The National Broadband Network- Where do you stand?
Is it just me or is this an absolute no brainer on what is the better option?
Coalition plan- Starting speed of 25 mbps with potential of reaching peaks of 100 mbps. ALP plan(NBN)- Starting speed of 100 mbps with capacity to reach 1000 mbps. Labor and Coalition's broadband plans compared By science and technology correspondent Jake Sturmer Updated 1 hour 53 minutes ago (Article taken from abc.net.au) http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-09/explainer-labor-and-coalitions-broadband-plans/4616818 The Coalition will today unveil its long awaited national broadband network policy. |
08:30am 09/04/13 Permalink
Looking at the NBN Co website, Redcliffe is not even within the "Construction commences within 3 years" category.
In that regard, I don't give a f***, because I'm obviously not getting it. |
08:43am 09/04/13 Permalink
Well FTTP isn't fair, because they plan to not give it to everyone, such as me. You can live 20 minutes from the CBD and you don't get it, but go live in a shanty and smash council buses on the weekend and you'll be right at the top of the lists.
|
08:47am 09/04/13 Permalink
Speaking of silcar are doing the external component of the install tomorrow ready for iinet to do rest tomorrow
|
08:52am 09/04/13 Permalink
I've had a 20mb sync for over 5 years. I don't ever say 'gee i wish this was faster'.
I think that Telstra should have never been sold off, should have been forced to reinvest its ludicrous profits back into 21st century infrastructure, and then basically everyone would have FTTN by now and it'd all be happy days. Also my suburb will have it by the end of the year. |
08:53am 09/04/13 Permalink
Use the search function for the umpteen bajillion previous threads on this.
Unless of course your question was a rhetorical device intended to provide you with the opening to grace us all with your personal opinion in which case: |
08:53am 09/04/13 Permalink
I've had a 20mb sync for over 5 years. I don't ever say 'gee i wish this was faster'.Yeah I felt the same with dial-up and my 486 intel PC, no idea why they keep improving things. |
08:58am 09/04/13 Permalink
09:08am 09/04/13 Permalink
A lengthy rebuttal of the piece HurricaneJim has posted is here: http://www.commsday.com/blog/a-riposte-to-nick-ross-and-slipshod-nbn-advocacy-from-cthe-abc
|
09:15am 09/04/13 Permalink
This debate is so stupid. Everyone should understand by now that the best technology solution is FTTH.
Its future proof, and it will provide the best speeds / reliability. The debate should be about whether we are willing to pay the price of FTTH for the benefits it provides, not whether "4G can replace the NBN" or anything stupid like that. |
09:28am 09/04/13 Permalink
I'm torn. On one hand, speeds available to some people are utterly ridiculous - this is 2013 not not 1913.
However the ridiculous amount of government money being needed for this project is just screwed up. The fact that we're only seeing NBN-type speeds in new estates and very limited areas is just a joke. |
09:31am 09/04/13 Permalink
The fact that we're only seeing NBN-type speeds in new estates and very limited areas is just a joke.FTTH is to 93% of the population. How is it only limited areas outside of new estates will be experiencing the exact same service as new estates? I don't understand why you think this. Remember too, the Coalition's FTTN is to cover only 90% of the population, the rest wireless or satellite. |
09:37am 09/04/13 Permalink
It is one of those things if we go with fttn now we will look back in 30 years time and go "f*****g useless pollies, it should have just been ftth originally" but by doing it ftth now no one wants to pay for it so in tbe end it doesn't matter what happens someone will cop the blame
|
09:39am 09/04/13 Permalink
A lengthy rebuttal of the piece HurricaneJim has posted is here: http://www.commsday.com/blog/a-riposte-to-nick-ross-and-slipshod-nbn-advocacy-from-cthe-abcIf people actually had been keeping up with the debate you'd know Nick Ross only made a couple of errors in his article which Graham Lynch has tried to use to debunk the whole article and according to industry and experts he hasn't. If people had kept up with the debate you'd also know Graham Lynch has had a new a******* torn during debates about this article and his others on Whirlpool and every other non-aligned tech forum to the extent he no longer posts on them due to the bulls*** he sprouts. |
09:45am 09/04/13 Permalink
I strongly think FTTH is worth the opportunity cost. In 15 years from now, we may all be saying glad Australia invested in FTTH, instead of thinking. Fark FTTN was pointless, for just a bit extra we would have FTTH..
Unless of course a technology comes out that completely supersedes FTTH within 15 years and has a lower maintenance and infrastructure cost. That is a gamble though. Lets face it, no matter what the government spends its $'s on it will always be blown out and seemingly really, really, ridiculously expensive. I'd rather the cash spent on something I'd appreciate. As it is for me it is a huge negative, perhaps even a deal breaker, for voting coalition. |
09:51am 09/04/13 Permalink
If people actually had been keeping up with the debate you'd know Nick Ross only made a couple of errors in his article which Graham Lynch has tried to use to debunk the whole article and according to industry and experts he hasn't. I'm not surprised anti-NBN views recieve a hostile reception on Whirlpool and other tech blogs. People are nothing if not self-interested. If you have a counter-rebuttal of the article I posted or counter-points to make then please go ahead. Otherwise you'll have to understand if I don't find your claim that, "some other people totally beat him in a debate at some unspecified time and place and all of those errors aren't really errors, trust me bro" very convincing. |
09:55am 09/04/13 Permalink
I don't get the entire cost whinge. It's not costing anyone anything, it's paid for by government bond loans and is paid back with interest.
The entire thing is off budget and it's not like, oh we are only proposing to build FTTP instead of FTTH now so we can have some shiny new hospitals or roads. It doesn't work like that. The entire debate seems ludicrous when we could have great infrastructure, like we would have if Telstra/Telecom wasn't sold in the first place, or if it was, was structurally separated beforehand. |
09:56am 09/04/13 Permalink
I don't get the entire cost whinge. It's not costing anyone anything, it's paid for by government bond loans and is paid back with interest. It makes a lot more sense when you keep in mind that many conservatives have an ideological problem with government debt based on the belief that it inevitably leads to increased taxation. For me it's a no brainer, current govt borrowing costs are quite a bit lower than the returns on the investment. If we don't take the money then we are leaving money on the ground. It'd be a different matter if the govt was taking the $40b and spending it on stupid things like middle-class welfware or subsidizing s***** hollywood films, but a project like the NBN which probably *couldn't* be funded by the private sector and with the potential to be incredibly productivity enhancing is money for jam. |
10:24am 09/04/13 Permalink
I think the NBN is a brilliant idea. I can't wait to have an upload potential of greater than 800kbps. To be able to remote desktop back to home from work smoothly will be glorious. I've only got another ~7 weeks to wait. chomping at the bit.
as for FTTP/H/B vs FTTN, the former is really the only way to go. The country's copper network is fading fast and to suggest we re-use the last mile copper for an NBN is stupid, it's going to keep failing more as time goes on. The Foxtel HFC network is a FTTN model, of course using somewhat different technologies (coax vs unshielded pairs) and is substantially younger, but the copper portions of that network will start failing in a number of years too. Needs more glass! |
10:51am 09/04/13 Permalink
They need to just roll it out faster. Just hire all the people who are losing jobs at like Holden factories and s*** like that and get them to roll it out. The cost is worth it because of just how future proof it is. FTTN is stupid, FTTH is sexual.
|
10:54am 09/04/13 Permalink
$4000/home
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/business/the-ninety-billion-nightmare-the-real-cost-of-the-nbn-rollout/story-fn7ki14e-1226614471419 I don't get the entire cost whinge. It's not costing anyone anything, it's paid for by government bond loans and is paid back with interest. wow a free Internets, magic..... |
11:00am 09/04/13 Permalink
One of the UK’s foremost telecommunications experts, a former chief technology officer of British telco BT, has publicly stated that fibre to the node-style broadband is “one of the biggest mistakes humanity has made”, imposing huge bandwidth and unreliability problems on those who implement it “Fibre to the cabinet is one of the biggest mistakes humanity has made,” he said. “It ties a knot in the cable in terms of bandwidth and imposes huge unreliability risks … To start with, he said, it was easy for the streetside cabinets to be vandalised. “Once the local bandits have recognised that there is a car battery in the bottom, you can bet your bottom dollar that a crowbar will be out and the battery will keep disappearing Other problems, he added, went to the speeds which FTTN offered (generally considered to be up to 80Mbps at the moment, although they may be extended in future) compared with fibre, which will in future off 1Gbps on Australia’s NBN infrastructure. “What are the leaders doing? There is Sweden in greater Europe, and in the Far East you have Korea, Japan and China. They have a minimum level of 100 Mbps. That is where they start,” Cochrane said. “They are rolling out 1Gbps, but they are planning for the next phase of 10Gbps. To return to an earlier point, if you have got fibre to the cabinet and you are relying on copper, I can tell you that the network is going to collapse on copper when you get to 1Gbps. It will collapse much earlier. You may do 200 to 300Mbps over a short distance, but you are not going to do anything with a reasonable reach over 1Gbps, and you are certainly not going anywhere at 10 Gbps. So you have immediately got this knot in the bandwidth.” And reliability was also an issue. “The number one fault problem with copper is water ingress,” Cochrane told the parliament. “Fibre does not care about water … The fault level in an optical network goes down very low. You can reduce manning, buildings, power consumption and everything.” New Zealand has cancelled FTTN and is now rolling out FTTH. Google is rolling out FTTH in the US. China is rolling out FTTH. France is rolling out FTTH. Councils on their own in the UK are rolling out FTTH cause FTTN sucks balls. Japan is FTTH as is Taiwan and Singapore. I'm not surprised anti-NBN views recieve a hostile reception on Whirlpool and other tech blogs. People are nothing if not self-interested.If you have a counter-rebuttal of the article I posted or counter-points to make then please go ahead. Otherwise you'll have to understand if I dont find your claim that, "some other people totally beat him in a debate at some unspecified time and place and all of those errors aren't really errors, trust me bro" very convincing. The article has been cow-punched by other Tech Media such as Delimiter so go and sook if you want. You would also know that Nick Ross was not reprimanded by the ABC as Grahame Lynch tries to portray in his article. Typical of the bad form by Grahame Lynch. http://delimiter.com.au/2013/03/08/hypocrisy-the-australian-attacks-abcs-nbn-objectivity/ http://delimiter.com.au/2013/02/26/the-fttn-truth-the-coalition-does-not-want-known/ Biggest cop out I've seen from you tagss. Very poor. You haven't even participated in the debate on tech forums like Whirlpool but you already know they're off mark, very disingenuous. On top of that not only do you accuse tech sites of self-interest but the author of the article you posted is so well known for nothing more than self-interest it's hilarious you use "self-interest of others" in his defence. |
11:08am 09/04/13 Permalink
I would have also thought you would have considered not only CAPEX but OPEX and under a FTTN regime CAPEX + OPEX outstrips FTTH CAPEX + OPEX over the longer term enromously.
Currently Telstra spend nearly $1billion annually to maintain the copper network. Fibre will be a fraction of this cost. The delay in FTTH Rollout at present is due to contractor skills ramp ups/delays and Telstra remediation work on both exchange and pit which has to be done before the NBN can even attempt to lay the fibre and exchange equipment. My eldest brother is National Deployment Manager for the Telstra Exchange remediation program and I can tell you they're behind and trying to cut costs at every corner which is delaying the NBN rollout significantly. |
11:13am 09/04/13 Permalink
The article has been cow-punched by other Tech Media such as Delimiter so go and sook if you want. You would also know that Nick Ross was not reprimanded by the ABC as Grahame Lynch tries to portray in his article. Typical of the bad form by Grahame Lynch.FWIW neither of those articles do what taggs has suggested - rebut the claims in the Lynch piece. Delimited (which I feel certainly has a pro-NBN bias) simply says "it came across as a little silly, really" and then defers to the same old boring comment about FTTN vs FTTH that everyone falls back to when they can't be bothered arguing individual points. On top of that not only do you accuse tech sites of self-interest but the author of the article you posted is so well known for nothing more than self-interest it's hilarious you use "self-interest of others" in his defence.I don't know anything about this Lynch bloke but I'm curious as to what his self interest is? From the byline of his site it is for telco execs so I wonder what it is that makes his self-interested position be anti-NBN (as I believe you are implying)? wow a free Internets, magic.....Yeh I didn't realise it didn't cost anything. What else can we build using this financial wizardry that makes the NBN free? I just want a f*****g high speed rail network connecting the country interconnecting with local rail services and/or subways and then I'll shut up forever about the NBN. If we can get one that doesn't cost anything that'd be even better! |
11:19am 09/04/13 Permalink
Malcolm Turnbull spruiking a $30B for a FTTN network that has:
- ongoing last mile copper maintenance costs - has to renegotiate the Telstra contracts that NBN Co already sorted out - changes the goal posts for rollout contractors that are trying to ramp up the FTTP model - doesn't mention how close it compares the Labor's 93% coverage - is not upgradable in terms of connection speeds in the future Sounds like a remarkably s***** deal, I bet he knows it too. |
11:19am 09/04/13 Permalink
Trog, Renai Lemay has firmly stated Lynch's article does not recant the points Nick Ross has raised in his article but merely skirts, hardly a definitive rebuttal to Nick Ross's articles as is claimed.
