NBN3 Wireless plan needs 4G spectrum fast-track

Mr.T wrote

decent broadband,

There arent necessarily any taxes needed to pay for that, most obviously if part of what was raised by flogging off Telstra was used to pay for that.

Not necessarily, particularly if they get much of that $43B back when they flog off the NBN.

Its MUCH more complicated than that mindless conspiracy theory.

Reply to
Rod Speed
Loading thread data ...

terryc wrote

Your line in spades.

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

Not within the mining companys they arent.

vehicles).

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

Reply to
Rod Speed

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.

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?

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.

Reply to
terryc

terryc wrote

rest.

broadband rollout.

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.

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

was high.

Another pig ignorant lie with the line rent.

Nope.

Pity it aint mining ROYALTYS that are paying for that.

vehicles).

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

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

the community as a whole.

Irrelevant to your pig ignorant lie about it being subsidized.

Reply to
Rod Speed

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

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

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

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

Reply to
terryc

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!!!

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.

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

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.

Reply to
Mr.T

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 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!!!

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.

Reply to
Mr.T

terryc wrote

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

motor vehicles).

roads.

LOCAL government levels?

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

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

Corse it is.

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

Reply to
Rod Speed

Mr.T wrote

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

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 does, actually.

They never protest about stuff like that.

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

And hordes who do arent interested in using it anyway.

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.

Reply to
Rod Speed

Mr.T wrote

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

The mobile networks clearly work fine like that.

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

renationalise it.

No one world wide is actually THAT stupid.

More fool you.

Its also fine to force on private enterprises too.

They always do. They're called royaltys.

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

vehicles).

Yes, particularly with the fuel taxes.

Reply to
Rod Speed

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. .........................

Reply to
terryc

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.

Reply to
terryc

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.

Reply to
terryc

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

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

Reply to
terryc

terryc wrote

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

Nope, because even Labor arent actually THAT stupid.

Reply to
Rod Speed

terryc wrote

claim?

instead.

roads.

They are now.

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

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.

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.

Reply to
Rod Speed

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.

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

MrT.

Reply to
Mr.T

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.

Reply to
Mr.T

Mr.T wrote

Corse what the current plan is, and what they can get thru parliament at that time are two entirely separate matters.

Clearly Telecom/Telstra wasnt.

Particularly if it involves the scrapping of the copper pair network, it may well end up a profit for taxpayers, particularly given that only about $23B of the alleged $43B cost is going to be paid for by taxpayers.

Reply to
Rod Speed

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.