What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

OT: Current Affairs and Politics

Messages
11,677
You're out of your depth here. Industry needs huge bandwidth way beyond your limited experience in the world that you live in.

From home?

What industries? Specifically what industries and what are their specific requirements for what specific tasks?
 

Bandwagon

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
41,833
Well you've complained about us spending more on it now, as if that's worse than spending more in the past or the future.

Um, no, I haven't. Not at all.


Being part of a team and promoting the interests of that team is also logical. There is a payoff. That's what matters. There are so many variables we are unable to accurately measure that there comes a point where attempting more understanding is wasted effort. And since our own personal success and even survival are tenuous it makes sense to transfer that emotional investment to the group, which has been proven to endure and even remain successful by arbitrary standards. The Jews who invented Christianity even managed to turn victimhood into a sign of virtue. Absolutely revolutionary. This the basis for modern Western morality. Every time 'they' hurt one of us we win.

None of which roots it in logic.


Agreed, but competition forces things to get done more cheaply where if the monopoly that is government were to do them would just result in more bloat.

In this space I don't think that's true. There's a semblance of competition, but in reality the competition only lies in who's suckling the governments teat. This is because the market is a construct of government, and so limited, because without control it's subject to being monopolized. The difference between the government holding a monopoly and a corporation is that the government can be voted out.

It comes down to the government decision cycle and appetite for risk. Neither is suited to such speculative investment as that for communications infrastructure. It's a game for private companies to get rich or go broke in.

This is back to economic rationalism, and for mine that's the key. I don't care for whether it makes a direct return, that is for the private sector, governing shouldn't be about direct returns, it should always be about big picture returns, which need not always be economic.
 
Messages
11,677
Sorry mate but really this is just a typical visionless trope, it's a non argument.

If you want to see the economy performing, if you want to see wages growth, then you need to encourage growth in productivity, and that means investment in technology and infrastructure. The uses come with the availability of the means, that's how it works.

Where's the productivity gain?

Once again - we don't need 40Mb/s to work from home.

We don't.

Where's this productivity gain? Please explain exactly where it comes from, in exactly what form, and how this translates into productivity that benefits the nation.

We use home internet for downloading shit. If we don't, explain exactly what else we use it for, what percentage of the population use it for this and exactly how this justifies tens of billions of dollars in cost.

I know my position is ideological. So is yours until you provide data to back it up.
 

Poupou Escobar

Post Whore
Messages
84,148
Um, no, I haven't. Not at all.




None of which roots it in logic.
If there's a benefit it's logical. In every case (when it comes to humans at least) a perceived benefit is a benefit.

In this space I don't think that's true. There's a semblance of competition, but in reality the competition only lies in who's suckling the governments teat. This is because the market is a construct of government, and so limited, because without control it's subject to being monopolized. The difference between the government holding a monopoly and a corporation is that the government can be voted out.
Right, but the state endures between governments, and there remains only one. So it is a monopoly by default. But I've seen plenty of government contractors race each other to the bottom. That's what competition does. The only thing keeping them from hitting rock bottom is the government requirements for expenses such as ISO standards, diversity and working conditions.

This is back to economic rationalism, and for mine that's the key. I don't care for whether it makes a direct return, that is for the private sector, governing shouldn't be about direct returns, it should always be about big picture returns, which need not always be economic.
Mate, if economic rationalism equals costs vs benefits then that's reality. It has never sustainably been any other way. You're the one who needs to provide the proof that anything other than 'economic rationalism' is feasible. Theory isn't enough because it rests on too many untested assumptions. The real world features causal links we can never properly understand, and when it comes to things that scale (such as economies), little miscalculations lead to big consequences.
 

Bandwagon

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
41,833
Where's the productivity gain?

Once again - we don't need 40Mb/s to work from home.

We don't.

Where's this productivity gain? Please explain exactly where it comes from, in exactly what form, and how this translates into productivity that benefits the nation.au

We use home internet for downloading shit. If we don't, explain exactly what else we use it for, what percentage of the population use it for this and exactly how this justifies tens of billions of dollars in cost.

I know my position is ideological. So is yours until you provide data to back it up.

The beauty of my position is that I need not predict the future, I only need demonstrate that it will not be the same as it now is, and history tells us all that is, and will be, the case.