Being a Telecom Exec in the past is not a valid excuse for expert opinion and Grahame Lynch has had his opinions firmly rebutted not only on Delimiter but forums such as Whirlpool and others. Even Simon Hacket has rebutted Grahame Lynch in direct face to face public interviews between the two where Grahame Lynch has come out basted and cooked well done. If you want to be more highly informed on the topic I suggest you start viewing these tech forums and not rely on substandard drivel from the Murdoch stable of mainstream media or Fairfax and more so LNP press releases. |
11:22am 09/04/13 Permalink
Yeh I didn't realise it didn't cost anything. What else can we build using this financial wizardry that makes the NBN free? My very naive understanding is that it's a setup unique to the NBN, as it's a separate business with investors which will theoretically pay back its cost. http://nbnmyths.wordpress.com/how-are-we-paying-for-it/ The $27.5bn Government component of the NBN is funded by debt, through the issuing of Australian Government Bonds. That is, the Federal Government offers our AAA-rated bonds to investors, at an interest rate of about 4% (depending on the term). |
11:25am 09/04/13 Permalink
Trog, Renai Lemay has firmly stated Lynch's article does not recant the points Nick Ross has raised in his article but merely skirts, hardly a definitive rebuttal to Nick Ross's articles as is claimed.shrug, I look at that and say "hardly a definitive rebuttal of the Lynch article". It's not like there's not a lot of material there to cherry pick something to debunk; why not even make an effort and instead just say "oh nah he's just skirting the issues" and leaving it at that? I've only glanced at the Lynch article (finding good and bad things about the NBN is such a simple, boring, obvious process now that I cannot bring myself to read these sorts of things any more). But I find it curious that one of these extreme opponents would make a big list of things and there's not some extreme proponent that has torn it apart. Which, if I am reading taggs correctly, is what he is asking for. |
11:30am 09/04/13 Permalink
The NBN however, will provide a return of about 7%. that's up there with the other already proven lies such as "The NBN will cost $40.5b" "The NBN will be finished by 2017, er 2021." "The NBN business plan is audited by the Auditor-General." Conroy has a lot of balls accusing the Opposition of NBN thought bubbles. It's like his whole process for the NBN was written on the back of a beer coaster at the pub. I would love to see the financial workings for the daring statement that the network will be paid for by 2034. It may not be finished rollout by then going on this government's record. |
11:32am 09/04/13 Permalink
Did you read the Nick Ross article? Have you read any other articles concerning the subject other than from MSM? Have you read any other expert opinion which I think you'll find is complimentary of the NBN?
Here's a suggestion: http://nbnmyths.wordpress.com/what-do-the-experts-say/ |
11:35am 09/04/13 Permalink
that's up there with the other already proven liesYou mean like to $90billion lie by Turnbull or the $100billion lie by Hockey? |
11:36am 09/04/13 Permalink
Maybe taggs can provide a nice human readable definition of "opportunity cost" and we can think about it like that instead for a while? The wiki definition is pretty good so I might as well link to that rather than reinvent the wheel: Opportunity cost is the cost of any activity measured in terms of the value of the next best alternative forgone (that is not chosen). It is the sacrifice related to the second best choice available to someone, or group, who has picked among several mutually exclusive choices.[1] The opportunity cost is also the "cost" (as a lost benefit) of the forgone products after making a choice. The New Oxford American Dictionary defines it as "the loss of potential gain from other alternatives when one alternative is chosen". Opportunity cost is a key concept in economics, and has been described as expressing "the basic relationship between scarcity and choice".[2] The notion of opportunity cost plays a crucial part in ensuring that scarce resources are used efficiently.[3] Thus, opportunity costs are not restricted to monetary or financial costs: the real cost of output forgone, lost time, pleasure or any other benefit that provides utility should also be considered opportunity costs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost What this means in terms of the NBN is that by providing ~$30.4b of equity funding to the NBN the government is necessarily forgoing other initiatives or projects that could be funded by that money. For example, the currently unfunded Gonski education reforms are estimated to cost around $6.5b. For the price of the NBN government could provide almost 5 Gonski reforms. There is no denying that FTTH is a superior technical solution compared to FTTH. If we had access to infinite resources then you'd be stupid not to go FTTH. Just like if we had access to infinite resources we'd all ride helicopters to whatever it is we would be doing instead of working for a living. However in the real world resources are scarce and both the costs and benefits of a project need to be evaluated. If only there was a well established technique to do this, like say, some sort of cost-benefit analysis... It's not costing anyone anything, it's paid for by government bond loans and is paid back with interest. My understanding is that this is downright wrong (happy to be corrected). If you read Exhibit 1-6 on page 16 of the NBN Corporate Plan you'll see that the government is planning to provide $30.4b of equity to the project. Regardless of any future intention to sell this equity for a positive return (an uncertain outcome) this still represents a significant amount of money that would otherwise be available to government. The entire thing is off budget and it's not like, oh we are only proposing to build FTTP instead of FTTH now so we can have some shiny new hospitals or roads. That's exactly how opportunity cost works and that is exactly what it is like. It makes a lot more sense when you keep in mind that many conservatives have an ideological problem with government debt based on the belief that it inevitably leads to increased taxation. This is not a belief, it is an unequivocal fact. Debt means that by definition that cumulative government spending to date is greater than cumulative government revenue. In order for the debt to be repaid and interest payments serviced by definition government revenue must be higher than government spending. There are other ways apart from taxation that governments can raise revenue, such as by selling assets. However, it is undeniable that the existence of government debt means that holding all else constant future government revenue must be higher to service this debt than if no debt were present. For me it's a no brainer, current govt borrowing costs are quite a bit lower than the returns on the investment. If we don't take the money then we are leaving money on the ground. This argument doesn't make sense to me. If government borrowing at 3.35% (current 10yr bond rate) and investing in a project with an IRR of ~7%+ is leaving money on the table then if we follow that argument to its logical conclusion then undertaking the NBN is leaving money on the table! The average long term return for Australian equities is ~12%, the government would be stupid to invest in the NBN over that! This is not to say that the NBN isn't a worthwhile project per se - I would just be wary of claiming that not investing in the NBN is "leaving money on the table". You would also know that Nick Ross was not reprimanded by the ABC as Grahame Lynch tries to portray in his article. Strawman. Please point out in the article where Lynch tries to portray this. ------------------- I find it very difficult to assess whether Labor's FTTH or the Coalition's FTTN is preferable as neither has been subjected to an independent, rigorous cost-benefit analysis. However, many of the arguments made by pro-NBN people strike me as a poorly constructed attempt to disguise their own self-interest as some sort of objective public policy stance (whether consciously or unconsciously). |
11:36am 09/04/13 Permalink
$4000/homehttp://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/business/the-ninety-billion-nightmare-the-real-cost-of-the-nbn-rollout/story-fn7ki14e-1226614471419wow a free Internets, magic..... Why does the estimate in April 2013 suddenly rise by $49.9 billion? Also what plans are they taking into account when they claim "retail prices charged to consumers would rise annually over the next nine years at double the rate of household electricity bills." This Coalition survey seems quite heavy on estimates in favour of proving their FTTN plan is better, even though it will cost more than the current NBN rollout. I also like how Turnbull states that Labor's NBN plan will "hinder Australia competing effectively in the digital economy" when the actual technology speed points of the FTTN is well under that of the FTTP and would probably do more damage considering the use of outdated copper points. |
11:37am 09/04/13 Permalink
Being a Telecom Exec in the past is not a valid excuse for expert opinion and Grahame Lynch has had his opinions firmly rebutted not only on Delimiter but forums such as Whirlpool and others. Even Simon Hacket has rebutted Grahame Lynch in direct face to face public interviews between the two where Grahame Lynch has come out basted and cooked well done.Well, that's not an answer to my question. I'm not claiming he's an expert - as I said, I've never even heard of him until this thread - you made the statement that he is "so well known for nothing more than self-interest", and I'm asking what his self-interest is, and why you think he has it. If you want to be more highly informed on the topic I suggest you start viewing these tech forums and not rely on substandard drivel from the Murdoch stable of mainstream media or Fairfax and more so LNP press releases.I can't tell if that is insultingly directed at me but if you've ever read anything I've posted you know I'd sooner put my eyes out than read something from a Murdoch post. Anyway, I think this issue is simply too big to have a rational debate about. You're either with it in spirit or you're not; it's basically a religious issue now divided on completely boring party lines. I haven't seen many people change their mind when presented with any "facts" from either side. |
11:38am 09/04/13 Permalink
I'm easy either way. I could live with the speed I have now because I only play WoW and leech tv shows and browse the net. I can see why it would be good to roll out but I'm not gonna rush out and get it if it comes down my street.
|
11:38am 09/04/13 Permalink
The coaltion need to work out a plan that is FttP.
FttP is obviously superior and better positioned for the future. From the stuff that I've read I get the impression that the Coalition plan is more about being Not-a-Labor-Plan instead something that is actually worth while. If a large portion of the world is doing FttP as SFB points out, why should Aus gimp itself with FttN? Sure we have a massive land-mass to think about. After FttP network is complete I'll be up for Trogs plan of a National high speed rail network, that doubles as a a super efficient power transmission system. |
11:38am 09/04/13 Permalink
I've only glanced at the Lynch article (finding good and bad things about the NBN is such a simple, boring, obvious process now that I cannot bring myself to read these sorts of things any more). But I find it curious that one of these extreme opponents would make a big list of things and there's not some extreme proponent that has torn it apart.Seriously trog if you engaged in the debate on these tech forums you'd know Grahame Lynch and his article has well and truly been debunked but I guess if you're willing to rely on what others are telling you rather than investigate for yourself there's no point in attempting to use QGL to educate you. The points raised on these forums are valid points and I'd like some here to actually rebutt the points raised in these tech forums without whimsically saying "I don't need to, they're self-interest is evident" without even the decency to engage in the debate directly themselves. |
11:42am 09/04/13 Permalink
I can't tell if that is insultingly directed at meI'm not having a go at you but the vast majority of MSM is dedicated to the message "NBN is Bad" and only cause it's a Labor initiative which is what most of the pundits only read or hear. Sadly when you take out the politics and the MSM's self-interest, opponents to the NBN lose the argument every time. |
11:46am 09/04/13 Permalink
Why does the estimate in April 2013 suddenly rise by $49.9 billion? they recalculated it based on the latest pricing reported by NBN for rollout rates. what I would like to see is a series of designated commercial precincts and all CBDs linked to commercial fibre backbones around the country to enable business and commerce. then every premises can pay to connect to the NBN either by contracting for a period e.g. 5 years or paying upfront. this goes especially for consumer/residential households. e.g. i would be happy to pay a once off connection fee of $4,000 to get each of my aged care facilities connected to fibre because I pay $6,000 in wireless costs atm. but i object to the project rolling out Tier 1 commercial grade broadband to each and every residential household in urban Australia, cross subsidised by its own operating costs. if people want fast cat videos and facebook and Wrestlemania they can PAY FOR IT. secondly the cost of the rollout needs to be calmed down. these are gold rush rates. installers are making a s***load of coin of this like they did off all of the other Labor thought bubbles like school halls and pink batts. the suppliers get rich and the taxpayers pay dearly. |
11:50am 09/04/13 Permalink
I would have also thought you would have considered not only CAPEX but OPEX and under a FTTN regime CAPEX + OPEX outstrips FTTH CAPEX + OPEX over the longer term enromously. Could you please show me these numbers? I would be very interested to see them. Seriously trog if you engaged in the debate on these tech forums you'd know Grahame Lynch and his article has well and truly been debunked but I guess if you're willing to rely on what others are telling you rather than investigate for yourself there's no point in attempting to use QGL to educate you. How about instead of demanding that everyone take you at your word you provide some evidence so that we can decide for ourselves? Link to these debunkings and I will be happy to review them. I am happy to change my opinion when my understanding of the facts changes. Something you could use a little help with, tbh. Biggest cop out I've seen from you tagss. Very poor. You haven't even participated in the debate on tech forums like Whirlpool but you already know they're off mark, very disingenuous. I'm not dismissing them I am simply pointing out that people who frequent tech sites are more likely to support an ambitious, government-funded tech project that will benefit them personally. If this isn't patently obvious then I don't know what to say. Please feel free to link anything you think I should read. Regarding the delimiter article you linked: Surely even you would understand that me saying, "SFB your posts in this thread have been a little bit silly, really. They don't really address my points" is wholly inadequate to demonstrate that your posts are actually incorrect. This is all that article has done. Anyway, I'll repeat my stance: I find it very difficult to assess whether Labor's FTTH or the Coalition's FTTN is preferable as neither has been subjected to an independent, rigorous cost-benefit analysis. However, many of the arguments made by pro-NBN people strike me as a poorly constructed attempt to disguise their own self-interest as some sort of objective public policy stance (whether consciously or unconsciously). |
11:51am 09/04/13 Permalink
Anyway, I think this issue is simply too big to have a rational debate about. You're either with it in spirit or you're not; it's basically a religious issue now divided on completely boring party lines. I haven't seen many people change their mind when presented with any "facts" from either side.This is the bit that I really can't understand about your NBN position trog. The NBN debate has been intensely political since its conception, it's really not a new thing. The debate was always framed as Labor's current plan, versus what the coalition would do. It's the unfortunate nature of the country's political landscape. It seems that you're the one that has never really clearly articulated how you think things should be handled. If your ideal solution isn't along the lines of what the Coalition appears to be presenting now, then what exactly is it? Because I honestly have no idea. If you're advocating some kind of middleground solution, then what is it, and why specifically do you think it's superior to the two that are on the table? For the record, while my own views fall on the labor side of things, there are a bunch of things I would like to be done differently, wrt to better utilising the current HFC networks, fewer points of interconnect, and rolling out to any high-density areas that are DSL/wireless only first. I wish the Coalition's position was about properly tuning the current plan, rather than a radical overhaul that seems to be costing almost as much for a markedly inferior end result. But the political climate seems to require as much contrast as possible at the moment for the sake of their negative campaigning. FWIW, I also anecdotally know several people that changed their stance to a pro FTTP solution after being educated on the specifics of the tech and the way it's being financed to provide a return on investment. I also really don't see it as a religious topic, as there are plenty of people in the debate that otherwise support other Liberal party positions, but are pro-NBN. |
11:57am 09/04/13 Permalink
Please feel free to link anything you think I should read.Go to the forums such as Whirlpools NBN threads yourself the subject matter is too large and too long to denote one piece of commentary but if you're actually going to be genuine then start here: http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum/142 you don't have to be a member to view the threads. BTW most are traditionally LNP voters. Posts in there are well researched and well explained. Not only do they consider the technology but also the economics, politics and fundamentals of infrastructure and large scale project expenditure which you shall find illuminating. |
12:01pm 09/04/13 Permalink
I can't do this again. I just can't.
