's have paid down their debt exactly once in their history (which was followed immediately by a recession by the way) with no real issues whatsoever (political debt scares aside). When Costello paid ours off the rich immediately demanded the bonds program be restarted, because it's basically a risk free investment. Look at Japan: massive amount of public debt, minuscule bond interest rates. The countries with the riskiest bonds have unstable governments or significant sovereign risk: Venezuela, Greece, Pakistan, Kenya, Nigeria.

 

[Whiteshirt]

So I take it everyone here is against universal franchise? That seems to be the inference from your arguments. Please correct me if I'm wrong but what would you propose to reduce the 'economic illiteracy' and 'people voting against their interests' amongst the public? Do you guys want some committee set up to screen people to give them voting licenses? Cut mandatory voting? I personally think that such an idea is disgusting and basically reduces groups of people into slaves.

As far as I'm concerned I don't find the lack of engagement surprising at all, far from being uncaring. They do care, it's just that they've all resigned to the fact that our system of democracy is so far removed from the elector that people feel like they have no power and have given up. Far from showing their ignorance it shows that they're actually pretty clued up, being able to realise how rubbish it actually all is. We've become a reactionary population, basically only really giving a shit when we perceive a government to be doing a shit job. The system breeds the politics, not the other way around. Change the system, you'll change the politics.

Give people some real power and watch how quickly they start acting like the Swiss. Who constantly hold votes on issues ranging from taxation, to immigration to civil rights.
Giving the people a vote on the issues would basically guarantee gay marriage becomes law in Australia, it would have also seen the swift boot to Workchoices, and the Carbon Tax and people would probably vote for labor's NBN as well. Far from becoming a despotic country, we would get a country with policies that we'd all prefer.

Yeah, no.

About 8 years ago, when I was last in secondary school, civics and economics weren't even mandatory subjects or discussed. Most didn't take civics or economics. This was at an "elite private school that cost $20,000 a year" in the electorate of Kooyong. Every other private school - which 75% of students in Kooyong go to - worked the same way. No idea about the state schools, perhaps they did better.

The fundamental truth is most people do not participate in the civic process at all, which is the keystone of any "democratic" society. Do I want voting licences? No, I want people to start being taught how our government works, how economics work, etc etc. Don't just jump to the deep end. I have no qualms about people voting for ideology or for their own interests (like that guy who voted Liberals to protect his mining interests) because even if I think you're an asshole, you're making informed decisions. But many do not even do this.

For instance, when Gillard replaced Rudd a lot of people seriously said "I never voted for Gillard, she's not allowed to be prime minister". The sheer lack of understanding, one where you do not vote for prime ministers but instead vote for political parities, was highlighted to the world that day. Everyone who understands Australia's political system knows this but the response proved many do not and believe we're voting for a single person. Or something.

Your Swiss example proves that if given the chance, people probably wouldn't vote. They hold votes on issues and conduct frequent referendums but the actual voting turn out is actually only around 40-50%. Which is not particularly high for what you think is a fantastic country where its population is given "power" so to speak. That's literally 50% of the country that does not care; how many of the voting 50% are actually informed about the issues they are voting for?

 

[Jintor]

I guess I understand the substantive basis (taxpayer funding) for Arksy being so vehemently against the government 'telling us what to think' (or... possibly... providing media, news, entertainment and education services), but how they're any worse than the frankly idiotic private Australian media landscape is a question for the ages.

It's not arrogant and insulting to suggest that the majority of voters don't know anything.

It's arrogant and insulting to suggest that only the majority of voters who didn't vote for the same party as you don't know anything.

I don't recall that being suggested (apart from my Lib-Dem jibe which I think can be inferred from the evidence) - we seem to be talking generally about the populace as a whole. Hell, I bet there's a significant portion of Greens voters who don't know shit about their actual policies and just protest-voted them in.

I just don't understand why we can't go both FTTP and allow private companies to compete.

Yo dude we explained this already

 

[Arksy]

I guess I understand the substantive basis (taxpayer funding) for Arksy being so vehemently against the government 'telling us what to think' (or... possibly... providing media, news, entertainment and education services), but how they're any worse than the frankly idiotic private Australian media landscape is a question for the ages.

Because of moral reasons. A private media company has to survive on its own, it has to have its news consumed by people who buy it. People get to volunteer their own money and vote with their wallet on whether they approve or not.

