Slashdot Mirror
99% of Australians With Broadband By 2009?
Recently a study of broadband penetration rates around the world was in the news, because the US has fallen to 24th place worldwide, at 53%. Now comes word that the Australian Prime Minister has announced a $1.68 billion (US) plan to move Australia to 99% penetration within two years. If they accomplish this goal they will be the most-wired nation (South Korea currently occupies the top spot with 90%). The Prime Minister's plan was attacked by his political opponents because it would create a two-tier system with the country's vast (and almost empty) interior served by wireless at "only" 12 Mbps.
This is the most ridiculous comment I've heard on Slashdot in a while.
The reason why the interest in the broadband is because each party now feels that if they can clinch the outer seats it will tip the balance in the votes.
The Libs want to spend money on wireless ($900 million), Labour want to spend the money on fibre ($4.7 billion (!)).
Labour love wasting money, taking 4.7 billion from the Future Fund is a direct abuse of powers....
At least the Libs want private sector to fund it, it shouldn't come from our pockets.
Oh, the Future Fund. Right. Is that what it's called? For over 10 years now the government has been taking insanely high taxes and spending it on nothing. In fact, they've been cutting costs and paying back international debt (like we're some kind of third world country). Now you tell me they are spending it on The Future, well why didn't they say so? Boy, that makes me feel much better.
Of course, the "Future Fund" will eventually be used to buy gunships from the US.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Gosh this all sounds pretty sensible doesn't it? Well, yes it does. It's not often I support anything from Mr John (slightly to the right of Ghengis Khan) Howard, but this seems pretty reasonable. (I still won't vote for him though).
Can't say I'm a huge fan of Howard (although he does fit into my "least worst option" category), but he's not even close to being "far right". Indeed, most of our American friends would probably consider him centre-Left (although that's somewhat skewed by the whole US system being biased a long way Right in the first place).
Howard, like Rudd, is pretty much centrist (ie: populist). Which is why it would be quite difficult to pick between them, if it wasn't for that Communist wench standing just slightly behind ol' Kevin.
I'm sure there are many poor and homeless in Australia. Then there are the schools, hospitals etc etc. Or, they could just not spend the money at all.
Deleted