Can someone post something visible in the thread if we find out in detail what the NBN is going to look like post-September? I'm not gonna say impossible, but an ALP-led NBN in 2014 looks dubious at best. Time to find out what those cheap we-cant-afford-nice-things guys on the other side of politics will commit to. |
12:01pm 09/04/13 Permalink
Go to the forums such as Whirlpools NBN threads yourself the subject matter is too large and too long to denote one piece of commentary but if you're actually going to be genuine then start here: http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum/142 you don't have to be a member to view the threads No, no, no. You claim that this article is so widely pilloried that it has been debunked several times over in which case this material should be readily accessible. I am not wading through mountains of forum posts and threads to find whatever it is you may or may not be referring to. You have made claims and when evidence is requested you are telling me to go find it myself. That is not how public debate works. You make the claim you provide the evidence. A link to a very large forum with some threads having 1000+ posts is not sufficient. |
12:04pm 09/04/13 Permalink
No, no, no.You claim that this article is so widely pilloried that it has been debunked several times over in which case this material should be readily accessible. I am not wading through mountains of forum posts and threads to find whatever it is you may or may not be referring to.You have made claims and when evidence is demanded you are telling me to go find it myself. That is not how public debate works. Oh f*** off. Do some homework yourself ya lazy d***. I've engaged myself in the debate over a long enough period on this topic elsewhere than QGL to have to justify anything to you or QGL. If you want to be honest go and find out for yourself and stop hiding behind your skirt. |
12:05pm 09/04/13 Permalink
Oh f*** off. Don't be lazy, support your argument. |
12:07pm 09/04/13 Permalink
Don't be lazy, support your argument. Dude, just the guy I'm looking for. Can you link me up to any recent Coalition statements on their plan? The public website (what I've read of it) is a little vague, I need to know about in detail plans for FNQ. This isn't a trolol on infi post, the internets is the pipeline that my business runs on so I need to know what to expect! Would you expect I would make any actual headway (rather than mail merged macro reply) by contacting some sort of Coalition MP somewhere? |
12:10pm 09/04/13 Permalink
Oh f*** off. Your calm and rational attitude towards this debate tells me everything I need to know about your willingness to take an objective perspective towards the issue. I've engaged myself in the debate over a long enough period on this topic elsewhere than QGL to have to justify anything to you or QGL. Then why is it so hard to provide some evidence to your claims?.. I don't think what I'm asking for is unreasonable. Regardless, saying something akin to, "I don't need to back up my claims with evidence to you because I did that another time somewhere else!" is not very convincing. |
12:10pm 09/04/13 Permalink
"The NBN will be finished by 2017, er 2021."The 2017 completion date was when it was FTTP for 90% of the population. The current 93% plan was always 2020. |
12:11pm 09/04/13 Permalink
Dude, just the guy I'm looking for. Can you link me up to any recent Coalition statements on their plan? The public website (what I've read of it) is a little vague, I need to know about in detail plans for FNQ.This isn't a trolol on infi post, the internets is the pipeline that my business runs on so I need to know what to expect! Would you expect I would make any actual headway by contacting some sort of MP somewhere? i wrote to Malcolm Turnbull just two weeks ago - yet to receive a reply. I suppose this announcement today is meant to offer some insight into the Coalition's alternatives. I am just as frustrated as you about lack of access to broadband for my businesses. If we didn't have this bloody NBN now stitching everything up plans could change more fluidly based on customer demand. As I see it the current NBNCo map sets in stone that I don't get s*** for at least 3 years - EVEN IS I WAS PREPARED TO PAY! |
12:14pm 09/04/13 Permalink
Then why is it so hard to provide some evidence to you claims?.. I don't think what I'm asking for is unreasonable.You just said 1000's of forum posts but hey you're a hero cause I have to troll though them but you don't. F*** off. I've already done my mileage on educating myself on this subject by actively participating in these 1000's of posts on Whirlpool so how about you pick up the baton and start doing a bit yourself other than relying on others to do it for you princess. Go on sign up to whirpool and start debating, come on, put your money where your mouth is. willingness to take an objective perspective towards the issueOh so now the pretentious route whereby you claim objectivity without a skerrick of it yourself and not even a willingness to educate yourself. How high and mighty of you. |
12:14pm 09/04/13 Permalink
You just said 1000's of forum posts but hey you're a hero cause I have to but you don't. F*** off. You are the person claiming existence of these things. You are the person claiming to be engaged in this debate over a very long time. You are the person making specific claims in this thread. When I ask you for evidence to back up some of your claims you demand I find it myself. Notice how in my posts above if I refer to something (like the NBN corporate plan) I link to it? If you can't understand how your behavior is getting a bit ridiculous then, well, I don't know what to say. There is nothing further I can get from you regarding this so it's probably best to leave it here. edit: I'll address SFB's below post here so as to avoid the two of us crowding out any other discussion in the thread: Really are you really gonna cop out again. As I said go and sign up on whirlpool and participate in the debate. We are not debating on Whirlpool, we are debating on QGL. You did not make unsubstantiated claims on Whirlpool you made them here, on QGL. When I ask you for evidence you tell me to find it myself. Now you are shifting the goalposts yet again and telling me to debate the issue on Whirlpool. Then you say that I am the one who is copping out. Sure. You're the one claiming it's all full of self-interest without actually participating. Funny how you can make unsubstantiated claims and don't have to back them up when it suits you. Yes, many of the pro-NBN arguments do strike me as being driven by self-interest. This is my opinion, I am not claiming that this is a statement of fact. I assume you understand the difference between the two. BTW I don't give a rats about your opinion on this subject, Whirlpool has between a quarter of a million to half a million members so I'd rather take my debate to the masses of interested participants than to a number of selective pissants here. I'm far better enlightened for the experience. That's fine. Whirlpool probably does have a larger audience of tech-oriented people who are knowledgeable about the NBN. However, the fact remains that you came here and made claims here then threw a tantrum when asked to substantiate them. I hope you participate in the debate in a more mature fashion at Whirlpool than you did in this thread. I quoted a couple of articles as well as quoting some expert opinions, so far in this debate you've quoted one article by Grahame Lynch and no others to recount the expert opinions I quoted An article that both trog and I feel doesn't really address any of Lynch's points. It simply calls Lynch's article "a bit silly", says it skirts the issues then continues along its merry way. I'm sorry but I don't find that very convincing. You also dropped a name or two without providing the source material you were referring to. Still insufficient from my point of view. Really, you're claiming that these debunkings of Lynch are so easily made and readily available it shouldn't be very hard to provide a link. I'll be happy to have a read if and when you do so. |
12:17pm 09/04/13 Permalink
Hogfather: http://delimiter.com.au/2013/04/09/coalitions-fttn-nbn-to-cost-29-4bn/ It's being press conferenced this afternoon. Though I'd probably wait until later in the week to follow up on it if you actually want any meaningful analysis of its particulars. I'm sure there'll be a lot of questions buried in the details.
|
12:22pm 09/04/13 Permalink
If you can't understand how this is ridiculous then, well, I don't know what to say.Really are you really gonna cop out again. As I said go and sign up on whirlpool and participate in the debate. You're the one claiming it's all full of self-interest without actually participating. Funny how you can make unsubstantiated claims and don't have to back them up when it suits you. As far the debate, you're right there is no debate, just semantic gymnastics from you so I'll leave you to your little pretentious world. EDIT; BTW I don't give a rats about your opinion on this subject, Whirlpool has between a quarter of a million to half a million members so I'd rather take my debate to the masses of interested participants than to a number of selective pissants here. I'm far better enlightened for the experience. Except for Dan's, Trogs and Co's gaming info of course as it's premium. |
12:22pm 09/04/13 Permalink
It makes a lot more sense when you keep in mind that many conservatives have an ideological problem with government debt based on the belief that it inevitably leads to increased taxation. If their debt spurs growth, then their revenue increases without upping taxation? |
12:32pm 09/04/13 Permalink
If the debt led to an increase in revenue that outpaced both the interest costs and principal repayments of the debt then that is correct and what I said in response to Denny would be wrong.
My original statement was probably poorly thought out and may have misinterpreted Denny's point as it was a rushed job while at work. I concede the point. |
12:37pm 09/04/13 Permalink
geez, this thread exploded, with all sorts of opinions becoming fact, tangents and skewed viewpoints.
|
12:38pm 09/04/13 Permalink
holding all else constant but we don't, we have growth and inflation, both of which mean that today's dollar is not equal to tomorrow's dollar. I'm not advocating inflating away our debts though, tends to bring the goldbugs out. If government borrowing at 3.35% (current 10yr bond rate) and investing in a project with an IRR of ~7%+ is leaving money on the table then if we follow that argument to its logical conclusion then undertaking the NBN is leaving money on the table! The average long term return for Australian equities is ~12%, the government would be stupid to invest in the NBN over that! Except where perhaps the govt sees some greater public interest in one investment over another, investments where the rate-of-return prevents private finance. I'm guessing you're being a bit cheeky with that statement though because I'm pretty sure the Oz and AFR would have conniptions if the govt starting wholesale investment in Aus equities. |
12:41pm 09/04/13 Permalink
That's fine.Whirlpool probably does have a larger audience of tech-oriented people who are knowledgeable about the NBN. However, the fact remains that you came here and made claims here then threw a tantrum when asked to substantiate them.I hope you participate in the debate in a more mature fashion at Whirlpool than you did in this thread.Sorry princess but I ain't playing your tune. Find another instrument to play. I quoted a couple of articles as well as quoting some expert opinions, so far in this debate you've quoted one article by Grahame Lynch and no others to recount the expert opinions I quoted. Sounds pretty unbalanced to me. |
12:44pm 09/04/13 Permalink
I'm not advocating inflating away our debts though, tends to bring the goldbugs out. An inflation tax is still an indirect tax, but see my response to Nerf above re: yours. I concede I made a mistake there in my haste and assuming your argument was that the NBN can reasonably be expected to generate sufficient income to cover both the interest costs and principal repayments of the debt then what I said would be wrong in that instance. Except where perhaps the govt sees some greater public interest in one investment over another, investments where the rate-of-return prevents private finance. I'm guessing you're being a bit cheeky with that statement though because I'm pretty sure the Oz and AFR would have conniptions if the govt starting wholesale investment in Aus equities. Yep, that's why I said that the project could still be a worthwhile project only that I would be wary of making the argument that not investing was leaving money on the table. By that logic government should be investing in the projects with the highest risk adjusted return that it can identify. Obviously this is not the role of government. Jeebus I've wasted a lot of time in here today. Might have to bail for the rest of the arvo and check back later. |
12:45pm 09/04/13 Permalink
proving the 7% return on investment is the trick. I doubt it would be anywehre near that when you take into the overall costs of running the NBNCo bureaucracy.
|
12:59pm 09/04/13 Permalink
That is a gamble though. It would be like putting a bet down on a horse that isn't listed because you feel that "maybe a horse will just appear unscheduled on the track". they recalculated it based on the latest pricing reported by NBN for rollout rates. The LNP isn't exactly renown at their expertise for basic accounting. How far off were they in the last election? How many billion dollars have they promised to discover by magic if they win the next election? They might be true, but until someone from Auditor-Generals or Finance comes to the party with unbiased results, why should we listen to a bunch of liars (on either side)? |
12:59pm 09/04/13 Permalink
proving the 7% return on investment is the trick. I doubt it would be anywehre near that when you take into the overall costs of running the NBNCo bureaucracy. By that "logic" Telecom Australia mustn't have been able to generate billions of dollars in profit every year prior to it's privatisation. Oh wait... |
01:01pm 09/04/13 Permalink
oh wait.... inefficient businesses run badly go bust... Not every business is run the same.
every business needs to make a business case... or are you applying telecom's business case to NBNCo. |
01:03pm 09/04/13 Permalink
Thanks for playing "How stupid is infi?". I didn't realise that we'd reach record heights today.
|
01:06pm 09/04/13 Permalink
Oh f*** off. Do some homework yourself ya lazy d***.and this is why it's boring. The points raised on these forums are valid points and I'd like some here to actually rebutt the points raised in these tech forums without whimsically saying "I don't need to, they're self-interest is evident" without even the decency to engage in the debate directly themselves.Isn't this exactly what you're doing? I'm asking you to explain one of your claims - why you think whatshisname is anti-NBN. I'm trying to assess the validity of your point; I'm not going to take it at face value. I feel like you're accusing me of believing everything I read and then abusing me when I ask you to justify one of your statements (which seems, to me, like it should be utterly trivial to do). It seems that you're the one that has never really clearly articulated how you think things should be handled. If your ideal solution isn't along the lines of what the Coalition appears to be presenting now, then what exactly is it? Because I honestly have no idea.I don't have a solution because I don't think there's a problem. I've made my position clear several times and will articulate it later when time permits. For now I just think though that many pro-NBN people just can't fathom the mindset of people like me who apparently don't want high speed fibre plugged into their home for "free"!!!! |
01:07pm 09/04/13 Permalink
Stated today.
The NBN is the only way Australia will achieve national deployment of broadband, Vodafone Hutchison Australia CEO Bill Morrow |
01:08pm 09/04/13 Permalink
pro-NBN people just can't fathom the mindset of people like me who apparently don't want high speed fibre plugged into their home for "free"!!!!You're not getting it for free. You will be paying access fees for the fixed phone services and the internet as once the NBN is connected to your home and/or business you will become an NBN wholesale/RSP retail customer for fixed phone and internet access. So in essence you will need the NBN to connect to the internet and fixed phone as there will be no copper to your house subsequently no ADSL service or other fixed phone service will be available. I suppose you could always not connect the fixed phone service and internet at home thus not pay for it or only use 3G/4G for all your phone and internet needs but I think from the growth in data usage and mobile phone usage that will become an overly saturated medium. In actual fact there is little difference now in the way copper is to your house. You never had to pay for the deployment of copper to your home. Just pay telstra for phone and internet access when you took up the service. If you didn't take up the service Telstra got zip. Same same with the NBN. I'm pretty sure you didn't want to be without a phone or internet access to your home in the past so what's different now. Future fixed phone services will be through fibre as well as internet, no difference. NBN gets a lick on it just like Telstra does now on copper and Telstra aren't broke and makes a return for it's shareholders, why would the NBN be any different.. |
01:12pm 09/04/13 Permalink
I am sick of people talking about the NBN like it's going to make money. F*****g inverted thinking.
