In The Australian Friday 26 August 2011:
“When Ralph Willis announced his telecommunications reforms in 1989, he delivered immediate price reductions and a price cap under which prices would fall steadily in real terms. Willis’s reforms ushered in a long period of productivity increases that allowed price declines up to the present day. “
Where are Turnbull’s comments on this!
Mike
Mike of Marion
26 Aug 11 at 7:55 am
Ten years ago I was paying Telstra $600 per month for what now costs me less than $300 per month for higher usage and faster service. Sounds like we are heading back to being gouged!
Biota
26 Aug 11 at 8:35 am
This is nothing new. Anyone who bothered to read the NBN business plan when it came out 6 months ago would have worked that out for themselves.
I’ve been arguing this point with NBN boosters since then, and none have believed me. Thank goodness The Aus has finally picked it up.
boy on a bike
26 Aug 11 at 8:43 am
The biggest travesty is how our freedom of choice is being eroded on numerous fronts. Wake up Australians!
George
26 Aug 11 at 10:01 am
But I thought super profits were baaaaad?
derp
26 Aug 11 at 10:31 am
In Wayne’s World.
derp
26 Aug 11 at 10:32 am
why is it only government monopolies that are allowed to ‘gouge’(stupid word)the public?
johno
26 Aug 11 at 12:31 pm
The article only indirectly refers to the fact that the existing Telstra copper wire network and fibre-optic cables of Foxtel and Optus will be ripped up to give NBN a total monopoly.
Takes us back to the good old days of the PMG and Telecom. High cost and appalling service.
DavidLeyonhjelm
26 Aug 11 at 1:17 pm
No that won’t happen because Monty told us they’ll have an entirely different culture. Sounds like YaKULT to me.
derp
26 Aug 11 at 1:32 pm
m0nty
26 Aug 11 at 3:03 pm
Monty, that’s actually an argument for allowing the market to grow capacity and speeds as the demand grows, rather than skipping ahead to fibre-for-all. The linked article is unwittingly showing how private operators are continually responding to consumer desires, and don’t need to be forced into the highest of high-end technology before the demand is there. The trajectory was for Australia to get there eventually, thanks to normal market imperatives. No need for tens of billions of dollars being taken from taxpayers to accelerate the process.
Jarrah
26 Aug 11 at 3:24 pm
MonTY
Stop spruiking a bullshit service that can only survive through a government imposed monopoly gouging its customers. You understand nothing about this this.
JC
26 Aug 11 at 3:28 pm
Probably just following ALP rationale. Other peoples money is always up for grabs.
Sean
26 Aug 11 at 4:15 pm
Affluent middle class Australians might not be price sensitive, but there are an aweful lot of low income Australians who are! Wot about them Monty!
johno
26 Aug 11 at 4:26 pm
I assume you mean Turnbull’s policy of establishing a government-controlled CAN monopoly. JC, I thought you were a critic from the right, why are you criticising the anti-competitive Liberal NBN policy?
m0nty
26 Aug 11 at 6:40 pm
They can buy Dodo or TPG plans at $35/month.
m0nty
26 Aug 11 at 6:42 pm
The comnpassionate left: Gouge the middle classes, fuck the poor.
Infidel Tiger
26 Aug 11 at 6:48 pm
No Jarrah, it’s doesn’t show that at all. It shows that Australian consumers increasingly demand “faster, more reliable and higher capacity telecommunications services, rather than a focus on pricing”. The omega point of such services is FTTP, there’s nothing better than that. FTTP wasn’t going to be provided to 90%+ of the public by anyone in the private sector, because they wouldn’t allow Telstra to do it for obvious competitive reasons, and no one else but the government would do it because they would get smashed by Telstra. Telstra’s dominance represented market failure. The government had to step in to ensure the best outcome for Australian consumers.
m0nty
26 Aug 11 at 6:48 pm
The compassionate conservative: do nothing, allow the market to continue failing, hope like hell Telstra shareholders don’t remember who sold them dud shares.
m0nty
26 Aug 11 at 6:50 pm
Markets can’t fail.
