I don't read it like that. The first paragraph is about jumping in too deep with a technology and paying a big price for it. It then leads to asking who will pay for it? It doesn't matter whether we call it routine maintenance or anything else, we are continually being told the costs are falling to realistic levels when no facts bear that out. Informed debate can't take place with such misleading propoganda. If the official line was ... It's going to cost ten times as much but tough, we've got to change......then fair enough, because that's true. It's the pretending it works economically that leads to suspicion and mistrust. That's how I see it anyway, I'm certainly not against change.
