6 ms·

We already are paying - with our taxes. Not to mention that this is an investment which will pay back to the government. NBNCo will be getting paid for use. Pa

We already are paying - with our taxes. Not to mention that this is an investment which will pay back to the government. NBNCo will be getting paid for use. Pay-to-connect isn't available to the users who'd want it most - young people. And I don't just mean unaffordable. If you're renting, good luck convincing your land lord to splash out $4k every time you move.

eru 13y ago
Just only move to apartments that have the fibre. People are already doing that with windows and bathrooms.
- Wingman4l7 13y ago
  That's hardly a reasonable solution -- people have to first consider bigger things like proximity to their place of work, good schools, whether or not pets are allowed, etc.
  - eru 13y ago
    Sure. For lets of people internet access ranks pretty high, though. And for land lords it's not necessary about getting tenants at all, but being able to charge a premium.
- jsmeaton 13y ago
  Funnily enough I just signed a new lease in an apartment that doesn't have fibre. We rejected a place that did have fibre, just down the road. Bigger apartment with better kitchen, view, facilities, and lower price. There aren't many places connected yet, and it's not looking like many more will be.
jacques_chester 13y ago
> Not to mention that this is an investment which will pay back to the government. According to NBNCo modelling, which has never been published. We are told that it has been reviewed by Deloitte (as I recall). But we weren't told what Deloitte reviewed, we weren't told what assumptions Deloitte were told to make. You can get an "auditor" to pass anything you want if you control the assumptions of the model. NBNCo have already had to progressively change their projections for rollout time, rollout penetration and end user takeup. Multiple times. Does this change their model? I am kinda sorta prepared to bet that it does. This goes back to my personal beef about the very poor transparency and governance of the NBN project.

eru 13y ago

Just only move to apartments that have the fibre. People are already doing that with windows and bathrooms.

Wingman4l7 13y ago
That's hardly a reasonable solution -- people have to first consider bigger things like proximity to their place of work, good schools, whether or not pets are allowed, etc.
- eru 13y ago
  Sure. For lets of people internet access ranks pretty high, though. And for land lords it's not necessary about getting tenants at all, but being able to charge a premium.
jsmeaton 13y ago
Funnily enough I just signed a new lease in an apartment that doesn't have fibre. We rejected a place that did have fibre, just down the road. Bigger apartment with better kitchen, view, facilities, and lower price. There aren't many places connected yet, and it's not looking like many more will be.

jacques_chester 13y ago

> Not to mention that this is an investment which will pay back to the government. According to NBNCo modelling, which has never been published. We are told that it has been reviewed by Deloitte (as I recall). But we weren't told what Deloitte reviewed, we weren't told what assumptions Deloitte were told to make. You can get an "auditor" to pass anything you want if you control the assumptions of the model. NBNCo have already had to progressively change their projections for rollout time, rollout penetration and end user takeup. Multiple times. Does this change their model? I am kinda sorta prepared to bet that it does. This goes back to my personal beef about the very poor transparency and governance of the NBN project.