Infidel Tiger
26 Aug 11 at 6:51 pm
LOL!
m0nty
26 Aug 11 at 6:53 pm
Monty: that’s a lopsided analysis. Telstra seized the initiative and a significantly larger customer base quite recently via a price war that it started, correct? So no, consumers weren’t attracted to their premium service and premium prices – they were attracted to the prices that Telstra began charging for whatever it was offering. Obviously consumers thought it was better value than Vodafone and so on, and thus they switched.
Consumers look for value. Period. If Vodafone offered a bare bones model at a price that made that look attractive, I’m sure they would win back market share. Alternatively, they could offer extra services and not change their prices, and the effect would be similar.
The consumer didn’t change at all. Vodafone took its eye off the ball.
Oh come on
26 Aug 11 at 6:54 pm
A bloke living in Widgiemooltha not being able to access 100mbps broadband is not a market failure.
Infidel Tiger
26 Aug 11 at 6:55 pm
Nation’s worst government spruiks nation’s worst ISP
Mind you, Labor would kill for a satisfaction rating like Dodo’s.
Rebel with cause
26 Aug 11 at 7:02 pm
How is the market currently failing Monty?
Yobbo
26 Aug 11 at 7:05 pm
m0nty
26 Aug 11 at 7:27 pm
We’ve been through this, you dishonest fucking liar. The new government will have no choice but to continue on with this for a while. as they’ll need time to figure out how to dismantle and privatize it.
The loons just bought the Telstra wires you fucking idiot, so what can they do from day one?
However make no mistake, the system is going back to private hands over time.
JC
26 Aug 11 at 7:32 pm
No it doesn’t. You’re an economic illiterate spouting leftwing talking points.
JC
26 Aug 11 at 7:33 pm
Who wouldn’t allow it, Monty? The Commonwealth? How is that a market failure?
daddy dave
26 Aug 11 at 7:40 pm
He’s talking pure shit, Dad. The very last plan by the previous government was to subsidize the bush with a faster network.
I of course was against it because there are trade offs living in the bush. It’s like expecting the best heart surgeons in the world to move from the Mayo clinic to rural South Australia and if s/he doesn’t that’s considered by MontY as market failure by mental giants.
I’m fucking sick of left wing ignoramuses calling everyfink market failure they don’t like. Fucking morons.
JC
26 Aug 11 at 7:45 pm
monty. Sit down and think about this for a moment. The market has failed because it didn’t build a non existent network the Government has failed to build as well?
Please explain.
.
26 Aug 11 at 7:53 pm
I repeat, markets can’t fail.
Infidel Tiger
26 Aug 11 at 7:54 pm
Monty, it’s clear you don’t have any academic grasp of what “market failure” is. You’re using the Ruddian definition of “market failure”, where it’s defined as “when the market fails to give me something I want or something I think people should want”.
Er, that actually represents a natural monopoly.
The lack of universal fibre represents a market success – the market is successfully allocating capital toward profitable projects and away from negative-NPV projects.
benson
26 Aug 11 at 11:36 pm
The broadband market as it stands now is a failure, because there is a perfectly sound, mature technology out there (FTTP) with a willing Australian public gagging to buy it, yet up to now vanishingly few customers have been able to enjoy it. Why? Because, as I said, Telstra had previously been the only company willing to make the investment because no one wanted to go head to head with them, but due to it representing a terrible competitive outcome for the industry, of course the government/regulator couldn’t allow it.
If you lot can’t or won’t grasp that relatively simple market power dynamic, there’s not a lot I can do for you.
Put it this way: NBN prices will be lower than what they would have been if the government had allowed Telstra their head to build the same network instead. Can you understand that? Can you look past your prejudices to comprehend the market forces that produce that outcome? I doubt it.
m0nty
26 Aug 11 at 11:49 pm
The very last plan by the previous government was to subsidize the bush with a faster network.
I’m not sure how much it was to be subsidised; it was to be a wireless network built by the private sector.
As for trade-offs, yes there are trade-offs to living in the bush, but on the other hand an average farmer makes 400% the contribution to GDP that the average Joe does. Call me stupid, but I’d guestimate that to be worth some additional infrastructure spend, given the current reality (rather than an ideal world where nobody paid taxes, or whatever).
wreckage
26 Aug 11 at 11:51 pm
You’re a fucking moron, MontY. Seriously, you’re a lying one too.
