LL: "the most obvious point is that upon completion the original scheme would have been saleable for a price that reflects the investment"

The original scheme on politicised forecasts, maybe LL,  but I doubted the supposed return many years into the future of 7.1%,  but since then the scheme is one that I as an investor would not touch in a fit, and when it is sold it will never recover the  monies spent building it.

FN: "A sale needs senate approval."

I repeat FN" privatisation of NBN Co is bipartisan policy",  what  significance does "senate approval"  hold?

FN: "It means that as the senate changes so could the willingness to privitise.

There will always be those for and those against." 

 Last attempt:  " privatisation of NBN Co is  bipartisan policy"

nɥºɾ

LL: "the most obvious point is that upon completion the original scheme would have been saleable for a price that reflects the investment" The original scheme on politicised forecasts, maybe LL, but I doubted the supposed return many years into the future of 7.1%, but since then the scheme is one that I as an investor would not touch in a fit, and when it is sold it will never recover the monies spent building it.

You missed the point, it wasn't envisaged with small private investors like you in mind,  the same reason it was off budget. the model relied on patient capital, the money comes back but not quickly enough for you. i get that, and so did the government. its probably the best possible model for the end user, it merely peeves mom and dad investors as they cant work it to their advantage.

A3: "No Govt has ever tried to carry out an enormous project like this before."

I meant in Australia, as we are discussing the Australian NBN. If the LNP were the ones to have started the same NBN project do people honestly think all targets would be met on time and not one $ gone over budget.?

---

@am*3 wrote:

A3: "No Govt has ever tried to carry out an enormous project like this before."

 

I meant in Australia, as we are discussing the Australian NBN. If the LNP were the ones to have started the same NBN project do people honestly think all targets would be met on time and not one $ gone over budget.?

---

 now you aren't playing fair . introducing some common sense into the argument . i'd say it would cost more under the lnp, because the kickbacks and cronyism would increase proportionately.

Yes,   area geological information should have  been accessed, and if rock  outcrops are encountered equipment is available e.g.:...

1. outcrop: the part of a rock formation that appears above the surface of the surrounding land.
2.  

The basalt rock was below the surface of the land.

As freaki pointed out, the test areas were specifically chosen for the terrain challenges they may encounter.. not called test areas for nothing.

. i'd say it would cost more under the lnp, because the kickbacks and cronyism would increase proportionately.

...and take twice as long to finish, so long in fact it will be pretty much out of date. 

---

@monman12 wrote:

LL: "the most obvious point is that upon completion the original scheme would have been saleable for a price that reflects the investment"

 

The original scheme on politicised forecasts, maybe LL,  but I doubted the supposed return many years into the future of 7.1%,  but since then the scheme is one that I as an investor would not touch in a fit, and when it is sold it will never recover the  monies spent building it.

 

 

FN: "A sale needs senate approval."

I repeat FN" privatisation of NBN Co is bipartisan policy",  what  significance does "senate approval"  hold?

 

FN: "It means that as the senate changes so could the willingness to privitise.

There will always be those for and those against." 

 

 Last attempt:  " privatisation of NBN Co is  bipartisan policy"

nɥºɾ

 

 

 

---

A lot can change in 10 years. Just because it had bipartisan support in 2010 does not mean to say it will have bipartisan support in 2020.

Or try the UK:  Note the cost!

"Penreach, the wholesale infrastructure arm of British telco giant BT, is spending £2.5 billion to roll out 3 million kilometres of fibre and 50,000 new cabinets for a fibre-to-the-cabinet and fibre-to-the-premises open-access regulated wholesale network that will be completed by mid-2014. It will service 19 million premises."

Land mass of Australia -  7.692 million square kilometres.

Land Mass of United Kingdom - 243,610 sq km

How many millions of kilometres of fibre will be used in Aust NBN project?

50,000 new cabinets for a fibre-to-the-cabinet  - who really wants to see heaps of these up and down our streets.urgh

Thousands of new cabinets and the power supply required for the new cabinets, new copper which is needed in much of the country because the existing is not up to the standard required to deliver the promised speeds and the ongoing operational costs leave the FTTN proposal looking like an expensive second rate alternative.

If we're talking generalisations you could say Labor have the vision to start massive projects while the Libs fight and destroy as best they can before getting elected to take the glory.  Isn't it time we just allowed some things to happen for the benefit of all?

A3: "Land mass of Australia -  7.692 million square kilometres.
Land Mass of United Kingdom - 243,610 sq km
How many millions of kilometres of fibre will be used in Aust NBN project?"

A3, you seem to have "overlooked" my other suggested country: China.     
Land mass of China - 9.640 million square kilometres.

A3: "No Govt has ever tried to carry out an enormous project like this before."
"I meant in Australia, as we are discussing the Australian NBN."

I suggest you research the Snowy Mountain Scheme A3.

"It remains the largest engineering project undertaken in Australia and necessitated the employment of 100,000 people"
Did I mention the "Snowy" was finished within time and budget?

LL: "You missed the point, it wasn't envisaged with small private investors like you in mind"

LL it would have to be small investors like myself via an initial public offering (IPO),  because no institutional investor would be interested, as things are,  with the ALP NBN, but who do you think would be keen in paying full outlay/asset value for the NBN in 20-30-40 years?

nɥºɾ