Free: cat6 cable. ~150m in box

[tavas]

The vast majority of the population doesn't have that issue, should they subsidise the tv and internet of those who do?

I say that as someone who lives in a metropolitan area (which probably isn't surprising), but I also would like the ALP's NBN.

I don't know the answer to my question above but I have difficulty with subsidising 100mbps for someone in a regional area when they choose to live there, have lower cost of living, many claim it's something they choose due to lifestyle, etc. Should we also subsidise foxtel for areas that don't get full TV coverage? What about subsidising petrol where it is more expensive due to transportation costs? Nobody can articulate where the line is drawn and why (there probably isn't a line that gets the balance right because it's a hard subject).

I'll happily subsidise EVERYONE to have broadband, and happy to future proof that (if that means 100mbps now then so be it) but to me it has seemed as though there has been an attitude with the ALP's NBN of "everyone (almost) gets the exact same, regardless of the cost", which I don't think is necessary.

Let me just make clear that I think that the Coalition NBN is a steaming pile of shit though, lest there is doubt about that.

Welcome to socialism

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

You are seriously going to say that people in regional areas dont contribute to the capitol cities transport. Reduce the state gov revenue base to just the city areas served by public transport and see how cheap it becomes.

 

[pedleyr]

You are seriously going to say that people in regional areas dont contribute to the capitol cities transport. Reduce the state gov revenue base to just the city areas served by public transport and see how cheap it becomes.


I said I'd say no more but given that I did not say this I'll go back on that.

I think my point may have been unclear so I'll just make it clear. The NBN has operated almost obsessively on the notion that (almost) everyone must get the same quality regardless of the cost. I've not seen any valid reason for that. Give everyone what they need, future proof the infrastructure as far as you can, but it shouldn't matter if one area has faster than some other. If this means country areas get 100mbps, great. If it means 50mbps with some sort of drop in upgrade available, great. The point is it shouldn't be any sort of comparative exercise.

I did not say that regional areas don't contribute to city public transport. Of course they do, we all contribute to everyone's infrastructure. The comment was that regional areas subsidise metropolitan public transport. This is simply incorrect.

Due simply to sheer number of people, as well as demographics (regional areas tend to have an older population, which means a lower percentage of people in the work force), metro residents pay more in tax as a group and per capita than regional and rural residents. That's not opinion that's simple fact. More money per capita is spent on infrastructure and government services in regional areas (in 2010 it was 7 percent more per person in "moderately accessible" regional areas than "highly accessible" metropolitan areas, or 14% more for "remote" areas, 44% for "very remote" - this is in health services alone. Similar for education, policing, all of it). Again, not opinion, simple fact. The services simply cost more to deliver outside of metropolitan areas.

As a result if you reduced the revenue base to just city areas and also confined the spending to the city, you would not see increased taxes to pay for the delivery of the existing services. Economies of scale work in cities' favour to make delivery of services cheaper per person and infrastructure spending cheaper per person receiving the benefit.

Getting to opinion now: is that bad? No. Does it mean country areas don't pay their way? Absolutely not. Metro areas are dependent on regional and rural areas in many ways. If there were no regional areas we'd have no food for a start.

The distribution of government services and spending reflects thid - if regional areas added nothing or didn't pull their weight successive governments wouldn't continue to spend there. The same works vice versa.

I thought I made my views as set out above clear when I said I said that rural and regional Australia make important contributions to our collective wellbeing. It's part of the social contract.

I won't take this off topic any more, honest!

 

[br33zy]

Sweet Jaysus, what happened to my thread. You guys are nutters!

At the risk of being on-topic, Michael it was good to meet you just now and I hope you get good use out of your cable. Wonderful idea using it for tying up the tomatoes...

Cheers

Breezy

 

[QldKev]

Politics...

 

[maxim0200]

Sweet Jaysus, what happened to my thread. You guys are nutters!

At the risk of being on-topic, Michael it was good to meet you just now and I hope you get good use out of your cable. Wonderful idea using it for tying up the tomatoes...

Cheers

Breezy


I prefer to use the liberals string to tie up my tomatoes, preferbably the natural fiber so that it can de-compost eaisly... :lol:

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

Sweet Jaysus, what happened to my thread. You guys are nutters!

Breezy

Welcome to AHB. Please enjoy the ride.Seat belts are provided if shit goes down

 

[of mice and gods]

That was some epic shit talking right there..

 

[idzy]

Is there a free roll of Cat5 or NBN going? Did I miss something?

 

[punkin]

Is there a free roll of Cat5 or NBN going? Did I miss something?

Yes.

The moment.