Telstra was prepared to get going on a faster network as early as 2004 but was stymied by the previous government and this one while they dicked around to “study” it.
You have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about.
There were also three bidders for the proposal and the bids were at around 11 billion + a government subsidy for the people in the bush.
To suggest the NBN will be cheaper is a fucking outright lie.
JC
26 Aug 11 at 11:54 pm
The NBN is going to cost a minimum of a $100bn if it ever gets built. Highly unlikely, particularly when all the union scams and gouging are revealed when Tone become PM.
Infidel Tiger
26 Aug 11 at 11:58 pm
Yes, as I said, any government worth its stripes would dick them around forever because it’s not the right thing to do. You’re making my point for me about Telstra building a national FTTP network being untenable.
m0nty
26 Aug 11 at 11:58 pm
You’ve got a hide on you, JC, for copping an attitude given how your buttocks barely have time to recover in between NBN threads on the Cat for the thorough spanking I give you every time.
m0nty
27 Aug 11 at 12:04 am
with a willing Australian public gagging to buy it
Bull shit. If they were gagging to buy it they wouldn’t be so keen on other people paying for it.
Put it this way: NBN prices will be lower than what they would have been if the government had allowed Telstra their head to build the same network instead.
There is no way a legally protected monopoly will provide good pricing or service. It never happens. You are wrong on the level of a man that insists he has taught his dog to fly.
wreckage
27 Aug 11 at 12:07 am
Australia Post.
m0nty
27 Aug 11 at 12:09 am
Which explains why it has had the take up rate of a small pox infected Betamax recorder.
Infidel Tiger
27 Aug 11 at 12:10 am
Evidence?
wreckage
27 Aug 11 at 12:10 am
Besides which, AP doesn’t have a monopoly on anything. Anyone can send anything they like via courier without being charged with an offence.
wreckage
27 Aug 11 at 12:11 am
Exactly. Australia Post has plenty of competitors and they all do a superior job.
Infidel Tiger
27 Aug 11 at 12:13 am
Australia Post has a monopoly on the carriage of letters under 250g. It doesn’t offer a particularly competitive price either (60c to send a letter?), although it was stuck at 45c or so for over a decade.
benson
27 Aug 11 at 12:15 am
Under the proposed laws, applied to AP, it would be illegal… illegal to advertise a package delivery service as equivalent to any service offered by AP.
wreckage
27 Aug 11 at 12:17 am
You can bang as many letters as you like in a bag and send that via anyone you like. But as you say, 60c for a letter? Steep.
wreckage
27 Aug 11 at 12:18 am
monty you didn’t explain shit. You avoided the question and inferred previous poor policy regarding the status of Telstra. Who controls policy? Competitors and consumers (the market)or Government? You say Telstra has too much power but have no problem with creating new monopolies, even defending other Government owned monopolies.
This is how the Australia Post monopoly works. If you offer a service to carry letters (defined under the act), they must be priced at four times the carrier rate that Aus Post offers.
Australia post does not provide good pricing on non letter items (letters are debatable given the cost of junk mail) and the service is pathetic. The smaller privately owned ones tend to be better but lack a range of products.
.
27 Aug 11 at 8:35 am
Dot, the Liberals seem to have no problem creating new monopolies either, since that is their policy to deal with creating a competitive outcome on the CAN. Both sides have the same policy on that score, you don’t have a choice. Turnbull understands that the market has failed so badly that it is inevitable that a tightly-controlled, non-vertically-integrated monopoly has to be maintained at the wholesale level to ensure maximum competition at the retail level. (This is a dynamic peculiar to telecommunications, lest you think I am making a statement about monopolies in general.) The right has has no credibility in attacking Labor’s monopoly policy in broadband, because Turnbull uses exactly the same technique in his policy.
If you are trying to argue that there has been no previous poor policy on Telstra, then you’re in IT’s fantasy world of unreality and ideology. Of course, governments of both stripes have had a devil of a time dealing with Telstra and have failed in many areas, particularly in the Trujillo era. Why do you think Howard was going to use OPEL to bypass Telstra?
m0nty
27 Aug 11 at 11:53 am
Yes we do. We can repudiate them as their bosses, the electorate.