Pretty much all productivity gains we have seen in the last hundred years or so boil down to investment in technology and infrastructure, why on earth would the next hundred years be any different?
 

Bandwagon

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
41,833
Mate, if economic rationalism equals costs vs benefits then that's reality.

Is it not possible to define benefit beyond economic return?

Because when I disparage economic rationalism, it is a critique that by definition, it reduces all benefits to economic outcomes.

Is this a bridge too far?
 

hindy111

Post Whore
Messages
58,489
The way I see it is. Old Copper wire is breaking down. When it rains all those old pits get wet and you lose your connections. Time to replace even if we do not need the speeds. Cheaper in long run to replace the lot then be racing around replacing one piece here and there.

I'd assume most of us do not need the fast speeds. But I imagine future generations will.

So we are not only getting faster speeds but also reliability.
 

hindy111

Post Whore
Messages
58,489
So as I understand now someone wanting a homeloan will not need information verified. The bank can just use information provided. Banks have made it to hard to lend so governments changed things.

I feel this is playing with fire. Puts to much responsibility on the individual. Many of us are smart operators But plenty others will be caught out as they reach for the stars and borrow too much only to lose home.
 

Bandwagon

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
41,833
it's true, I get consistently 92 - 94 Mb/s on FFTC, and there is nothing I do that really needs those speeds. I really only went with that plan to get the upload at a decent clip ( 16 - 17mbps )

Mind you, back in the nineties my dial up connection did everything i wanted then
 

Bandwagon

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
41,833
So as I understand now someone wanting a homeloan will not need information verified. The bank can just use information provided. Banks have made it to hard to lend so governments changed things.

I feel this is playing with fire. Puts to much responsibility on the individual. Many of us are smart operators But plenty others will be caught out as they reach for the stars and borrow too much only to lose home.

In a world of electronic transactions, banks can verify 99% of your financial affairs without you telling them much more than your name, address, drivers license, and date of birth.

For most people anyway. If you use cash a fair bit, it's a different story, then whether it's income or expenditure, it really doesn't exist.
 

Gary Gutful

Post Whore
Messages
51,723
it's true, I get consistently 92 - 94 Mb/s on FFTC, and there is nothing I do that really needs those speeds. I really only went with that plan to get the upload at a decent clip ( 16 - 17mbps )

Mind you, back in the nineties my dial up connection did everything i wanted then
This.

Anyone basing their requirements on what they already do are willfully ignoring how quickly the technology changes.

It might be zoom meetings now but who knows how the f**k we will be communicating in 5-10 years time. VR, holograms, nothing is off the table.

Having strong internet services means that you’ll be able to seamlessly transition to emerging technologies. In a best case scenario you might even have an economy that is helping shape those changes globally.

Let’s not make investment decisions based on HJ’s seedy, rapidly outdated internet habits.
 

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
73,536
In light of the position this government took before and after the Banking Royal Commission, their instructions to APRA to tighten up lending practices (which led to many punters being unable to secure a basic home loan) which apparently was based sound economic data of our disproportionally high personal debt and the cost of housing in our major capital cities, this is astonishing.

Bank loans will be faster, easier to apply for under credit shake up
First home buyers could be the big winners under plans to make it easier for Aussies to secure loans, with a credit shake up to “let it rip” on borrowing.

The days of being asked by the big banks about every dollar of your expenditure from Uber Eats to Netflix to secure a loan to buy a home or a small business could soon be over.

In the biggest shake up of credit laws in decades, the Morrison Government is set to encourage faster, easier loans to get the economy moving and help first home buyers get onto the property ladder.

For those wondering whether it’s wise for Australia to adopt a “let it rip” approach to credit during a recession when our personal debt is among the highest in the world, it looks like we’re about to find out.

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has revealed how the government will steer the country out of recession, by adopting a new two phase fiscal strategy that emphasises jobs and growth.

In the wake of the 2007‘s global financial crisis and the Royal Commission into the Banking sector, Treasurer Josh Frydenberg will argue banks have become too risk averse on lending.
“As Australia continues to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, it is more important than ever that there are no unnecessary barriers to the flow of credit to households and small businesses,” Mr Frydenberg said.