Government spends tax money on infrastructure = less money for you You spend money on subscriptions = less money for you Wheres the f*****g magical maths world where people SUBTRACT the subscriber money from the cost of building the network. It's like that maths problem with the 30 bucks except the waiter keeps a dollar. Maybe not, I dunno, but I'm sick of people talking about the government's money as though it were profits from a business that they somehow were invested in. The government's money isn't your money anymore, that is money you have already lost. So when Campbell talks about having a more prosperous economy, unless he is putting money into your bank account then it DOESNT MEAN ANYTHING. |
01:13pm 09/04/13 Permalink
It's being press conferenced this afternoon. Though I'd probably wait until later in the week to follow up on it if you actually want any meaningful analysis of its particulars. I'm sure there'll be a lot of questions buried in the details.This is probably the best advice in the thread so far regardless of your opinion, assuming the results of the press conf is going to change the way you vote edit: oh, it's already happened, although it looks like they're doing Q&A from what I see on the Twitters. Here's AFR with some summary points: http://www.afr.com/p/technology/scaled_down_abbott_nbn_to_cost_bn_D8btFuIKqOtvPxlR1nSZfL |
01:23pm 09/04/13 Permalink
Government spends tax money on infrastructure = less money for you The second is intended to pay for the first. Though, from the plan prices that I saw years ago, it wouldn't be as affordable as adsl (for those who can get adsl that is). edit: Jeebus. Actually, iinet is offering nbn fibre plans which are comparable to their naked dsl plans, at much higher speeds. |
01:25pm 09/04/13 Permalink
Government spends tax money on infrastructure = less money for you I've already paid the tax; it has to go somewhere. If it makes life more secure, economical, and livable then I'm happy it gets spent wisely. You spend money on subscriptions = less money for you What's wrong with user pays? Surely after so many years the users who do pay will be putting money back into spending elsewhere as the original investment gets paid off... |
01:38pm 09/04/13 Permalink
I am all for it as it removes the dependency of the aging copper networks and provides uniform product capabilities.
As someone who has had a 3Mbps ADSL2+ service < 5km from the CBD due to line quality and distance I am all for getting an actual 25Mbps service, not an up to 24Mbps service. FTTN is still an 'up to' style service. Even in the house I am in currently the improvement from going 8/1 to 25/5 will be a huge boon for working from home. Although I am not even in any of the announced planned areas of work yet. :( Pro NBN FTTP for me. |
01:53pm 09/04/13 Permalink
NBN is great idea, they just need to fix up how they deploying it to everyone... I dont understand why they arent starting with the big areas first. If they did places like Valley, New Farm, Kangarroo point first they can get hundreds of signups in one building
|
02:03pm 09/04/13 Permalink
^ as explained in their corporate plan it's all about building effective POI's first and then building outwards.
|
02:04pm 09/04/13 Permalink
for the vast majority FTTN solves nothing, There is not 30 years left in the copper network let alone 10 years.
The coalition is just pushing the cost down the line to make their FTTN option look cheaper now, but overtime the costs will increase to roll out that last mile. I believe FTTN has its place in the NBN deployment, especialy in large complexes where there are >100 end users. FTTN deployment to these kinds of Multi dwellings would speed up users past, and with internal cabling runs of under <500 meters on VDSL2, could still potential see 100mbit. Everyone complains about the cost, how much did it cost the government to roll out the copper network to all of Australia those many years ago ? Where would we be if we had the kind of opposition saying no its not work while, the horse can get there faster etc etc. Telstra values its current network at something like $27 billion if it had to redo it today, there is around 10 million households in australia, NBN is cheap in comparison for what we get at the end. |
02:08pm 09/04/13 Permalink
the NBN is the new telecom
the government will pay for it, (with our money) and it will make profit (meaning more money for the government, and less taxed tax from the people (although the end user will pay)) then, some lib government will sell it all off, rape in a profit, and claim labor mismanages budgets (short term gain, had telstra remained government owned, the NBN would be cheaper!!) |
02:14pm 09/04/13 Permalink
Yeah nerf i'm changing over from iinet adsl2 to nbn 200gb plan to 200gb and it will end up being cheaper due to the f*****ry phone line we are hiring being gone
I'm going over to a 50/20 plan but it is all kind of hilarious for me as i live 500m cable length from my adsl2 exchange so my adsl2 speed is awesome anyway lul |
02:14pm 09/04/13 Permalink
I don't have a solution because I don't think there's a problem.Perhaps 'solution' was the wrong word to use then. I mean how do you think things should proceed from the market's current state, as it is now (including the NBN work that has now already been undertaken, and the time that has now elapsed with the rest of the market not having made expansions that they otherwise might have)? Even if you think there's no problem with the way the Australian telecommunications market operates with respect to healthy competition and encouraged investment in new infrastructure (which I don't agree with), surely there's surely still some course of action you'd like to see the government take over the next 10 years --even if that's actually loosening some regulations, or removing existing subsidies, rather than making more and spending more. If you literally do mean, do nothing at all and let the market players have at it, I'm genuinely interested to hear how you predict they can be depended on to properly service the nation, given all that we know about broadband coverage in Australia over the last decade. |
02:21pm 09/04/13 Permalink
Yeah nerf i'm changing over from iinet adsl2 to nbn 200gb plan to 200gb and it will end up being cheaper due to the f*****ry phone line we are hiring being goneI'm going over to a 50/20 plan but it is all kind of hilarious for me as i live 500m cable length from my adsl2 exchange so my adsl2 speed is awesome anyway lul I hate you pave the cable line ends 200meters from my house (so, no cable access) and I live right at the end of adsl2 limit, so my net is s*** (and it is a cruel cruel joke) on the plus, we have a gas main line, yet am the only house without bottle gas |
02:31pm 09/04/13 Permalink
on the plus, we have a gas main line, yet am the only house without bottle gas The rest of us poor saps are anxiously awaiting news of NHN Co's rollout of the National Hydrocarbon Network in our area. |
02:37pm 09/04/13 Permalink
Seems like a lot of money without a substantial return for most of the homes.
Seems like we're still going to have issues with aging copper and maintenance costs. Seems like this is just an alternative plan to the ALP plan just for the sake of it. |
02:49pm 09/04/13 Permalink
I currently sit on 4mbps internet speed at only one and a half kilometres away from the exchange due to s***** copper rolled out over 80 years ago. Theoretically i should be getting around 12 to 16mbps but I don't due to the degradation of the copper, pits and MDFs.
Once I have 5 people (my family) accessing the internet at once in my house which is nearly all the time kiss goodbye to adequate internet access. When it comes to heavy rain I lose the internet altogether as it's constantly resynching due to water ingress in the last mile. This last mile of copper is not being replaced under a FTTN framework so I will still experience a degree of unreliablility due to weather....fibre won't have this. When it comes to my own personal or commercial needs to be met in any way I just about have to kick everyone else in the house off the net. Come and live at my house for a week and see how frustrated you'll become. You'll want to knife someone. Stop thinking that one or two net user households are the majority of net connected households. They're not. There are a huge number of households like mine with school age kids or older increasing the demand for simultaneous access substantially and let me just say as your kids grow older it will happen to you. The demand is increasing everyday. Before we go on about the Coalition LNP policy fixing this for me they are not putting in FTTN in HFC areas, well I am in a HFC area but I and quite a few have no HFC conenction as our houses were built after the rollout completed. When I moved into my new house in 2000 I asked Optus and Tesltra for HFC to be extended 51 metres as my house was built after the rollout, I was even happy to pay and they both said "piss off". I don't see them building a FTTN cabinet to service mine and a few others needs when there is an existing HFC foorptint up the street. Now let's take wireless as an option. I can't even make a mobile call inside my house, I have to walk outside before I get enough signal to make the call so 3G/4G wireless is totally useless for me. Dunno about LTE but if they're not building new towers I'll still have the same topographical/geographical issues affecting reception. I haven't seen or heard of them consider building any new towers in Wynnum and I live near the Golf Course damn smack in the middle of the place on top of a hill not some fringe. I don't see that changing for Wynnum either under the LNP plan. The only option will, it seems, be Satellite, gee thanks. Sucks to be in Wynnum, a subsurb only 20k's from the CBD. I am a typical family household and adequate internet is essential to 1) my three kids education as even now they require video and audio access over the internet for researching and completing homework and assignments as instructed by their teachers e.g. Lessons online, documentaries, libraries and even youtube access plus skype etc 2) my household management (banking, bill paying, researching products, purchasing goods and services, as a minimum it replaces my yellow pages 3) my business requirements as I predominately work from home when not on site and shift large volumes of data around for cloud, remote database access, emails, Citrix for remote ERP/EAM/CMMS access, Remote Desktop, Desktop Sharing and Video/Audio conferencing on a day to day basis 4) My family entertainment needs and choices will be considerably greater. I currently pay $99 a month for s*** Foxtel as there is no other choice due to internet bandwidth limitations and no HFC to my place, I'm on satellite in inner Wynnum - WTF. 5) Receiving more accessible and cost effective medical support and services as I am aging (cause I'm a lot older than you people) I'll need to rely ever more on these and telehealth should reduce the overall cost and timeliness. Try making an appointment around Wynnum these days with any of the private practitioners, it's agonising especially now the LNP have closed Wynnum Hospital's general and emergency services. Demand for private practictioners has skyrocketed so much the majority of Wynnum residents flood the the private doctors so much so you can't get in to see them for at least over a week nowadays. If I want emergency services I now have to travel to either Redland Bay, the PA or Mater driving myself or rely on an overworked and overburdened ambulance service......it sucks. My ability to have my current needs as an effective user of data services is severely impacted, the NBN will remove that barrier. The NBN will allow me to grow my business and service my personal needs now and into the future considering overall data demand in society and business is exponentially increasing. To Trog, I know you said you don't really see a problem requiring a solution, well I and many I know with a family mix like mine do and suffer everyday under the crap we have now. Now all I can say is my needs are not now nor will be in the future atypical. If anything demand will only grow exponentially throughout the 21st century as it has in the last decade . We need a long term solution not a patchwork quilt being offered as the alternative. |
02:53pm 09/04/13 Permalink
Looking at it another way - 19bn over 9 years above the current ALP spin isn't a lot. Unlike a lot of other government programs this stands to generate revenue so what's the f*****g problem?
|
02:59pm 09/04/13 Permalink
Stop thinking that one or two person net user households are the majority of net connected households. They're not. Nah I'm pretty sure they are |
03:01pm 09/04/13 Permalink
NahI'm pretty sure you're wrong. I am also sure many of the two user net houses, like here on QGL, have or soon will have kids of their own whom will turn that into a > 2 net user family once attending school as well and immerse themselves into the digital social fabric that exists today. They may be 2 user now but they won't be in the next few years. |
03:04pm 09/04/13 Permalink
I'm pretty sure everyone is tired of your anecdotal evidence to further you pushing your own agenda
|
03:05pm 09/04/13 Permalink
Why can't we have a combination of FTTN and FTTH.
For example FTTH in metro areas where it is commercially viable and FTTN in rural areas where it is not? |
03:06pm 09/04/13 Permalink
The NBN will not be in Wynnum anytime soon so don't hold your breath.
|
03:07pm 09/04/13 Permalink
Why can't we have a combination of FTTN and FTTH. you mean like, FTTH in metro areas and fixed wireless in rural areas? oh wait... |
03:08pm 09/04/13 Permalink
I'm pretty sure everyone is tired of your anecdotal evidence to further you pushing your own agendaand yet all you provide is opinion, great. Next we'll have Faceman post conspiracies. |
03:09pm 09/04/13 Permalink
The NBN will not be in Wynnum anytime soon so don't hold your breath.Least it will come. |
03:09pm 09/04/13 Permalink
Why can't we have a combination of FTTN and FTTH. It's probably just easier and more efficient pushing FTTP/FTTH then relying on old copper cabling to do the job. The biggest problem I have is that the Coalition is simply putting forward a plan that is purely cheaper and doesn't actually help push Australia into a better technology stance. All they seem to care about is showing voters that "they can do it cheaper" without actually bothering to improve upon what is on offer with the NBN. If they actually brought out a plan that focused on trying to cheapen the deal somehow but still deliver FTTH/FTTP to everyone* in Australia I think they would secure more votes, but right now it simply is a "your plan is bogus, here is ours which is cheaper but keeps us in the dark ages!" It just seems like such a cop-out to the entire nation to push advancements aside in technology for "bragging" rights against your opponent. |
03:15pm 09/04/13 Permalink
you mean like, FTTH in metro areas and fixed wireless in rural areas? oh wait... My understanding was a couple of years ago back when Cando was still Lord Mayor there were a few private companies willing to roll out FTTH in Brisbane with no cost to the tax payer. My point is surely there is a sliding scale that can be adjusted to make the combiation of FTTH and FFTN both cheaper and more attractive than purely FTTN. |
03:18pm 09/04/13 Permalink
ABS quoted:
Family households are projected to remain the most common type of household, increasing from 5.3 million in 2001 to 6.9 million in 2026. However, as a proportion of all households, family households are projected to decrease from 71.5% in 2001 to 66.3% in 2026.This is family households with kids to both couples and single parents. I would assume this trend would reflect the net usage/users across the number of households too. I can't find household to net users as all there is statistically I could find is subscriptions and households generally have only one subscription which wouldn't accurately reflect no of users. |
03:20pm 09/04/13 Permalink
Least it will come. So will flying cars. |
03:24pm 09/04/13 Permalink
here is a simple and I would like to think honest difference
Labor NBN, FTTH, long time to roll out (but already started) slower uptake (due to cost, and contracted customers) more costly short term Lib NBN, FTTN quicker roll out, will most likely be a quicker uptake as currently contracted customers wont need to change, cheaper short term, HOWEVER FTTH has plently of scope to improve, it is best viewed as the copper of the 21st cent, 100mbits is easy now, and 1000mbit is not unlikely, also, my understanding is there is less overall maintaince required, and it has a longer life span, it also provides a better product to all, differing only in plans, and what you pay for FTTN, little scope to improve as it uses old tech that is subject to weather and distance constraints, it is unlikely that you'll get 100mbits, also, as the need for more bandwidth happens, it is likely that you'd end up going to FTTH anyway in 10 years, and it cost more later!, also, the product that I get will differ hugely from the product that others might get, yet i will have to pay the same |
03:25pm 09/04/13 Permalink
the product that I get will differ hugely from the product that others might getIt's like buying an "up to" airline ticket to LA and being dropped off at Fiji whilst others might make it to Hawaii and few actually might get to LA. Why is this acceptable in the Telecommunications market and not anywhere else. |
03:30pm 09/04/13 Permalink
Eagerly waiting to read some detailed reports from the press that have time to properly comb over the documents of the new Coalition policy, but at first glance, man, it seems even worse than I could have imagined.
