Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 35 of 35
  1. #31
    Michael
    Guest

    Re: Sol's new website - Telstra


    "MJT" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Michael wrote:
    >
    > >> Real estate is no longer "vastly" cheaper. Lots of non-metro areas are
    > >> experiencing high prices for real estate.

    > >
    > > Bollocks. Proper rural is "vastly" cheaper.

    >
    > Define proper "rural".
    >
    > > I was looking at land y'day that was $35k, compared to the $140k I would
    > > expect to pay in the city

    >
    > Tell me where? Perhaps out somewhere like Ouyen or Donald out in Vic's


    Lakes Entrance

    > of. Where I live, you'd be lucky to pick up a reasonable block for under
    > $100,000. In fact, it's probably cheaper for me to build down around


    Wanker.





    See More: Sol's new website - Telstra




  2. #32
    MJT
    Guest

    Re: Sol's new website - Telstra

    Michael wrote:

    >> Tell me where? Perhaps out somewhere like Ouyen or Donald out in Vic's

    >
    > Lakes Entrance


    Bull**** artist. Lakes real estate has shot through the roof. You'd be
    lucky to get a block there for under a hundred grand these days.



    --
    "We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur." GW Bush



  3. #33
    Michael
    Guest

    Re: Sol's new website - Telstra


    "MJT" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Michael wrote:
    >
    > >> Tell me where? Perhaps out somewhere like Ouyen or Donald out in Vic's

    > >
    > > Lakes Entrance

    >
    > Bull**** artist. Lakes real estate has shot through the roof. You'd be
    > lucky to get a block there for under a hundred grand these days.


    The real estate agent in the main street doesn't just handle blocks in Lakes
    Entrance proper, you know, they handle land in the surrounding areas too.





  4. #34
    Tom N
    Guest

    Re: [ok] Re: Sol's new website - Telstra

    MJT wrote:

    > Michael wrote:
    >
    >>> Real estate is no longer "vastly" cheaper. Lots of non-metro areas are
    >>> experiencing high prices for real estate.

    >>
    >> Bollocks. Proper rural is "vastly" cheaper.

    >
    > Define proper "rural".
    >
    >> I was looking at land y'day that was $35k, compared to the $140k I would
    >> expect to pay in the city

    >
    > Tell me where? Perhaps out somewhere like Ouyen or Donald out in Vic's
    > mid-west, or similar in other states where there is no economy to speak
    > of. Where I live, you'd be lucky to pick up a reasonable block for under
    > $100,000.


    Where I live you'd be lucky to pick up an average sized block for $600k
    (with a bulldozable house on it). Where I went for Xmas (medium sized
    coastal town), you could get one of the largest and best houses in the
    town.

    > In fact, it's probably cheaper for me to build down around
    > where our daughter and her husband live, on the outer fringes of
    > Melbourne's SE.


    The fact that there is a location where the combination of land and price-
    to-build is the cheapest means nothing in relation to the question under
    discussion.

    The outer-fringes of Melbourne's SE have all the disadvantages of country
    *and* city. The only "advantage" is the price.



  5. #35
    Tom N
    Guest

    Re: [ok] Re: Sol's new website - Telstra

    MJT wrote:

    > Tom N wrote:
    >
    >> What's the point of a phone in say a medical emergency if there is no
    >> local hospital?

    >
    > With the services such as Helimed One (Helicopter ambo), for remote
    > areas, this isn't an issue.


    So you get the helicopter ambo out for a broken arm, do you? An
    emergency is not necessarily a life-or-death situation.

    How is having a phone any help if you have a broken arm, if there is no
    local hospital?

    >> There are many economic and non-economic trade-offs between city and
    >> country living - a lot of essentials are dearer in the country but
    >> most people's major expense (real estate) is vastly cheaper. We
    >> don't subsidise most things - so why is a telephone different?

    >
    > Real estate is no longer "vastly" cheaper. Lots of non-metro areas are
    > experiencing high prices for real estate.


    I dunno about you but I think that less than half the price is "vastly"
    cheaper.

    >> Bollocks. They live in the country because they prefer it, not out
    >> of an altruistic desire to provide produce for city folk. You might
    >> as well argue that city dwellers live there out of an altruistic
    >> desire to produce manufactured goods for country dwellers.

    >
    > OK, all the country folk can move to the city as the services that you
    > guys take for granted are slashed ore become prohibitively expensive.


    It's a hard life for you country blokes Martin but thanks for the
    altruistic desire to keep generating power for us greedy city people (we
    need it to power our high speed broadband). And thanks to your country
    mates for growing the food we eat. Very altruistic of you all.

    When the revolution comes, you can line all us greedy city folk up
    against the wall, and you country blokes will be in nirvana.

    > Then you'll whinge about the skyrocketing prices of fuel, food, etc,
    > when the producers have to pay super high wages, subsidised housing
    > etc. to get the people to stay. It's like that with places like remote
    > areas of WA where there are mining and gas/petroleum operations going
    > on. No-one goes to Karratha to live because it's a tropical resort.
    > Rather, people are attracted to the region because of the high wages,
    > subsidised housing and services.


    The Karratha salaries aren't subsidised by city employers, so this
    analogy is invalid when compared to the fact that Telstra country
    services are subsidised.

    Despite the length of your post, you haven't explained why
    telecommunications should be different to other services and be heavily
    subsidised.

    > Tom N wrote:
    >
    >> In any case, if there was no (econonomically unviable) wired phone
    >> system in the bush, it would be much more likely that modern wireless
    >> services for broadband or phone would be economically viable -
    >> probably leading to better services and more choice for country
    >> consumers.


    You haven't addressed this point either.

    The fact that you have satellite TV is proof that this point is valid.



  • Similar Threads




  • Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123