Prove it. Where does this exist in America?
No. You have merely restated an assertion and packaged it as a conclusion.
I have explicitly said the opposite of that.
.
27 Aug 11 at 11:59 am
Good luck voting in a party that isn’t Labor or the Coalition, Dot. Hey, maybe you’ll vote Green!
America is a different environment. I was talking about Australia, with its geographically spread population and problems with paying for overseas data.
Turnbull’s policy is to create a CAN Co which is only different to NBN Co in that it is privately owned, as it would have the same strict government controls. I have stated this before on the Cat and no one has proved me wrong. Please do so, if you have the chops.
Good, we agree on that at least.
m0nty
27 Aug 11 at 12:12 pm
The NBN solves neither of these problems.
.
27 Aug 11 at 12:21 pm
Which is not what that point was about.
m0nty
27 Aug 11 at 12:25 pm
,
Untenable for whom, MontY, you nimrod.
It would be much better for the the public to have a private monopoly with government oversight than a government owned one promised it will regulate itself. Stop being an imbecile.
JC
27 Aug 11 at 12:26 pm
Ooh yeah, because that worked out really well with Telstra. The Liberal Party of Australia: doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result.
m0nty
27 Aug 11 at 12:29 pm
m0nty – the funny thing is that Telstra, with all it’s problems, was a damn sight more efficient then Telecom ever was. You know the NBN will just become another public sector job protection program, right?
There is a reason it is cheaper for the state government to contract with private firms to operate speed cameras (and split the revenue) then to employ people to do it themselves. This reason is known as “public servants”…
Tim Quilty
27 Aug 11 at 1:19 pm
Telstra should not be compared with Telecom. That’s like comparing a Datsun 180B to a horse and buggy. I’d rather have a better car, thanks.
m0nty
27 Aug 11 at 1:23 pm
Then go and buy one. The government doesn’t need to upgrade your car to the latest model.
daddy dave
27 Aug 11 at 1:24 pm
Monty
You really are a moron.
A privately owned monopoly with government oversight and a regulatory structure is far superior to one where the government owns the monopoly and overseas it.
That’s just a fact. You would find any decent economist agreeing with that proposition.
Stop being a moron for the sake of being one as it’s not funny anymore.
JC
27 Aug 11 at 1:29 pm
“The lack of universal fibre represents a market success – the market is successfully allocating capital toward profitable projects and away from negative-NPV projects.”
Well put. Monty – and all NBN spruikers – have never managed to present a reasonable counter-argument to that simple point.
Jarrah
27 Aug 11 at 1:55 pm
They tried that, it was called Telstra. It didn’t work. Economic theory is one thing, but in practice, the market has failed.
You all seem to be starting from the belief that the market is always right, to the extent of IT saying the market can never fail. This is blinkered ideology, simple and banal. I can’t have a rational conversation with anyone who clings to that antediluvian superstition.
You should tone down your abuse, JC. Apart from anything else, it loses its potency when you top and tail every single post with it.
m0nty
27 Aug 11 at 10:18 pm
???
Regulated monopolies are fairly undisputed for being fair and efficient. The difficulty is in regulation. Telstra got knocked on the head once they were smacked down in the High Court – they had no ownership over the cable, only an easement. This solved a lot of problems.
Unrelated to this, you believe the market has failed since the market has “failed” to build a negative NPV project whereas the Government will build a negative NPV project. I’d call that a WIN, actually.
No it’s not you intellectual lightweight. You define market failure as “I don’t get free hookers” thus “Govenrment ought to supply free hookers”. THIS IS NOT WHAT “MARKET FAILURE” IS.
FFS look this up before you pontificate more superstitious crap.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure
Does “NEGATIVE NPV project” mean anything to you in that context? Furthermore you have not established there will not be Government failure. The evidence suggests there will be.
Market failure is not a rock solid concept either.
David Freidman has demonstrated fairly compelling examples of privatised defence. The contentious bit is (entirely) private law enforcement. Law enforcement has a regulated monopoly now in Australia. Having competition in investigations, prosecutions, recovering fugitives would be beneficial.