I agree wholeheartedly that the media landscape in Australia is fucking pathetic. Contrast this to the US, where even small towns have 2-3 papers, small towns that are dwarfed when you look at a city like Adelaide. Abilene in Texas has a population of about 117,000 people and they have two local newspapers, not to mention the state newspapers and papers that they bring in from other cities.

Brooklyn, a borough of New York City, has 6 of it's own papers just for the boroughs and that's not counting all the ones from NYC such as the New York Times, the New York Daily News and the New York Post.

Once we attain a plurality of newspapers in Australia any problems regarding bias and bullshit in the media will just fall to the side.

Yo dude we explained this already

Not really. We could easily plug the holes left by the major telcos.

Calls me condescending, then goes ahead and makes condescending arguments.

Nice!

 

[Dead Man]

Because of moral reasons. A private media company has to survive on its own, it has to have its news consumed by people who buy it. People get to volunteer their own money and vote with their wallet on whether they approve or not.

I agree wholeheartedly that the media landscape in Australia is fucking pathetic. Contrast this to the US, where even small towns have 2-3 papers, small towns that are dwarfed when you look at a city like Adelaide. Abilene in Texas has a population of about 117,000 people and they have two local newspapers, not to mention the state newspapers and papers that they bring in from other cities.

Brooklyn, a borough of New York City, has 6 of it's own papers just for the boroughs and that's not counting all the ones from NYC such as the New York Times, the New York Daily News and the New York Post.

Once we attain a plurality of newspapers in Australia any problems regarding bias and bullshit in the media will just fall to the side.




Not really. We could easily plug the holes left by the major telcos.



Nice!

Do you know why the media landscape in Australia is busted? I'll give you a hint. What do private companies have to do above all else?

For profit companies will never be able to be held accountable to anything beyond profit, so you end up with populist bullshit that makes no effort to actually investigate anything. State run media can be a problem is they do not have editorial independence. Thankfully Australia historically has not had a problem with that. So I will take a state run media outlet to continue to do the things that are important but not profitable. Like run a decent news service.

As for why a mix of private and public fibre infrastructure wouldn't work, read the posts people made again. Unless you expect companies to lay cable where it has already been laid out before, how do you think competition will occur?

 

[Arksy]

Do you know why the media landscape in Australia is busted? I'll give you a hint. What do private companies have to do above all else?

For profit companies will never be able to be held accountable to anything beyond profit, so you end up with populist bullshit that makes no effort to actually investigate anything. State run media can be a problem is they do not have editorial independence. Thankfully Australia historically has not had a problem with that. So I will take a state run media outlet to continue to do the things that are important but not profitable. Like run a decent news service.

As for why a mix of private and public fibre infrastructure wouldn't work, read the posts people made again. Unless you expect companies to lay cable where it has already been laid out before, how do you think competition will occur?

So why does it work so well in the UK? In the US? Sure they have the Murdoch press as well, but that's not it. They have hundreds of good papers and dozens of good news outlets and sources to consume.

Also, I am expecting some duplication of fiber infrastructure, in the cities at least. Just like there is duplication of mobile phone towers, and copper cabling.

 

[Jintor]

Because of moral reasons. A private media company has to survive on its own, it has to have its news consumed by people who buy it. They have to volunteer their own money to keep it afloat.

Doesn't this immediately suggest to you that a commercial media outlet will immediately begin to tailor their output to the tastes of its audience for the sheer purpose of survivability? (Although News Ltd apparently doesn't even need that since Murdoch is apparently just running it as a propaganda mouthpiece)

I agree wholeheartedly that the media landscape in Australia is fucking pathetic. Contrast this to the US, where even small towns have 2-3 papers, small towns that are dwarfed when you look at a city like Adelaide. Abilene in Texas has a population of about 117,000 people and they have two local newspapers, not to mention the state newspapers and papers that they bring in from other cities.

Brooklyn, a borough of New York City, has 6 of it's own papers just for the boroughs and that's not counting all the ones from NYC such as the New York Times, the New York Daily News and the New York Post.

Once we attain a plurality of newspapers in Australia any problems regarding bias and bullshit in the media will just fall to the side.