“By simplifying the loan application process for borrowers it will reduce barriers to switching between credit providers, encouraging consumers to seek out a better deal.”
Writing in The Australian, Mr Frydenberg said the banks’ obsession with running a ruler over the minutiae of borrowers’ expenditure had gone too far.
“It is now not uncommon for a person applying for a mortgage to be asked to explain individual discretionary spending and provide verification of a customer’s Netflix and Spotify subscriptions, UberEats or MenuLog usage or other detailed information,” he said.
“All in order for the lender to be confident that it cannot be held liable in the event the borrower cannot repay the loan.”

Mr Frydenberg will argue the changes will shift the balance of responsibility from “lender beware” to “borrower responsibility” to be honest about your capacity to service a loan.
The shake up follows a warning from the Reserve Bank Governor Phil Lowe that policymakers needed to accept that some loans will go bad without blaming it all on the big banks.


“We can’t have a world in which, if a borrower can’t repay the loan, it’s always the bank’s fault,” he said.
“On a portfolio basis, we want banks to make some loans that actually go bad, because if a bank never makes a loan that goes bad it means it’s not extending enough credit.
“The pendulum has probably swung a bit too far to blaming the bank if a loan goes bad, because the bank didn‘t understand the customer; if it had done proper due diligence — this is the mindset of some — the bank would never have made the loan. So some of the banks have had this mindset, ’Well, we can’t make loans that go bad.”


In a range of examples designed to show the problems in the current system, the Treasurer provided the example of ‘Lisa’ a retiree who recently lost her husband.
Despite holding a $3,000 credit card account in both their names, the bank closed the account upon her husband’s death as he was the main cardholder and refused to provide her with a card in her own name despite the fact she had $430,000 in her accounts on the basis that her monthly income wasn‘t enough to cover it.
In another example of risk adverse lending, a borrower ‘Marc’ put down a deposit to buy his first home after receiving pre-approval from the bank.

Prior to settlement, he received a promotion at work that changed his role and increased his salary. After informing his lender, the bank’s response was that the promotion constituted a change in circumstance, and therefore the loan suitability process would need to be run again to determine how much he could borrow.
This process was then delayed because Marc could not provide pay slips to “prove” his income at the level to rely on.

Assistant Treasurer Michael Sukkar said ensuring easier access to credit would help small businesses recover from the pandemic.
“Now more than ever, it is critical that unnecessary red tape and costs are removed so that Australians can continue to spend or purchase a new home and businesses can invest in creating jobs,” he said.
“These reforms strike the right balance between protecting consumers while maintaining a viable sector to provide these products, and build upon the successful implementation of ASIC’s product intervention powers which protect consumers from predatory lending behaviour.”

https://www.news.com.au/finance/eco...p/news-story/9ecbcc40662431a4a36bec6c8cd1a8cd
 

hindy111

Post Whore
Messages
58,489
This.

Anyone basing their requirements on what they already do are willfully ignoring how quickly the technology changes.

It might be zoom meetings now but who knows how the f**k we will be communicating in 5-10 years time. VR, holograms, nothing is off the table.

Having strong internet services means that you’ll be able to seamlessly transition to emerging technologies. In a best case scenario you might even have an economy that is helping shape those changes globally.

Let’s not make investment decisions based on HJ’s seedy, rapidly outdated internet habits.

I started to imagine what he may Google....
 

Poupou Escobar

Post Whore
Messages
84,148
The way I see it is. Old Copper wire is breaking down. When it rains all those old pits get wet and you lose your connections. Time to replace even if we do not need the speeds. Cheaper in long run to replace the lot then be racing around replacing one piece here and there.

I'd assume most of us do not need the fast speeds. But I imagine future generations will.

So we are not only getting faster speeds but also reliability.
There's a good chance that in the future there will be increased demand for bandwidth due to high security overheads. But also likely that the fibre currently in the ground will all need to be replaced anyway. It is very difficult to future proof this stuff. It's pretty much a guessing game.
 

crocodile

Bench
Messages
3,496
There's a good chance that in the future there will be increased demand for bandwidth due to high security overheads. But also likely that the fibre currently in the ground will all need to be replaced anyway. It is very difficult to future proof this stuff. It's pretty much a guessing game.
Not just security overheads but also the shear weight of devices. IoT is exploding right now.
 

Latest posts

Top