Umbeck has shown that property rights are a convention, not a public good and Coase showed the lighthouse as a public good (see Stiglitz’s Public Economics cover) is a myth as well.
We won’t be talked down to someone who is a naif.
.
27 Aug 11 at 10:32 pm
Dot, but it’s not a negative NPV project. Telstra were perfectly happy to build it. They would have made pots of money out of it, charging monopoly rents, and the public would have paid because they pay through the nose for everything else in this country. Telstra had the economies of scale and attendant monopolies in orthogonal market sectors necessary to make the sums work.
The problem was that the industry as a whole had the engineering skills, infrastructure and capital to fund the network and make a decent profit out of it… but those resources were all concentrated in the monopoly carrier, and it would be a terrible competitive outcome to let them extend their monopoly for decades to come in the new network. Breaking up Telstra and using the constituent parts to build the network under a fully government-controlled environment was the only way to fix this impasse.
Maybe there’s another piece of economic jargon that better characterises this situation, you tell me. I spend too much time on Failblog. That is the situation in the Australian telco industry, nonetheless.
m0nty
27 Aug 11 at 11:07 pm
The Government cannot make it positive NPV. They have admitted as much. The fact that the project has been delayed by 2.5 years makes any previous estimation that it did have an NPV very questionable.
.
27 Aug 11 at 11:10 pm
Quote please.
m0nty
27 Aug 11 at 11:13 pm
m0nty on the NBN:
It does not compare to Telecom because This Time Will Be Different.
Good luck with that.
wreckage
27 Aug 11 at 11:18 pm
You are beyond the fucking pale. “as much”. Hello? Are the lights on there, monty?
They won’t do a CBA and those who have find it has a negative NPV with realistic assumptions. One study reckons it has a positive NPV only if it adds 1% of growth to GDP every year. The business cases assume cash losses.
All of these analyses assume the unrealistic cost schedule and timeframe is in fact realistic.
It’s probably lost on you but delaying the project by 2-3 years means it’s uneconomic no matter what.
.
27 Aug 11 at 11:21 pm
FFS MontY . How fucking thick are you. The government bought the copper wires in order to prevent Telstra competing with them.
You have no fucking idea what you’re talking and think you came here and explain concepts like market failure simply because your preference is a government monopoly.
As Dot keeps reminding you, the NBN will never be built as it will cost upwards of $150 billion.
JC
27 Aug 11 at 11:24 pm
No they weren’t, you ignorant asshat. The bidders were only prepared to fiber up the areas where it was profitable to do so. The rest was not and they were also not going to wire the homes with fiber.
It was an entirely different system. It was going to cost about $11 billion.
JC
27 Aug 11 at 11:28 pm
I’m still not seeing any links to the government admitting any of this, Dot. You and your right-wing think tanks and hangers-on can make up numbers out of thin air all you like. JC’s having a whale of a time waving his pom-poms and jumping up and down, but that doesn’t make any of it true.
m0nty
27 Aug 11 at 11:54 pm
MontY
I don’t wave anyfink around other than moving my head side to side after reading the crap you espouse.
JC
27 Aug 11 at 11:56 pm
You and your right-wing think tanks and hangers-on can make up numbers out of thin air all you like.
I can’t look away. It’s like staring at a train crash in slow motion.
wreckage
28 Aug 11 at 12:00 am
Yeah okay, Charlie Brown’s teacher.
m0nty
28 Aug 11 at 12:01 am
Wreck
The idiot has go it in his head that the only way we can obtain optimal service is through a government monopoly. This idea is screwed pretty tightly is some dark corner of his small brain and not even a jack hammer will be able to change things.
Even if by some magic they managed to build the stupid fucking thing and it cost $150 billion, the dolt would be saying it was a great result.
He’s stuck on stupid, so leave him there.
JC
28 Aug 11 at 12:03 am
You are such a dishonest muppet monty. All because you want free porn no one else wants to pay for.
Conroy will not:
# Listen to any other business case
# Reveal the progress of the NBN
# Have Treasury do a CBA
# Admit how the filter will slow down the NBN
# Reveal the costs of the NBN or what the cost escalation is depsite 2.5 years of inertia
# Explain how the NBN timeline will change after 2.5 years of nothing but poorly uptaken trials
# Justify the NBN on any reasonable basis since internode offered better than NBN speed and price products before the NBN was an official Commonwealth policy.