The first thought I have after reading the dot points are, how on Earth can any of the Nationals reps be supportive of this. If all is as it seems, then it's going to be hilarious to watch Barnaby trying to explain why he's behind the plan that doesn't put regional communities first. They're so surprisingly similar in predicted costing that its hard to fathom how any independent reporting could possibly come out in favour of the FTTN model. And it boggles that Turnbull can claim they've found that Labor's plan will end up tripling, but somehow there's works cheaper. I wholeheartedly agree that, at first glance, it appears to be a different plan, purely just for the sake of having an alternative, as an attempt to save face for them having been so staunchly negative on such a popular policy for so long. Predicting that even the mainstream conservative press is going to have a hard time spinning this one once people start having a closer look. |
03:32pm 09/04/13 Permalink
It's like buying an "up to" airline ticket to LA and being dropped off at Fiji whilst others might make it to Hawaii and few actually might get to LA. what a flawed and absurd analogy. right now for example people can buy GSM, 3G and now 4 G mobile phones. consumers choose which phone they want and which data network they want based on the amount of data they want to use and the price they are prepared to pay for that. they are all getting data, just at different speeds. by getting dropped off at Fiji or Hawaii if you are intending to arrive at LA you are getting nothing like what you bargained for. People should be able to decide what they are willing to pay for instead of having it rammed into them (either via lack of choice, or via taxation). |
03:35pm 09/04/13 Permalink
I also found this particular imagine to be a despicable example of blatant misinformation:
http://delimiter.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/coalition-nbn.jpg They "predict" all these cost and time blowouts for the labor model, with no basis to infer that their own plan couldn't possibly be susceptible to similar delays (even though they actually have far more dependence on third parties like Telstra playing nice, and Labor's has already passed that phase, and Labor's has been costed by treasury, and Coalition's are purely their own projections). With download rates they list FTTP as "25-100 by 2021, when Gigabit is already being offered to some establishments over the current Labor NBN, and there's no technical reason why it couldn't be multiples of that in 8 years time. They fail to mention that their 100mbit maximum is the users on existing telstra and optus HFC cable that we can already get, and not their FTTN connections. They completely fail to mention Upload rates, which are 40Mbps over FTTP, and relatively crippled over asynchronous FTTN, and HFC. They say that the most commonly chosen plan for most users in 8 years time is only going to be 12Mbit, when the 100Mbit takeup of the current NBN plans has already been a surprisingly percentage. It's bordering on propaganda. |
03:44pm 09/04/13 Permalink
The noalitions fraudband plan is a half measure. End of story. Just build the goddam infrastructure.
what a flawed and absurd analogy. The analogy is amost there, however instead of just getting dropped off at Hawaii or Fiji, you get to row yourself to LA. |
03:44pm 09/04/13 Permalink
Stop thinking that one or two net user households are the majority of net connected households. They're not. Considering that 1 and 2 person households make up the majority of the households in Australia I find this extremely hard to believe. From ABS catalogue 1301.0 - Year Book Australia, 2012: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/6630eff525d4cdc1ca25763e0075754f/39b8224fa2f5bc3bca257a07001ac447/Body/0.771A!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=gif As you can see in 2006 (the latest year data is available) the proportion of 1 person households was approximately 24% and the proportion of 2 person households was approximately 34%. Thus 1 and 2 person households made up 56%, or a majority, of the population of households in 2006. Unfortunately data isn't available for 2011 however I would assume that the upward trend in growth of 1 and 2 person households will continue as it has over the period covered by the data. The ABS appears to agree with this view as in the following paragraph they project that one person households will have the fasted projected increase of all household types over the period 2006 to 2031. Unless there is a convincing hypothesis as to why 3+ person households are markedly more likely to have an internet connection than a 1 or 2 person household I think we can conclude that this statement is likely to be false. Considering that internet penetration in Australia is relatively high by global standards (78.9% according to the World Bank) I think a hypothesis that plausibly results in a large enough difference between the internet penetrations of 1-2 vs 3+ person households to overcome the demographics will be hard to come by. This is family households with kids to both couples and single parents. I would assume this trend would reflect the net usage/users across the number of households too. Considering that the other categories in that chart are "Lone person household" and "group household" I think your definition of "family household" is probably incomplete. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/6630eff525d4cdc1ca25763e0075754f/39b8224fa2f5bc3bca257a07001ac447/Body/1.2690!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=gif' The page doesn't explicitly say what these definitions are, but I would assume that based on the other categories "family household" includes the following: 1) married couples, no kid/s 2) married couples, kid/s 3) single parent, kid/s 4) miscellaneous (e.g. multiple family households, multiple family members with no kid/s, etc) The ABS definition of a 'family household' doesn't appear to rely on the number of people in the household so I still don't think the above supports your original claim that the majority of households connected to the internet have more than 2 users. |
03:47pm 09/04/13 Permalink
what a flawed and absurd analogy. right now for example people can buy GSM, 3G and now 4 G mobile phones. consumers choose which phone they want and which data network they want based on the amount of data they want to use and the price they are prepared to pay for that. they are all getting data, just at different speeds. I don't know what speed I'll receive for my money until after I buy the ADSL fixed line service and it's connected . It is an up to not a guarantee. I don't know what I'll get for money until after the sale and may end up paying the same as someone whom gets more. Great capitalism there. When I buy wireless I have a guaranteed speed not an up to speed as it is always travels at the same speed . I know what I am buying. I don't pay more than the guy next to me as there is no difference in speed. With data volumes when I purchase a volume I buy what I am guaranteed not an up to and that goes for both fixed and mobile. I know what I am buying. Also I don't pay the same as someone WHO GETS MORE OR LESS. |
03:51pm 09/04/13 Permalink
4000/house cost is just ridiculous. Not every single house needs fibre connections. What a waste of money.
|
03:53pm 09/04/13 Permalink
Haha wow Dan, that is some really bad propaganda. I guess now that the Coalition's plans are out in the wild, people can tear it apart for all to see.
|
03:57pm 09/04/13 Permalink
what a flawed and absurd analogy. right now for example people can buy GSM, 3G and now 4 G mobile phones. consumers choose which phone they want and which data network they want based on the amount of data they want to use and the price they are prepared to pay for that. they are all getting data, just at different speeds.by getting dropped off at Fiji or Hawaii if you are intending to arrive at LA you are getting nothing like what you bargained for. People should be able to decide what they are willing to pay for instead of having it rammed into them (either via lack of choice, or via taxation). and FTTH provides just this, as I would be able to purchase differening speeds, with libs plan, I wouldn't be able to get the same speeds as someone else on the same plan, 200meters closer to the node, but i would be charged the same, hell, under the libs plane, in 2016, I would be able to purchase the same plans as other NBN people, but those lucky enough to have FTTH would have 4 times the speeds as I would be able to get on the top plans, all for the same price! |
04:07pm 09/04/13 Permalink
infi will surely come out swinging at the lib's announced intentions to meddle in the market any moment now.
http://i.imgur.com/OAGykfJ.jpg |
04:10pm 09/04/13 Permalink
I like how the new plan is basically the same plan they took to the last election. That shows you what you get from the Coalition after 3 years: nothing.
|
04:10pm 09/04/13 Permalink
I also found this particular imagine to be a despicable example of blatant misinformation:http://delimiter.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/coalition-nbn.jpgThey "predict" all these cost and time blowouts for the labor model, with no basis to infer that their own plan couldn't possibly be susceptible to similar delays (even though they actually have far more dependence on third parties like Telstra playing nice, and Labor's has already passed that phase, and Labor's has been costed by treasury, and Coalition's are purely their own projections).With download rates they list FTTP as "25-100 by 2021, when Gigabit is already being offered to some establishments over the current Labor NBN, and there's no technical reason why it couldn't be multiples of that in 8 years time.They fail to mention that their 100mbit maximum is the users on existing telstra and optus HFC cable that we can already get, and not their FTTN connections.They completely fail to mention Upload rates, which are 40Mbps over FTTP, and relatively crippled over asynchronous FTTN, and HFC.They say that the most commonly chosen plan for most users in 8 years time is only going to be 12Mbit, when the 100Mbit takeup of the current NBN plans has already been a surprisingly percentage.It's bordering on propaganda. what I like is that 25mb download covers wireless on the current NBN, and 100mb to everyone else, meanwhile the Lib plan is really 25-50mb to everyone, and 100mb to those who already can get it |
04:11pm 09/04/13 Permalink
Replying to Dan out of order:
Even if you think there's no problem with the way the Australian telecommunications market operates with respect to healthy competition and encouraged investment in new infrastructure (which I don't agree with)I never said that, but I think it's dumb to think the NBN is a solution to that "problem" - it is just taking that problem (Telstra owns all the infrastructure and is required to let everyone else use it at the whims of the ACCC/government) and changing some of the parameters (the government owns all the infrastructure and is required to let everyone else use it at the whims of the ACCC/government) If you literally do mean, do nothing at all and let the market players have at it, I'm genuinely interested to hear how you predict they can be depended on to properly service the nation, given all that we know about broadband coverage in Australia over the last decade.There's many definitions of "properly service" so it's hard to answer that question without some context to what you mean. Perhaps 'solution' was the wrong word to use then. I mean how do you think things should proceed from the market's current state, as it is now (including the NBN work that has now already been undertaken, and the time that has now elapsed with the rest of the market not having made expansions that they otherwise might have)?I really don't know what can happen now that they've rushed so far into the deployment stage. I think it would probably be dumb to stop rolling it out now that we've started, assuming that all the work/deployed infrastructure that has been done to date is a significant part of the groundwork. From a quick glance at the news, the new Liberal plan isn't really very surprising, right? I haven't paid a huge amount of attention to it - it has never been interesting to me because it just competes on price, which is boring to me, and not on opportunity cost for other infrastructure projects, which is not - but it seems like roughly what was speculated/hinted at over the last few years |
04:16pm 09/04/13 Permalink
Is this a gaming forum or ALP Anonymous?
|
04:16pm 09/04/13 Permalink
Is this a gaming forum or ALP Anonymous? if you dont like, grab a dial up, and contect to the lib site INFIlovesslavery.com |
04:19pm 09/04/13 Permalink
I like how the new plan is basically the same plan they took to the last election. That shows you what you get from the Coalition after 3 years: nothing.It's not really, that was just $6Bn sunk into subsidies for the private sector to do upgrades. Whereas this appears to be the same basic premise as the labor model, just using different comms technology for a bit of a discount. |
04:22pm 09/04/13 Permalink
The second is intended to pay for the first.Though, from the plan prices that I saw years ago, it wouldn't be as affordable as adsl (for those who can get adsl that is).edit: Jeebus. Actually, iinet is offering nbn fibre plans which are comparable to their naked dsl plans, at much higher speeds. Indeed, I will be pay less for full speed NBN than I am on ADSL2+ with IINet. |
04:26pm 09/04/13 Permalink
Is this a gaming forum or ALP Anonymous? This is where all the Labor diehards desperately defend their party. The NBN will go down in history as the single biggest waste of public money in history. 4000/house is just unacceptable. |
04:26pm 09/04/13 Permalink
Unless there is a convincing hypothesis as to why 3+ person households are markedly more likely to have an internet connection than a 1 or 2 person household I think we can conclude that this statement is likely to be false.Well I'll concede that. Well done. What I would find interesting though is if you could work out what that would represent in terms of actual numbers of people (not households) that would directly be impacted when equating to 1 and 2 sharing as opposed to 3 or more based on those household figures. Let's assume everyone in the house wants to access the net simultaneously. What would the number be if we used a sample of say 1000 people? Something along this train of thought - if I have 10 people across 10 houses (1 each) + 10 people across 5 houses (2 x each) vs 20 poeple across 5 houses (4 each) would that not reflect there are just as many people on a congested link as opposed to a non-congested link regardless of the fact there are more household of 2 or less compared to 3 or more? |
04:26pm 09/04/13 Permalink
some households have many connected devices
my main PC, connected, plus the TV, xbox, media PC laptop, and the girl PC, plus two phone, upstairs, two more computers, three lappy, ipad, two phone, TV, Tbox extra bandwidth wouldn't hurt |
04:37pm 09/04/13 Permalink
infi will surely come out swinging at the lib's announced intentions to meddle in the market any moment now. it's not the best, admittedly, because the government will be wasting SOME taxpayer money but not as much as under the ALP NBN http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/in-depth/coalition-nbn-plan-good-for-competition/story-e6frgaif-1226615959739 The Telcos will still be allowed to sell their existing ADSL which is excellent news for the consumer. It was always a ridiculous idea paying Telstra to decommission perfectly operational copper to force everyone onto NBN. Another ALP government force exercise. i hadn't read up on the NBN for a while now since the first wave of Conroy's storytelling came round. As I reread the NBN business plan it resembles an Enid Blyton book. He does keep improving the stories. No we are not behind. No we are not running over budget. Typical Labor, how does guy keep a straight face? |
04:48pm 09/04/13 Permalink
you are connecting every single person to a 6 star product that not every person wants (or needs).
|
04:52pm 09/04/13 Permalink
agree, we have only two people in my apartment which i bought, but in the apartment we have
1 x Server 1 x HTPC 2 x PC 2 x Laptops 2 x phones 2x tablets 1 x Wii 1 x FetchTV(IPTV) 1x TV and if our gf or friends come over add extra device onto that. Pretty much everything is using the net. |
04:52pm 09/04/13 Permalink
you are connecting every single person to a 6 star product that not every person wants (or needs). but the other plan is connecting everyone to a 3 star product, that will be outgrown in ten years max, and replaced with the current labor plan, yeah, smart move there also, youre not connecting everyone to a 6 star product, your giving people the option to connect to a product, that is equal to the product that 98% of people can also buy, for the same money |
05:02pm 09/04/13 Permalink
And FTTN is not going to be anywhere near 25mbit, without Signigicantly more infrastructure than the NBN.
