87% take up the NBN

[Jovial Monk]

Well, Telstra isn’t fucking fixing the pair gain here, so fuck Telstra, hello gubmint!

[TomB]

It doesn't matter what government funds - we have been conditoned to veiw it as inefficient and wasteful.

Well it usually is, in comparison. Govt projects certainly have positives, efficiency is generally not one of them.

[Leftwinger]

And that post would be a sterling example of what I'm talking about.

Efficiency is a very subjective term Tom - we are condtioned to veiw it only in narrow, private market terms.

[IQSRLOW]

It doesn't matter what government funds - we have been conditoned to veiw it as inefficient and wasteful.

Only Liebor have the credentials to wear that badge. Pinned to their sunken chest by tards like you

[Super Nova]

Yah, and if it was private industry doing it, it would take an extra 20 years to reach the remote 1/3 of Australians and they would have to mortgage their children to get it.

Exactly Tom. that is why the bush and remote areas always suffer. So maybe only government can do this.

[IQSRLOW]

But at what cost?
http://www.abc.net.au/insidebusiness/co ... 078518.htm

ALAN KOHLER: Well Mike Quigley, the internal rate of return of the NBN was not revealed in the business plan or the summary of it was that was released the other day. Can you tell us what it is?

MIKE QUIGLEY, CEO, NBN CO: No I can't, Alan. The internal rate of return, the shareholder the Government may decide to release that in due course but it's not something I can talk about at this time.

ALAN KOHLER: It is suggested that the internal rate of return is below your cost of capital over the life of the project. Is that correct?

MIKE QUIGLEY: I think that's a fair statement, yes,

A recipe for disaster

[Super Nova]

ALAN KOHLER: It is suggested that the internal rate of return is below your cost of capital over the life of the project. Is that correct?

MIKE QUIGLEY: I think that's a fair statement, yes,

This means that it will be loss making.

I guess we tax payers will be paying for this forever now and it is not supported by a normal return on investment business case. So the cost to consumers will go up in the future and since there is no alterative, you will have to pay through the nose to be part of the information ecconomy.

Pity... it had promise.

[IQSRLOW]

All that remains to be seen is the burn rate of taxpayers monies.
The govt is saying that the burn rate is justified by the benefits but refuse to submit it for a transparent analysis
No wonder Conjob is desperate to hide it

[Leftwinger]

It is suggested that the internal rate of return is below your cost of capital over the life of the project

Meaning what exactly?

That a project with a projected lifespan of around 60 years may not pay itself off - in absolute monetary terms - in the first 8 (the projected length of time to completion of the project)?

Christ people, put your thinking caps on. If we thought this way about everything, we would still be traversing mud roads via horse and cart because no major roads or bridges or water sources or anything would ever be built.

Certainly, there would be no immunisation programme - that thing is a HUGE money loser. Oh, wait...........

[Leftwinger]

By the time it is done and dusted, my mortage will have taken me 30 years to pay off, yet every day it provides value to me even though I technically run a loss.

I guess the smart thing to do would be to not have a mortgage and instead live under a bunch of old roofing iron sheets and truck tyres.