# Explain why the NBN will not suffer the same logistical problems others such as Optus had when trying to lay cable through high land value use areas such as residential and CBD areas.
The studies I refer to are from a variety of sources, only one of which is written by libertarian, not a right winger.
The numbers are not “made up”. What is made up is your slur that since that some of the critics don’t vote ALP, all critical studies or criticism is invalid.
This is Lysenkoism in action.
The numbers are not made up. The NBN was never necessary, the market didn’t fail, didn’t fail under your definition and it is a loss maker on cash and a accrual/discounted basis.
.
28 Aug 11 at 12:07 am
I have trouble with the idea that someone who can spell, and express himself quite clearly, even with wit on occasion, would have become so attached to the anti-historical and evidentially counter-indicated idea that government monopolies do ANY of: cheap, effective, customer-oriented, “gets things done”; let alone all of them.
It’s like he’s suffering some sort of brain condition, like those people who feel hot instead of cold, or who yell “FUCK” when they mean “Isn’t it a lovely day?”
wreckage
28 Aug 11 at 12:11 am
Working in the Australian telco industry and understanding how fundamentally weird it is can do that to a man, wreckage.
m0nty
28 Aug 11 at 12:12 am
I mean Jesus Christ how is the NBN meant to deliver “net social benefits” as Gans says or the +1% in GDP growth other less harsh critics refer to which would make it viable, with the goddmaned filter?
It’s like a bunch of engineers saying despite what the financial controller thinks of the project being a loser compared to other projects and on a cash basis, the new model car will make money, even if they take out the 4th and 5th gears and put sugar in the petrol tank every time the consumer fills up.
.
28 Aug 11 at 12:15 am
I thought you said you were a journalist who wrote about telcos.
.
28 Aug 11 at 12:16 am
Monty
Working in Telco means shit. Why does working in Telco makes you such a fucking expert on the economic efficacy of the NBN? There’s no reason why the two go together and your attempt to tie that in is either stupid or just dishonest.
You keep repeating the same shit and each time you get beaten to a pulp, yet like a retarded dog you never remember how to play catch, no matter how many times the owners throws the ball.
JC
28 Aug 11 at 12:17 am
I was employed by a peering venture called AusBONE at the end of the first Internet boom. Plus I also worked for Neighborhood Cable for over a year in the mid-00s.
m0nty
28 Aug 11 at 12:19 am
And I was a journalist who wrote about telcos before that, just to be clear.
m0nty
28 Aug 11 at 12:20 am
monty,
How much will the filter slow the NBN down by, how does this affect the NPV calculations and are you aware that something equivalent and cheaper than the NBN was available three years ago, whereas the NBN is only available thus far in trial areas – with poor uptake?
.
28 Aug 11 at 12:21 am
monty,
In what capacity did you work for those telcos?
.
28 Aug 11 at 12:22 am
The filter is irrelevant to the NBN discussion, Dot. It will never be implemented. I blogged on this subject last year on my personal blog.
m0nty
28 Aug 11 at 12:24 am
I was CEO of AusBone, and did sales for NC.
m0nty
28 Aug 11 at 12:24 am
So this DLP throwback and dickhead Conroy who has enforced the “do not talk about ACMA’s banned list” and wants to ban naturally breasted women (as they are adored only by paedophiles) will not pass the filter because it’s unpopular?
The whole fucking Government is unpopular monty.
.
28 Aug 11 at 12:28 am
Grrr…damned p-word!
So this DLP throwback and dickhead Conroy who has enforced the “do not talk about ACMA’s banned list” and wants to ban naturally breasted women (as they are adored only by ‘sexual deviants’) will not pass the filter because it’s unpopular?
The whole fucking Government is unpopular monty.
.
28 Aug 11 at 12:29 am
MontY
Ross Gittins writes about economics and he’s a moron. Big deal. So working or writing about telco doesn’t give you any expertise in being able to asses it.
You need an economics degree or finance major or really smart. You seem to be neither of these.