So how would you encourage this hypothetical newspaper plurality? Australian markets are small and already dominated largely by the Murdoch goliath. I have to say though, you seem to think just throwing a bunch of small fish into the sea would solve the problem - I doubt it would have that much effect on the problems of bias and bullshit from disproportionately powerful actors.

 

[Whiteshirt]

So why does it work so well in the UK? In the US? Sure they have the Murdoch press as well, but that's not it. They have hundreds of good papers and dozens of good news outlets and sources to consume.

It doesn't work well in the UK...? Did you miss the corruption of press scandal in the United Kingdom?

The UK press is notoriously biased to the point you can pretty much write off most newspapers for that reason. Things like the Telegraph are called the Torygraph for a good reason. You can't mash The Guardian and The Telegraph together to create a bias and bullshit free media environment...? If that were true, The News of the World would have ended long before the hacking and corruption scandal for complete dishonesty.

 

[Dead Man]

So why does it work so well in the UK? In the US? Sure they have the Murdoch press as well, but that's not it. They have hundreds of good papers and dozens of good news outlets and sources to consume.

It doesn't work in the US, and the UK has the BBC. The US has lots of media, sure, but very little of it is of any quality in terms of journalism and reporting quality.

 

[A More Normal Bird]

Calls me condescending, then goes ahead and makes condescending arguments.

Nice!

Strong rebuttal. I don't really see anything in my post as condescending as "magic unicorns", but if you'd like to point out which phrases were most offensive to you I'll gladly consider rewording them. TBH I'm pretty disappointed, as for a time there you seemed interested in engaging in honest debate.

 

[Arksy]

Doesn't this immediately suggest to you that a commercial media outlet will immediately begin to tailor their output to the tastes of its audience for the sheer purpose of survivability? (Although News Ltd apparently doesn't even need that since Murdoch is apparently just running it as a propaganda mouthpiece)

Not that they will, but only that they should.

So how would you encourage this hypothetical newspaper plurality? Australian markets are small and already dominated largely by the Murdoch goliath. I have to say though, you seem to think just throwing a bunch of small fish into the sea would solve the problem - I doubt it would have that much effect on the problems of bias and bullshit from disproportionately powerful actors.

Breaking up News Ltd in Australia is one way to do it. I'm not a fan of that solution but I'll take it if it means we get a decent media. Everyone has their own bias. That's human nature and there's really not a whole lot we can do about that. People's worldview colours the information they hear and the paths they take. The best thing, in my mind, would be to cater to everyone's biases.

 

[Jintor]

It doesn't work in the US, and the UK has the BBC. The US has lots of media, sure, but very little of it is of any quality in terms of journalism and reporting quality.

The only guys that spring to mind immediately are The Atlantic (although I think technically they're a magazine). The New York Times and the Chicago Tribune might also be okay. Washington Post and the Boston Globe recently got sold to a notable democrat so I dunno how that's going to end up.

Breaking up News Ltd in Australia is one way to do it. I'm not a fan of that solution but I'll take it if it means we get a decent media. Everyone has their own bias. That's human nature and there's really not a whole lot we can do about that. People's worldview colours the information they hear and the paths they take. The best thing, in my mind, would be to cater to everyone's biases.

 

[Arksy]

.

 

[Whiteshirt]

That does not solve the inherent problem in reporting that is poor journalistic quality. You bring up the United Kingdom and the integrity of most newspapers there are below ours. I have no idea where you get the idea that the UK press is "good" because it isn't.

 

[Arksy]

Strong rebuttal. I don't really see anything in my post as condescending as "magic unicorns", but if you'd like to point out which phrases were most offensive to you I'll gladly consider rewording them. TBH I'm pretty disappointed, as for a time there you seemed interested in engaging in honest debate.

I am incredibly happy to engage in honest debate, I'm trying to engage with as many people as I can (edit: And do some work, I suppose, maybe). It can be a bit difficult to keep track of things when you're engaging with 10+ people at once like I am. I'm also sorry if saying magical unicorns offended you. I thought it was incredibly condescending when you said my arguments were providing you with a lot of amusement. Which to me said you were basically laughing in my face. Like I said just before, I'm engaging with a lot of people here so forgive me if I chose not to engage with one person on the basis I'm simply getting mocked and derided.

GIF

LOL.

Yeah well, if you have a solution that's something outside of government censorship/regulation of content and a fourth estate I'M ALL EARS!