Telstra had VDSL2 trials about 3 years ago, 25mbit was not achieved past 1km~ and tapered just like adsl2 from there on, so unless the coalitions plan involves the deployment of FTTN cabinets/backhaul/power as well as finding space for much larger equipment than fsams there is still significant costs involved. |
05:05pm 09/04/13 Permalink
Yeah I agree looking after the old copper and trying to get more speeds out of copper can't be cheaper than ftth in the future especially when Telstra reckons it cost $28 a month for maintance
|
07:12pm 09/04/13 Permalink
Just a thought, the Coalition FttN network stuff mentioned that the copper lines are working 98% or something. What that number doesn't mention is what percentage of that 98% is only barely running. It says nothing on the quality of the line other than it can provide service, at least the minimal amount.
So at the end of the day, the FttN will still have people raging when it rains... |
07:20pm 09/04/13 Permalink
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-09/turnbull-faces-questions-over-coalition-broadband/4618340
Take a look at what Malcolm has to say in regards to the Coalition plan. Make your own mind up. We can all roll our eyes at the politics of it all but guess what, sadly this issue has now become exactly that, political (as wrong as it seems). Guess what though, we can actually do something about it... Ignore all the bulls*** floating around in the media and actually vote on it. Yes i'm going to swallow my pride and vote labor this time. I don't take to posting publicly about politics in this case but I think this is just too big a thing for us to squander on petty debate. The facts are here and we really need to make it happen. "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."- Albert Einstein |
07:42pm 09/04/13 Permalink
Willberforce I'm the same I think it will be my first time voting labor
|
07:50pm 09/04/13 Permalink
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-09/turnbull-faces-questions-over-coalition-broadband/4618340 omg lol, i almost fell of my chair it was frigen hilarious. VDSL2 with vectoring, xdsl, hahah Turnbull has no idea. Its not a question about if this technology can provide 100mbit connections, it is possible, but we also know that this speed is not available past at best 300 meters and tappers down significantly. see BTC VDSL2 speed index -> http://www.increasebroadbandspeed.co.uk/2013/chart-bt-fttc-vdsl2-speed-against-distance Interestingly there BTC top speed of about 75mbit is similar to the best speeds Telstra's VDSL2+ trial saw. I love how he completely bypassed and obfuscated the question about last mile copper, the question wasnt "is copper good enough for the last mile", it was "is the current Telstra copper infrastructure good enough for the last mile", spouting things like there is copper in everything just makes him look more of a fool. Id be interesting to see what other "technical" changes he was talking about that may have over complicated the release. I applaud the journalists that gave that roasting, some very pointed and good questions that where still not answered as usual. Good post on whirlpool about the cust of upkeep of the Copper Network giving the Coalitions proposal a vastly different figure, and Telstra has said it will not renegotiate its contract with NBN co as they have made significant financial planning and restructuring around it. http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=2083173&p=54#r1065 |
08:28pm 09/04/13 Permalink
hehe 6 stars vs 3 stars.
Sounds like a simple question that the journo asked and the two Ronnies fumbled for a bulls*** answer. If you're relying on last mile copper, how long is the copper going to last in terms of broadband speeds that Australians will demand in 2020?...2030?...2040? How much will it cost to maintain the physical copper and deal to water ingress faults and power all those cabinets? Looking back 25+ years ago we were just getting by on 1200 bits per second modems. If the coalition's proposed technology isn't projected to scale to at least 50 years from today and we're spending tens of billions of dollars only to have to rip it all up and replace the lot again within a decade or two the cheaper option looks like a turd. A 30 billion dollar turd. Federal and state governments drop billions of dollars in road and transport infrastructure funding and nobody bats an eyelid. Hell, 16km of light rail track down here on the Gold Coast has various reports of a price tag of between $1B to $1.5B alone. But because there's an unspoken assumption that we're all just going to download porn when the NBN gets here it's too expensive. Labor's solution looks in dire need of some more oversight to rein in costs and projected service delivery timeframes, but the Libs solution is just daft. |
09:25pm 09/04/13 Permalink
09:36pm 09/04/13 Permalink
But because there's an unspoken assumption that we're all just going to download porn when the NBN gets here Conroy has said on multiple occasions he not into porn. Or opting out of child porn. |
09:57pm 09/04/13 Permalink
NBN is great idea, they just need to fix up how they deploying it to everyone... I dont understand why they arent starting with the big areas first. If they did places like Valley, New Farm, Kangarroo point first they can get hundreds of signups in one building People in those areas can already get decent internet. I've got no problem with them servicing areas that have poor or even no service at the moment. A lot of the remote areas can benefit tremendously by having a decent internet connection as it allows for things as simple as email (that we take for granted) right through to video conferencing to help business, schooling, and medical needs. You don't have to even drive far from Brisbane to hit towns that lack half-decent ADSL or wireless services. |
10:18pm 09/04/13 Permalink
Some more food for thought... Watch below link
Mark Gregory, a senior lecturer in electrical and computer engineering at RMIT, says the Coalition would be spending $30 billion on a one megabit per second average increase in internet speed. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-09/experts-criticise-coalitions-internet-plan/4619506 |
12:17am 10/04/13 Permalink
It pretty much debunks the whole cost argument. Watch the last 2mins. For all those here who are discussing the economics of the debate I have to say check out the above link in my comment...
Starting @ 7:10 "The cost of the network put forward by the Coalition today does not take into account the maintenance costs, the extra costs that are going to be involved in negotiating the contracts, in getting permission from Councils for the cabinets, in providing electricity to these cabinets... in providing a lot more maintenance that is needed with the labor National Broadband Plan. So over the same period of time i would say that the cost for the Coalition plan is going to be far more than what the labor plan is." It's sounds pretty final to me. |
12:40am 10/04/13 Permalink
Why was Telecom/Telstra ever sold :/ http://www.uow.edu.au/~sharonb/telstra.html
|
04:14am 10/04/13 Permalink
And it's these kind of major inaccuracies SFB that you come out with that makes me (and i'm pretty sure i'm not alone) pretty much ignore everything you have to say.
Another problem is you will fiercely agree with your own poor understanding of the facts until you are presented with irrefutable evidence to the contrary. Imagine how many times in life someone may have said to you 'i'm not sure that's quite right' but they, like me, couldn't care enough to battle your blustering ways to educate you, and because of this inability to easily accept your opinion being challenged, has led to you ultimately holding wrong knowledge and then making wrong decisions based on that wrong knowledge? Perhaps its time to start wondering why your thoughts are often at odds with the majority in discussions like this, maybe, you're one of those people, who are more often than not, wrong. |
06:47am 10/04/13 Permalink
Perhaps its time to start wondering why your thoughts are often at odds with the majority in discussions like this, maybe, you're one of those people, who are more often than not, wrong. This forum is a s***** place to use public opinion as a barometer for ... anything! |
07:25am 10/04/13 Permalink
People in those areas can already get decent internet. I've got no problem with them servicing areas that have poor or even no service at the moment.I do - because the purpose of the NBN isn't "to make sure everyone has Internet", it's to make sure everyone has super high speed broadband. For me it is much much much more important that everyone has SOME Internet access. It's much less important that everyone (or even the majority) have super high speed fibre. Given that economic drivers are such a big rationale for the NBN in the first place it seems like a total absolute no brainer to me that they would focus on areas that are more likely to yield beneficial economic results - CBDs, high density suburbs, tech commercial where there is a keen interest in people who actually WANT the NBN. The flip side of that is, of course, that rolling it out to high density areas first ensures that there are simply more consumers on it for these people to target with these mystical killer apps. Note that I don't care about this because I personally want NBN. I'm perfectly happy with my 6-7mbit DSL service. However, I'd point out that I'm 4km out of the CBD in a reasonably well off and high density neighborhood. Me and my colleagues and our company are exactly the sort of people NBN is targeting from the magic beans perspective. And yet noone I know who wants it can get it, and the people I know who can get it don't see any reason to switch over. Weird, right? (Yes, yes, I know it's a long term thing, but if you can give it to people who want it NOW and can do stuff with it NOW why not do them first to get the ball rolling as fast as possible?) |
07:31am 10/04/13 Permalink
And yet noone I know who wants it can get it, and the people I know who can get it don't see any reason to switch over Everyone I personally know is where the f*** is the f*****g NBN already my internet is retarded. Its almost a how's-the-weather topic for businesspeople in Cairns atm with the CBD rollout underway. F*****g s**** me how this debate comes back to CBD latte-sippers who already have good internet and sniff at the NBN as though living in a high rise near the city makes your experience some sort of trump card on the subject... |
07:45am 10/04/13 Permalink
Good point trog - I would imagine that a rollout similar to the telco's LTE rollout plan would obtain the most purpose out of it
|
07:49am 10/04/13 Permalink
I've thought about it a few times, and I'm pretty happy hanging out on adsl2 (which does the trick for now) while people who are in much worse off internet situations get the super awesome one, so at least they have something decent.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that living without decent net is a travesty and human rights violation, but I'd heavily imply it! (Then again I haven't paid tax beyond GST in like 2 years. And by god my minor sales better not put me over the new threshold this year, as it's going to a complex mess if it does) |
07:55am 10/04/13 Permalink
Alright guys i'm taking one for the team today and upgrading from my perfect 24mbit adsl 2 to nbn 50/20
I will report back tonight with e-peen speed test results when i get home |
08:31am 10/04/13 Permalink
I'd like to second Hoggy's motion that paveway is indeed a c***.
|
08:44am 10/04/13 Permalink
The "I want to stab you in the I"s have it. The motion is passed.
|
08:57am 10/04/13 Permalink
but if you can give it to people who want it NOW and can do stuff with it NOW why not do them first to get the ball rolling as fast as possible? Because there are people who have no internet or no useful and won't get any internet in it's current form because existing telecos won't invest in servicing those areas because it isn't economical for them to do so. It's got nothing to do with super high speed but a flakey dialup or hit and miss satellite connection is a luxury to many. You just have to see every one chuck a wobbly on Whirlpool when their internet is a bit slow, or an international pipe goes down. Or the news sites when businesses in the city lose net due to some sort of network problem. It's important and has pretty much become essential for people who have it. I'm sure all the network admins love the panic when their servers go down because it cuts them off. Communities and businesses outside of the major centres are the ones who are going to see the biggest benefit from the NBN so why not roll it out to them first? |
09:08am 10/04/13 Permalink
Please present yourself to the ANZ stadium carpark for your backpunching please pave.
|
09:09am 10/04/13 Permalink
Yeah i really couldn't justify the extra cost for 100 as i don't download that much s***, it actually works out cheaper for me on this as i get rid of the gay as s*** phone line rental we are paying so my missus parents can ring her because they still think it is expensive to ring mobiles
|
09:24am 10/04/13 Permalink
Yeah i really couldn't justify the extra cost for 100 as i don't download that much s***, it actually works out cheaper My download quantity isn't going to change, for sure. But I just want it to come down quickly. Upload is the really big thing for me as I do some hosting and often grab files remotely. getting rid of line rental will be a godsend. $30 extra dollars to throw on a 'net plan. |
09:31am 10/04/13 Permalink
i get rid of the gay as s*** phone line rental we are paying People underestimate how ridiculously awesome this is going to be for the bajillions of people stuck on Telstra DSLAMs. My internet will be much faster and my telecommunications bill will probably go down... |
09:32am 10/04/13 Permalink
I'm missing something. How can the LNP offer minimum 50mbps by 2019 if they're still using Copper from the node to the home.