Here’s all you need to understand.
1. The NBN won’t have any competitors as that is being written into law.
2. The return on investment is expected to fetch just under 7%. However the expected return in that industry normally is about double and 1/2 the NBN.
3. Where most places are experiencing falling telco end user costs, the NBN will result in forward increases in consumer prices. That like a unique thing in the world right now.
Yet you come here peddle this shit and have the temerity to even consider us as your peers in this discussion.
JC
28 Aug 11 at 12:29 am
So you’re disqualified then.
I don’t consider you my peers in talking about the telco industry. I’m educating you noobs.
m0nty
28 Aug 11 at 12:33 am
Its a total misallocation of resources MOntY, which in a decade could end up being a total fucking write off seeing the speed of technology in that area such as wireless.
You seem to have a serious issue with is understanding trade offs, which is the core in understanding why the NBN is a loser no matter how much fucking lipstick you stick on that pig.
JC
28 Aug 11 at 12:34 am
Fuck me this is a LOL. What exactly did you do for IT firms other than shill for the ALP and free, filtered porn?
.
28 Aug 11 at 12:34 am
Lipstick? JC you can’t polish a turd.
.
28 Aug 11 at 12:35 am
Nope… I’m a finance major with a com degree montY.
I’m qualified to understand the finances of this piece of shit is a fucking dog.
JC
28 Aug 11 at 12:35 am
We’re not your peers. We’re your superiors.
JC
28 Aug 11 at 12:36 am
Get a real job JC, produce something worthwhile. Then get back to me with an improved attitude.
m0nty
28 Aug 11 at 12:39 am
I see you’ve given up, monty.
.
28 Aug 11 at 12:40 am
I do have one monTy. It may be a little unconventional but I pay my own way and cut a quarterly cheque for the ATO.
JC
28 Aug 11 at 12:47 am
How can I argue with an ideologue, Dot? You believe the market is always right, thus you will never accept government stepping in to address something that the market has failed to provide.
You clearly don’t understand the telco market if you think NBN Co will face the same problems Optus did, or that Internode ADSL pricing suddenly invalidates the NBN as a whole. THat you even brought up those points and thought you’d be taken seriously only underlines your noobitude.
m0nty
28 Aug 11 at 12:48 am
Putting your hand in the next guy’s pocket is not a real job.
m0nty
28 Aug 11 at 12:49 am
How little you know Monty, JC was there when the currency markets were created in the 80′s. He was running a desk when you were poaching website design and fan leagues 15yrs later!
Nanuestalker
28 Aug 11 at 12:52 am
Monty
You own a website that in my mind performs a next to useless function and you have the nerve to tell me I am putting my hand in other people’s pockets.
We’ve certainly come a long way in the world when buying and selling stocks and currencies is thought of as stealing from another guy. You dope.
You don’t have to understand the intricacies of the telco market, as though it’s hard, to figure out that the NBN is a pig in lipstick.
Optus always was a rent seeking cry baby anyways.
JC
28 Aug 11 at 12:55 am
Retarded leftwingers are fucking amazingly stupid people.
You rationalize the NBN explaining to the dolt that it doesn’t make sense from a finance perspective. The returns are meager and the the cost to the consumer is egregious. Yet Dot is the ideologue according to this economic illiterate twit.
JC
28 Aug 11 at 1:02 am
You really are a low-rent fool, m0nty. I had expected better from you. That’s been rectified and you’ve been seriously downgraded.
Gab
28 Aug 11 at 1:03 am
…and you wonder why I think M0nty is a moron
Nanuestalker
28 Aug 11 at 1:05 am
Right Gab, I get personally abused multiple times in each JC post and somehow I’m the bad guy.
m0nty
28 Aug 11 at 1:06 am
A slap-down isn’t abuse m0oron!
Nanuestalker
28 Aug 11 at 1:09 am
Gab
Seriously, I don’t give a shit.
The reality is that MontY has no fucking idea what he’s talking about. He calls Dot an ideologue when Dot has explained why the NBN is a loser in pure rational terms.
As a last resort he gets abusive because I suggested he’s an economic and finance illiterate.
