Wants to save the planet, recommends Nuclear Power the way to go. :lol:

-Copper networks are degrading over time and costing a lot more in maintenance and upkeep
-Greenfields construction areas have been fibre already for years
-Fibre is the natural progression of technology as a medium for data transmission
-More and more technologies are now IP based
-One of the benefits of fibre is jamming more bandwidth through it but mainly is its transmission distances
-International links are transceiver dependent moreso than medium dependent

List goes on, yada yada yada.

Checkmate.

Get over it.

-PB

you probably wont be around in 1000 years time, but I can guarantee you that nuclear energy will be the primary power source behind human civilisation by then

Yes because it is much more likely that in the next 1000 years we don't develop or discover any additional primary power sources...after all in the last 150 years we've only gone through steam, coal, oil, hydro, solar and nuclear...amongst others.

For something so big like this, is it even possible that private enterprise would be capable of producing their own high speed networks?

the taxpayer shouldnt fund it
get that into your head then get over it

Yet we used to before government sold off Telstra which has proven to be a fatal mistake.

You say the taxpayer shouldn't fund it, yet we still are with an ageing out of date copper network.

You seem to have this hate against fibre for the reason of people downloading movies, not because it is becoming an integral service like water, electricity and sewage.

-PB

still getting your hopes up for dilithium crystals?

Lots of generalisations there and attributing opinions to me that I havent even mentioned.

We have healthy and education being budgeted for but not sufficiently. We could find medical research without copayment and increasing CSIRO funding rather than reducing. We could especially be investing heavily in biotechnologies to prepare the economy for post mining boom. Would be within our interests to gain a competitive advantage now in a field with so much promise both for health and financially. In education theres still a huge gap and some of the poorer schools are really lagging behind. We need to raise the standards both of education we give students and the standards of teaching. The better and wider education is, the better off people are and the higher the chance of upward mobility. Could also spend on vastly improving the scientific curriculum.

I never questioned your suggestion of better pensions.

Ive also not weighed into the internet debate so you dont know my opinion there.

Tax cuts arent uniformly good for the economy. The massive Howard cuts back in the big surplus times was a bad economic mistake and had taxes not been cut there would have been more saved for now when we are in deficits. Also tax cuts to the rich is not always a great idea. Richer people tend to have a higher propensity to save. Saving is not always great for the economy and so rather than tax cuts that money should be invested into the country.

Nuclear energy is scientific but there are faults with it (as everything). Youd want provide money to incentive renewables better so that oil and gas firms dont have the massive competitive advantage they have.

And what is your evidence for your outlandish claim that 'you probably wont be around in 1000 years time, but I can guarantee you that nuclear energy will be the primary power source behind human civilisation by then'

Sorry my mistake, I thought you were having a serious conversation...carry on.

you want serious answer? all of your examples were discovered more than 100 years ago.
so progress hasnt exactly been swift since in finding entirely new energy sources

Really? solar and nuclear?

really
radium was discovered in 1898

Only person who mentioned 100 years was you, I mentioned 150 years...

Nuclear is clean but the waste is the hard part. Where to store it without making a place a dumping place for radioactive waste .

Over the past four decades, the entire industry has produced 71,780 metric tons of used nuclear fuel. If used fuel assemblies were stacked end-to-end and side-by-side, this would cover a football field about seven yards deep.

And until they find a way to store the used Nuclear Waste and by-products safely, it's about as beneficial to the wider environment as coal.

That and there's a higher risk of plant's blowing up and making new Chernobyl's and Fukoshimas.

the false dilemma seems to be a typical theme with you.
however, the taxpayer neednt fund something that is primarily going to be used for downloading movies because thats whats going to take up most of the bandwidth, i can guarantee that.

going from 25mb/s to 100mb/s is not essential to infrastructure.
of course telstra are going to whinge about the ageing infrastructure. thats how they get billions of dollars from the government.

so naive.

Nuclear is clean but the waste is the hard part. Where to store it without making a place a dumping place for radioactive waste .

hence why to spend some of that $50bn on research
thorium reactors for example eat their own waste

but to go conventional we have this stat

To bad nobody will be able to download the plans for such reactors because the internet will be too slow.

Pbagz 421 - Crackhead 0

Checking your mates.

-PB