This is the extract from their policy document .....minimum download ata rate of 25 megabits per second by theend of 2016 in all areas of Australia, and 50 megabits per second by the end of 2019 in 90 per cent of the fixed line footprint. How is that possible? |
09:41am 10/04/13 Permalink
How is that possible?http://media.tumblr.com/0b51b9ac044e062857f4d4a26effca1a/tumblr_inline_mgyf58tlS91re0jxj.gif Abbott and Turnbull don't want you to ask questions, only to vote for their |
10:06am 10/04/13 Permalink
I know you said you don't really see a problem requiring a solution, well I and many I know with a family mix like mine do and suffer everyday under the crap we have now.Your situation does indeed sound terrible. I sympathise with anyone that has unreliable Internet. One of my main problems is that "the government" decided that they were going to bow out of the telecommunications game, back when Telstra was sold off. Now "the government" is saying that was a d*** move and they need to step in to fix it all up because the private sector isn't capable of doing it. Now, they were two different governments. But history has taught me that at some point, "the government" might just sell that off again at any point. So for me, to show that they're serious about clearly saying that selling Telstra was a Bad Idea and that they're correcting what was in retrospect a huge error, I think they should have bought Telstra back. There are lots of advantages to this - instant access to their cash reserves, their cash flow, their tools, talent, infrastructure, data, usage patterns, etc. I don't know how practical it is, but it doesn't seem totally ludicrous to me on the surface. I don't know what disadvantages there are, except possibly cost (I cannot even imagine what the market reaction would be to the news that the government was going to do this). So instead we've got a whole new government owned Telstra-esque infrastructure monopoly that we have to worry about being privatised (which is certainly on their roadmap) at some point down the track, which will put us exactly in the situation we're in now - where you're stuck on a s***** connection that is not getting maintained because it's not in the shareholder interests to send a crew out to fix it. (Yes, yes, I know, fibre is supposed to be invulnerable to EVERYTHING). I am not scared of the government spending money - even lots of money - on infrastructure. I think it's great. I think it's necessary. I love being in a country that is prepared to spend huge amounts of money on epic infrastructure projects for the long term for the benefit of their citizens. I just think if they're going to draw a line and say "this is a service that is important enough that all our citizens must have access to it", privatisation should not be on the radar so that we citizens know that stuff we're investing in - this allegedly core infrastructure that is vital to our interests as a nation - is not going to get sold off down the track to whoever else wants it, thus leaving us once again at the mercy of a megacorporatrox that is only out to serve shareholder interests, like Telstra is now. I think they should acknowledge that communications is now like healthcare and water (..and electricity) - a core service that NEEDS to be provided to citizens in order to have a proper functioning society that is forward-looking. TLDR: buy back Telstra's infrastructure division, treat it like a company with a 25-50 year outlook instead of quarterly, plunge 100% of its ongoing revenue and capital into funding upgrading all its existing infrastructure to fibre, maintaining the current infrastructure while the upgrade is happening, and focusing on citizens instead of shareholders. Then while you're sitting there waiting for the NBN to finally roll out to you at some point, there's some hope that Telstra Infrastructure - the new government run and owned entity with your interests in mind as a citizen - might actually fix your crappy broken copper service instead of not bothering because it's not in shareholder interests. edit: that is only part of my overall complaint; there are many other things that irritate me about the whole thing |
10:09am 10/04/13 Permalink
Because there are people who have no internet or no useful and won't get any internet in it's current form because existing telecos won't invest in servicing those areas because it isn't economical for them to do so.That is entirely my point. The first priority should be connecting those people with SOME INTERNET. (In my magical model (that I posted about above) those people would have been connected - regardless of cost - by Telstra Infrastructure just as part of their government-imposed mandate to provide a base level of communications services.) |
10:17am 10/04/13 Permalink
So instead we've got a whole new government owned Telstra-esque infrastructure monopoly that we have to worry about being privatised (which is certainly on their roadmap) at some point down the track, which will put us exactly in the situation we're in now This is sort of true - except that Telstra make retail profit as well as wholesale profit. NBNCo cannot sell retail services... |
10:18am 10/04/13 Permalink
I agree with Trog, yes put the NBN into places that really needed it but also put it where population is dense. I know for one our Company is definitely keen for it. We defintely need faster upload speeds but cant justify the cost of SHDSL and even if we can we can only get max 6mps as we are to faraway from the exchange
|
10:56am 10/04/13 Permalink
Why was Telecom/Telstra ever sold :/ Because publicly owned assets underperform, there is no imperative to provide a return on investment, and quite often they are used as political playthings. F*****g s**** me how this debate comes back to CBD latte-sippers who already have good internet and sniff at the NBN as though living in a high rise near the city makes your experience some sort of trump card on the subject... so why couldn't the government just subsidise telcos to roll out their own services to new areas that are marginal (just like they pay telstra to service remote and rural Australia? Why do we have to spend $40-$90b on rolling out a whole new network buying existing infrastructure (and then destroying it!!) in the process? It seems inefficient and wasteful. |
11:08am 10/04/13 Permalink
so why couldn't the government just subsidise telcos to roll out their own services to new areas that are marginal (just like they pay telstra to service remote and rural Australia? Why do we have to spend $40-$90b on rolling out a whole new network buying existing infrastructure (and then destroying it!!) in the process? It seems inefficient and wasteful. You realize you're talking about politicians here, right? Inefficient and wasteful are two of their favourite things. |
11:49am 10/04/13 Permalink
I'm missing something. How can the LNP offer minimum 50mbps by 2019 if they're still using Copper from the node to the home.This is the extract from their policy document.....minimum download ata rate of 25 megabits per second by theend of 2016 in all areas of Australia, and 50 megabits per second by the end of 2019 in 90 per cent of the fixed line footprint.How is that possible? what even funnier, some LNP guy on the abc was saying that places in europe are rolling this plan out, and in paris they have gotten 1000mbs, clear that they'll not let the fact get in the way of a few good lies Why was Telecom/Telstra ever sold :/ no infi, it is because the libs wanted to have a surplus, and this was one way to do it, telstra was always a pretty good performer |
12:24pm 10/04/13 Permalink
. I just think if they're going to draw a line and say "this is a service that is important enough that all our citizens must have access to it", privatisation should not be on the radar so that we citizens know that stuff we're investing in - this allegedly core infrastructure that is vital to our interests as a nation - is not going to get sold off down the track to whoever else wants it, thus leaving us once again at the mercy of a megacorporatrox that is only out to serve shareholder interests, like Telstra is now. I think they should acknowledge that communications is now like healthcare and water (..and electricity) - a core service that NEEDS to be provided to citizens in order to have a proper functioning society that is forward-looking. Trog, couldn't have been said any better really. I think what we should also be asking of the current plan put forward is what other plans do they have in store that we aren't being told about? If people want Fibre from the node to their house because they run a small business or are crazy download whores they are obviously going to pay for it either way right? Turnbull no doubt has plenty of his corporate Telco friends waiting in the wings to cash in on that one. This part of the plan will be privatized no doubt and we will be paying slightly more than we would under NBN Co. Given their current economic attitude towards 'debt' I wouldn't rule out them selling off NBN Co altogether if they were to get a future second term. Neither side has a squeeky clean record when it comes to selling off public assets but it might be a simple case of 'better the devil you know' on this one. TLDR: buy back Telstra's infrastructure division, treat it like a company with a 25-50 year outlook instead of quarterly, plunge 100% of its ongoing revenue and capital into funding upgrading all its existing infrastructure to fibre, maintaining the current infrastructure while the upgrade is happening, and focusing on citizens instead of shareholders. Then while you're sitting there waiting for the NBN to finally roll out to you at some point, there's some hope that Telstra Infrastructure - the new government run and owned entity with your interests in mind as a citizen - might actually fix your crappy broken copper service instead of not bothering because it's not in shareholder interests.edit: that is only part of my overall complaint; there are many other things that irritate me about the whole thing Sounds ambitious, any idea if anything like this has ever been done on such a level in developed economies like ours? Would be interesting to find out. |
12:25pm 10/04/13 Permalink
People in those areas can already get decent internet. I've got no problem with them servicing areas that have poor or even no service at the moment. A lot of the remote areas can benefit tremendously by having a decent internet connection as it allows for things as simple as email (that we take for granted) right through to video conferencing to help business, schooling, and medical needs. That's me. Just out of Caboolture on 1.7 Mbps. NBN next year from memory but I'm a fair way from exchange so unsure how much improvement I'll get. |
12:28pm 10/04/13 Permalink
sigh
is it possible to vote liberal but not their half arsed broadband plan |
12:30pm 10/04/13 Permalink
NBN next year from memory but I'm a fair way from exchange so unsure how much improvement I'll get i'm pretty sure the whole point is that this won't matter with fibre to the home.. that said how can you have whole suburbs running on fibre without any drop in speed ? is fibre that magically brilliant? or have they laid larger trunk like mains of it through certain parts that have branches off into the streets? |
12:33pm 10/04/13 Permalink
That's me. Just out of Caboolture on 1.7 Mbps. NBN next year from memory but I'm a fair way from exchange so unsure how much improvement I'll get. on NBN, you'll get 50-70 times improvement on the lib plan you'll ideally get (according to them) a 13-20 time improvement, however, that increase is unlikely |
12:35pm 10/04/13 Permalink
the coalitions plan wouldn't make my connection any better :/
|
12:50pm 10/04/13 Permalink
sort of topic does anyone know the answer. Company i work for has bought three blocks of land and building a few comercial building on it can we register for NBN as its new premise or something?
|
01:54pm 10/04/13 Permalink
If you're in an appartment you'll probably be worse off under the coalition broadband. It's nice of Mal to think of his constituents.
http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/breaking-news/coalition-nbn-plan-wont-help-flats-sca/story-fnhrvfuw-1226617211919?from=public_rss |
01:56pm 10/04/13 Permalink
You know, I'd heard claims that The Australian was majorly biased and just out to criticize the NBN at every opportunity, and had shrugged it off and thought maybe it deserved it.
But then, what do they have up on the front page on the day that the flawed Coalition plan gets announced? Something which sounds like straight up pre-prepared propaganda. Policy slows Labor's political bandwidth |
02:12pm 10/04/13 Permalink
Conroy has said on multiple occasions he not into porn. This is a perfect example of Labor logic. If you you do not support a filter, that won't even stop child porn, you are a supporter of child porn. |
02:30pm 10/04/13 Permalink
bros, we the only hope for a non laughable nbn is if we don't vote labor out.
adam hills keeps telling me on facebook that we are lucky to have the current government, surely adam hills wouldnt lie to us!!! |
02:42pm 10/04/13 Permalink
This is a perfect example of Labor logic. If you you do not support a filter, that won't even stop child porn, you are a supporter of child porn. I like how you aren't even trying to defend the new Coalition proposal, instead you are just baiting on low hanging fruit (something which is now three years old). Though Conroy isn't the best, especially with the idea of that filter (who knows why they thought it would be successful), at least we can have a somewhat competent NBN plan that is less expensive then the Coalition's one which offers less and will need to be revised in the future anyway. |
03:01pm 10/04/13 Permalink
But didn't you hear? The Labor plan is going to cost 90 billion dollars!
|
03:07pm 10/04/13 Permalink
That's just the first revision. I expect in the final wash it would cost something with a 1 or 2 in the front. And it will also be called the Conroy Glorious Building the Information Revolution Network.
|
03:17pm 10/04/13 Permalink
But didn't you hear? The Labor plan is going to cost 90 billion dollars! and the lib plan will cost more!!! f*** me, even if it was 90 bil, that 90 billion spent now is going to be cheaper that the bulls*** half job that will need to be fixed 10 years down the track |
03:18pm 10/04/13 Permalink
It's almost as though Labor's NBN plan is far superior to the LNP's half-baked s***e and they'd come up with any old horses*** to discredit it. They can do that safely in the knowledge that their loyal followers will believe it, because their loyal followers fall for every little party line they trot out.
|
03:20pm 10/04/13 Permalink
I like how you aren't even trying to defend the new Coalition proposal, instead you are just baiting on low hanging fruit (something which is now three years old). Though Conroy isn't the best, especially with the idea of that filter (who knows why they thought it would be successful), at least we can have a somewhat competent NBN plan that is less expensive then the Coalition's one which offers less and will need to be revised in the future anyway. I don't know what made you think it's a requirement for me to defend the Coalitions proposal? |
03:21pm 10/04/13 Permalink
You know, I'd heard claims that The Australian was majorly biased and just out to criticize the NBN at every opportunity, and had shrugged it off and thought maybe it deserved it.But then, what do they have up on the front page on the day that the flawed Coalition plan gets announced? Something which sounds like straight up pre-prepared propaganda. Nerf, pretty scary s*** hey? Honestly it's looking so much more likely that we will be getting the s***** coalition option now. Main stream media is a complete joke these days, i guess it always has been to some extent. At least they can't control social media... yet. :( . |
03:59pm 10/04/13 Permalink
This is a perfect example of Labor logic. If you you do not support a filter, that won't even stop child porn, you are a supporter of child porn. Only a SITH deals in absolutes... |
04:00pm 10/04/13 Permalink
I have never seen nerds become so enraged. I doubt you would see this much nerd anger even if the government decided to introduce conscription.
|
04:02pm 10/04/13 Permalink
I have never seen nerds become so enraged. I doubt you would see this much nerd anger even if the government decided to introduce conscription.Well considering the thing we are so enraged over will likely affect many business, the technology we can utilise and the country in general, I'd say it's okay to be so. I don't know what made you think it's a requirement for me to defend the Coalitions proposal?True, I shouldn't have asserted that you should be defending the Coalition's proposal. I'd actually like to know what exactly your stance is on this whole debacle? |
04:17pm 10/04/13 Permalink
04:19pm 10/04/13 Permalink
what that really shows is
labors choice has needed to change the libs have given us a number of choices that not only have been shown to have been wrong (wimax) the speeds have increased every election, and the plan still stinks |
04:29pm 10/04/13 Permalink
04:44pm 10/04/13 Permalink
http://simonhackett.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/commsday-syd-2013-hackett-problem-with-fttn.pdf
Interesting, and that graph goes with my previous comment - how the f*** are we getting 25mbps minimum by 2016!!! |
04:49pm 10/04/13 Permalink
I like how all these officials who know exactly what the Coalition's plan has to offer and how it will cost more over time is simply thrown out in favour of "it is cheaper guys and no one even uses the Internet!"
Also this bit in the article strikes me as odd: "Meanwhile, many other GFC-afflicted nations simply made the judgement that they couldn't afford expensive FTTH networks on a scale such as Australia's." What I find odd is that just before this quote they stated Australia wasn't hurt as badly as other GFC-afflicted countries. So why compare them? It is also quite funny that they forget to mention that many other first-world countries are right now rolling out FFTH and FTTP because it is the future, and it will suffice our growing needs. It just blows my mind that potential leaders of this country really believe that offering a cheaper but less technological Internet plan is better, when we know just how quickly technology advances and we know what kind of offers this new technology can give. Why keep us in the dark ages? Why stop growth of a country that you are suppose to be leading? |
04:51pm 10/04/13 Permalink
hey cool a couple of hundred posts from people about politics again.
i: enjoy fast internet, do not know what fttp/n/h is and will probably vote liberal in the coming election because at least they give an aura of competence. however, in my opinion, this NBN thing is the first thing a government, in my memory, has committed to that requires forethought. that is, in 20 years time we will be reaping the rewards of the decisions made in decades past and the people responsible for it will be forgotten. all our cities could have looked at london / ny and said 'these are the population problems / transit issues we'll have to consider, let's build for the future' and nobody did. the nbn is ambitious and far reaching and i absolutely support it. the liberals stance on it is so naive that i will be sick and disappointed before i tick the ballot box. f*** the liberals on this matter and good on labor for looking to the future. but f*** them for literally everything else. |
05:00pm 10/04/13 Permalink
so you selling out the nbn then bro?
|
05:03pm 10/04/13 Permalink
however, in my opinion, this NBN thing is the first thing a government, in my memory, has committed to that requires forethought. that is, in 20 years time we will be reaping the rewards of the decisions made in decades past and the people responsible for it will be forgotten.I agree with this completely. Regardless of my objections to the execution I think having a comprehensive fibre network will be awesome further down the track. (For me the opportunity cost I care about is high speed rail infrastructure, which I think is one thing that just gets exponentially harder with every year that passes, but is something that every big civilization will need in the future without a doubt) |
05:14pm 10/04/13 Permalink
hey cool a couple of hundred posts from people about politics again. okay, it might be the first thing in your life time that does, there was the snowy mt hydro scheme, the sydney habour bridge and many others that required forethought using the sydney habour bridge as an example to help explain the difference the libs plan looks at how much of the net we need now, and they feel that 25mbs is okay now, which is pretty much true so, it would be like building the bridge with 2 lanes each way, after all, it is much cheaper to build a four lane bridge, and they'll have a little extra space for a walking lane on one side, all the cars will pay the same toll, so it will be fine labor is looking at what is going to be easest to expand not just short term, but long term it is like how the bridge was done, at first all the traffic (3lanes each way) and two train lines, later the bridge expanded the traffic it could handle, and it is now 4 lanes each way, plus train line, and ample walkway/cycle way, we all know that the internet has expanded massivelly in the last 15 years, and we dont know what the requirements are going to be in 15years time, however FTTH (which is fibre to the home) has the room to expand, and lower overall overheads once in place FTTN (or fibre to the node) would be fibre going to an exchange where it would then use the current copper network and all of the current issues with said network would still be there (water in the pits degrading the service, lack of ports, and speed drops with distance) and while yes there have been some advances in how other places use copper, it is all about extending life, they all know it will need to be replaced, and currently many countrys just cant do it yet, but they will |
05:24pm 10/04/13 Permalink
Unless you're 80+ years old the Sydney Harbour Bridge wasn't really in your lifetime either, copuis.