JC
28 Aug 11 at 1:11 am
No one on this blog has attacked the nature of your livelihood, m0nty. In fact, many of us have congratulated you and wished you well.
When you make silly, uneducated comments pertaining to economics and market behaviour then you should know by now that lively debate will ensue by those who have far greater knowledge – and experience – in those matters.
Gab
28 Aug 11 at 1:11 am
what Gab said! [ I did in one sentence Gab
]
Nanuestalker
28 Aug 11 at 1:14 am
OFF TOPIC
Where do you live Gab
Nanuestalker
28 Aug 11 at 1:21 am
Victoria.
Pourquoi, Nanu?
Gab
28 Aug 11 at 1:25 am
It’s a funny line you draw, Gab. I get called a moron or idiot hundreds of times, almost as if it’s JC’s way of saying “Dear m0nty” and “Regards, JC”… that’s okay. We are having a discussion in which I face attacks on my personal credentials, I react by attacking JC’s credentials… and you come down on his side.
m0nty
28 Aug 11 at 1:26 am
Footscrazy!!!
Nanuestalker
28 Aug 11 at 1:26 am
Who woke up the gimp?
m0nty
28 Aug 11 at 1:28 am
[Monty..I'm glad Eade is gone....I left a question for you about Mick Malthouse on the open thread...."Where will he go?"...what do you think? The doggies could do with him but too much bad blood and lack of coin]
Nanuestalker
28 Aug 11 at 1:30 am
You didn’t attack his credentials. m0nty. You attacked how he made his daily bread. There is a distinction.
As for the rough and tumble of discourse on here, you are quite adept yourself at dishing it out too. Perhaps there are other blogs which are not so combative as the Cat, which may suit you better? Not that I’d like to see you go, mind.
Now we all need to have a big group hug and move on.
Gab
28 Aug 11 at 1:33 am
[Note to self ...do not piss off Gab]
Nanuestalker
28 Aug 11 at 1:35 am
Fine by me.
m0nty
28 Aug 11 at 1:36 am
The Pies, Nanu, But has nothing to do location.
Gab
28 Aug 11 at 1:36 am
BTW….this is becoming a thread wrecker…time to go to the Open thread to discuss the p’s & q’sof the CAT
Nanuestalker
28 Aug 11 at 1:40 am
[the Pies ... FMD!...have a bit of self respect...unless you've no teeth and an IQ of 50]
Nanuestalker
28 Aug 11 at 1:44 am
mOnty – Respect for The Wire reference, but brickbats for the misunderstanding of economics. JC’s trading of shares has as much impact on the economy as your website does. If you dislike JC making a living from trading the markets, you might as well abuse a waitress or a zookeeeper for not creating anything.
Infidel Tiger
28 Aug 11 at 2:55 am
Monty you’re an idiot who uses your opponent’s ideology as a safety blanket. Not only is it poor form, it’s the kind of thing that can get you locked up
– you just stopped debating us at all when more information is presented to you or you are questioned about the basis of your argument.
I might believe in an idealistic ideology monty, but the evidence is on our side – not yours. It is you who is the ideologue.
You have failed to answer every substantive point made against the NBN or counter rebuttal of reasons why we shouldn’t have it. You simply walked away and cried uncle when the debate got too hard. I might be committed to the cause but like I said – the evidence is on our side. You have nothing other than a very loose professional association with the industry. You are trying to rewrite economics and slur researchers of all beliefs (the take home message from all of these studies is the NBN is unviable with realistic assumptions) because one in their lot is a libertarian.
As for share trading – the more people like JC around the easier it is for firms to go public. They couldn’t do it without enough volume or liquidity.
Unless you go and answer the criticisms etc I brought up before, any mention of “you guys are ideologues” is fraudulent.
Make a real argument one day son.
.
28 Aug 11 at 8:07 am
I’ve explained my argument in full multiple times on the Cat, Dot. You lot don’t have enough domain knowledge to comprehend and/or accept it.
You also don’t seem to grasp the concept of moving on.
m0nty
28 Aug 11 at 10:49 am
Yes, you have explained it multiple times. And each time it gets debunked, eviscerated and destroyed, you explain it again as if nothing had happened.
daddy dave
28 Aug 11 at 10:51 am