|
05:31pm 10/04/13 Permalink
adsl 2 - kind of s*** really considering how close to the exchange I am
http://www.speedtest.net/result/2635546301.png nbn "50/20" http://www.speedtest.net/result/2635552321.png |
05:33pm 10/04/13 Permalink
pffft, who needs the sydney harbour bridge anyway!
|
05:34pm 10/04/13 Permalink
nbn "50/20" lulz, maybe the government should just all pay for us to have 4g dongles!? http://www.speedtest.net/result/2635561964.png |
05:44pm 10/04/13 Permalink
the nbn is ambitious and far reaching and i absolutely support it. the liberals stance on it is so naive that i will be sick and disappointed before i tick the ballot box. f*** the liberals on this matter and good on labor for looking to the future. but f*** them for literally everything else. don't worry you wil laugh with irony when the NBN technology is surpassed by other technologies that haven't even been thought of yet within the next 15 years. it's amazing how conservative and in love with the current standard tech-geeks are when usually they are wanting and waiting for the new new thing. this will be the new new thing for a few years then all the same old copper complaints will be out in fuill force again. |
05:47pm 10/04/13 Permalink
http://www.speedtest.net/result/2635570383.png
well, i'm at the edge of adsl2, and this is the sort of speed common at this hour of the day well, we all know I suck at this (basic html), but it is 1.67 up, 0.83 down |
05:51pm 10/04/13 Permalink
don't worry you wil laugh with irony when the NBN technology is surpassed by other technologies that haven't even been thought of yet within the next 15 years. maybe, but the audacity and the intent is to be respected. it really is a step to the future. it might be wrong, but honestly, a government looking to affect something beyond their 'term' is admirable and imo deserves respect. |
05:58pm 10/04/13 Permalink
a government looking to affect something beyond their 'term' is admirable and imo deserves respect. unless you're on the other team then you tell everyone it is wrong, no matter what |
06:02pm 10/04/13 Permalink
even if its the best thing this country has ever done.
|
06:15pm 10/04/13 Permalink
unless you're on the other team then you tell everyone it is wrong, no matter what i f*****g hate that this mentality exists. that someone might 'vote labor' or 'vote liberal' just because it's like religion at its worst. |
06:19pm 10/04/13 Permalink
Infi, I highly doubt fibre is going to be outdated any time in the near future. Sure Intel may be testing cabling using light but that will be a long time before it's actually usable. Honestly, what people should be doing is considering everything as a whole here, in that who will be the offering something that will give our country the chance to actually compete in technology, and offer citizens the best they can get at an affordable price.
As Ha said, a government should be looking at ensuring the country is somewhat future proof and its kind of disheartening that Coalition aren't doing this. We know what is going to happen if their NBN gets put in and we know how much it is going to cost, but it seems the Coalition can't say "well Labour's NBN plan is actually good, lets see if we can stick to it but cheapen it/rollout quicker." |
07:00pm 10/04/13 Permalink
don't worry you wil laugh with irony when the NBN technology is surpassed by other technologies that haven't even been thought of yet within the next 15 years.Why bother building anything when in 15 years time magic will be discovered and we can just make up whatever hypothetical bulls*** we want with a wave of our dildo wands in hopes it will make our piss poor policies look better in the present? Liberals have lost my vote, they've been on a downward slide for me for a while and this has pretty much sealed the deal. No way I'm voting for a government that is proud of a policy which is effectively farting away $30B, regardless of how much Labors NBN will cost at least there will be actual meaningful improvements to our infrastructure at the end of it. |
07:07pm 10/04/13 Permalink
What will the Coalition do besides dismantle/butcher a bunch of stuff? Why can't they just agree the FttP is a good idea, well done labor. I'm sure people would react far better to the Coalition if they just fkn stopped attacking anything and everything for the sole purpose of bring labor down as opposed to 'Moving Australia Forward'.
|
07:33pm 10/04/13 Permalink
What will the Coalition do besides dismantle/butcher a bunch of stuff? Why can't they just agree the FttP is a good idea, well done labor. I'm sure people would react far better to the Coalition if they just fkn stopped attacking anything and everything for the sole purpose of bring labor down as opposed to 'Moving Australia Forward'. 'But... we're the opposition.... we're supposed to oppose...' |
07:53pm 10/04/13 Permalink
They could simply get up and say:
"The NBN is slipping on it's rollout targets and if it keeps on going like this it'll be a f*****g long time before we get to 12M premises connected. The coalition's policy is to thoroughly review NBN Co management structure with a view to ensure that the rollout tendering process isn't rorted and Australians are getting value for money in the network they're paying for" instead of deciding to change FttP/FttN horses mid-race. |
07:59pm 10/04/13 Permalink
speed test is not that acurate
my modem says 19.5 and 1.7 and thats what i normally get when i use torrents or any other downloading uploading program but the max i can get on speedtest.net is this [URL=http://www.speedtest.net][IMG]http://www.speedtest.net/result/2635758975.png[/IMG][/URL] |
08:01pm 10/04/13 Permalink
08:06pm 10/04/13 Permalink
Where can I vote for you Dazhel?
|
08:09pm 10/04/13 Permalink
don't worry you wil laugh with irony when the NBN technology is surpassed by other technologies that haven't even been thought of yet within the next 15 years.it's amazing how conservative and in love with the current standard tech-geeks are when usually they are wanting and waiting for the new new thing.this will be the new new thing for a few years then all the same old copper complaints will be out in fuill force again. Yeah something that can go faster than the speed of light through glass, which is flexible enough to go around corners and be put into buildings. I can totally see that happening in 15 years. F*****g hell. |
08:42pm 10/04/13 Permalink
I couldn't run because of my compulsive tendency to use the F word in policy speeches.
|
08:46pm 10/04/13 Permalink
I couldn't run because of my compulsive tendency to use the F word in policy speeches. That's half the appeal in the first place though :P I'd love to see an elected official get up and say something like "Yo, f*** those other parties, they're douche-bags". |
09:05pm 10/04/13 Permalink
What will the Coalition do besides dismantle/butcher a bunch of stuff? a) the ALP's key plank of their NBN policy is dismantling a bunch of stuff (existing perfectly functional copper network) b) the Coalition's policy is not to dismantle anything, they are keeping the NBNCo and rolling out a different technology. c) the Coalition is actually encouraging competiton by allowing existing ADSL providers to compete with the NBN for those consumers that don't want or need an NBN speed product.
I was reading today in one of the private investment newsletters I subscribe to about technology that will enable any LED device (yes including street lights, and elevisions) to become wifi transmitters. So yeah, who knows whats coming around the corner. It would be short-sighted to make a $40b-$90b++ gamble on something with the rate broadband technology is evolving at the moment. edit: http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/chinese-scientists-demonstrate-2mbps-internet-connection-over-le/ |
09:05pm 10/04/13 Permalink
Who knows what will happen in 15 years. I'm pretty sure the chances of a technology that outperforms fiber at 1gbs at a reasonable cost and achieves commercial production within 15 years to be pretty slim at the moment. I'd rather have my FttP and eventual 1gbs within 3 years instead of waiting 15 years for maybe something better then my quick to be outdated 25mbs..
|
09:10pm 10/04/13 Permalink
But Infi, while the Coalition isn't dismantling anything, they aren't going that extra mile but instead relying on technology that is now "dated" and will cost more to replace in the future. What is the point of doing the job halfway when it would be more beneficial to complete it fully? While it is nice that their plan is offering a cheaper solution, its an inferior one because they are relying on technology that we know will need to be replaced in 10 years time. What is the point of spending all this money when you are going to have to do it all again later?
Or is that just the Coalition's usual policy? Half-ass and hope the next party to get into government can foot the bill/fix the problems? |
09:33pm 10/04/13 Permalink
Who knows what will happen in 15 years. I'm going to live in a colony on Mars. Which plan will allow me to get my torrents up there? |
09:33pm 10/04/13 Permalink
Or is that just the Coalition's usual policy? Half-ass and hope the next party to get into government can foot the bill/fix the problems? guess we'll let the voters decide... I'm going to live in a colony on Mars. did you just happen to watch Total Recall by any chance? |
09:40pm 10/04/13 Permalink
http://generatormeme.com/media/created/047fed.jpg pix or it didn't happen. as for speedtest, it's probably hosted on a slow box :) |
11:38pm 10/04/13 Permalink
guess we'll let the voters decide... IMO voters decided at the last election. Also I beleive the broadband policy was the only reason that kept LNP out of office at the last election Tony Winsor even stated this was his main reason for defecting. |
01:07am 11/04/13 Permalink
http://www.speedtest.net/result/2635570383.pngwell, i'm at the edge of adsl2, and this is the sort of speed common at this hour of the daywell, we all know I suck at this (basic html), but it is 1.67 up, 0.83 down We're like brothers, f*** our lives :( |
01:17am 11/04/13 Permalink
I'm going to live in a colony on Mars. Which plan will allow me to get my torrents up there? What they need to do is put a ton of servers on mars (with dust filters, obvious) that leech 24/7. You can use the boxes for heating and they won't require super large amounts of cooling (Average temp is like -63 celcius) and you'll have a mini internet for mars :) Though it'd be a long wait for the midnight releases of games, I'd totally be down for a trip to Mars if they had that cranking :P |
02:27am 11/04/13 Permalink
We get cheap as chips 24mb ADSL2 in residential here, speeds are generally 20-24mb download range anywhere.
I thought Aus had good connectivity, no? |
04:11am 11/04/13 Permalink
Yes Viper but you live on that backwater island across the channel :) I'm not on fiber personnaly but on a docis3 connection at 120mbit. All of the newer areas are being built with fiber as default.
I agree why rip out technology that isnt up to speed if its already there. Only replace it if its absolutely necesary. That being said back in Aus theres lots of crappy exchange points where even decent dsl isnt possible. |
04:29am 11/04/13 Permalink
a) the ALP's key plank of their NBN policy is dismantling a bunch of stuff (existing perfectly functional copper network) Thats a joke - our copper network is awful: http://www.adsl2exchanges.com.au/heatmap-state.php?State=QLD https://www.google.com.au/search?q=pair+gained+telstra&aq=f&oq=pair+gained+telstra |
04:38am 11/04/13 Permalink
Does anybody know whether:
The Coalition proposal requires retaining a phone line and the current ~$30 per month cost that comes with it? The Coalition cost comparisons take into account that phone line fee? |
06:12am 11/04/13 Permalink
Pave what's that cost you through iinet?
Does that speed fluctuate at all? Seems strange to me that it isn't like 49/19 ? Mine is always 93/5.6 with about 2% variance tops |
08:40am 11/04/13 Permalink
Do either of the plans include ongoing maintenance costs? It never seems to be reported for both sides?
|
08:44am 11/04/13 Permalink
Thats a joke - our copper network is awful: Yeah, go away from Brisbane and look at that amazing coverage. |
08:50am 11/04/13 Permalink
@Trog,
The high speed rail study for Australia comes out today i think. http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/highspeed-rail-link-would-be-viable-20130410-2hlqa.html |
09:29am 11/04/13 Permalink
We get cheap as chips 24mb ADSL2 in residential here, speeds are generally 20-24mb download range anywhere.I thought Aus had good connectivity, no? nope, if you notice my speed test, i'm like slower than 50% of people is Oz, that means in effect (being that I am middle range) my s*** speed is infact average! |
03:17pm 11/04/13 Permalink
I'm going to live in a colony on Mars. Which plan will allow me to get my torrents up there? Hm, well, data transfer between MSL and Odyssey is between 2Mbit and 256kbit, but Odyssey only gets around 32kbps back to Earth. I don't know you'd want to be running a torrent box over a 32kbit connection that's only available for about 8 minutes per day. |
03:28pm 11/04/13 Permalink
Hm, well, data transfer between MSL and Odyssey is between 2Mbit and 256kbit, but Odyssey only gets around 32kbps back to Earth. Dude, havn't you heard? Wifi is the future. We don't need fibre. We'll be getting 123525tb/sec with wifi to Mars. |
04:57pm 11/04/13 Permalink
i am raging right now at how long its taking to upload my family holiday snaps to facebook and upload all my torrents.
totes unacceptable. |
05:11pm 11/04/13 Permalink
The whole debate that's been brought ony by the Coalition plan hails back to the old underground copper vs. overhead telephone line with switches and all.
Back then copper was the logical step up for the nation as opposed to the overhead telephone line which involved switches. Copper lasted us over fifty years. Now we are looking at a similar debate with dated copper cables and vastly superior optical fibre cable. The Coalitions plan involves fibre to your local relay and the current dated copper wiring the rest the way to your premise. I think the reality we will be faced with is this… we will have to pay for the last mile of optical fibre to our house. It’s interesting because Turnbull’s plan opens up avenues for his corporate telco mates to capitalize majorly from this. Small businesses, public institutions and ordinary consumers will most likely be paying vastly more amounts of money for this service as opposed to NBN co being the sole provider of the last mile of fibre to your house and having a fixed standard price. It's a scary after thought but it could well be reality if the Coalition gets power. It's effectively part privatisation of NBN.co done covertly. |
07:07am 12/04/13 Permalink
My telstra cable (because i'm on a RIM so couldn't get ADSL2 because already too many others did) isn't too bad. Just expensive.
http://www.speedtest.net/result/2639505312.png |
07:11am 12/04/13 Permalink
Comments on whirlpool seem to indicate that the Coalition alternative will still incur the Telstra line rental fee, which means that their pricing comparison is missing about $30 on their side.
Additionally, apparently none of the to the node equipment is reusable for the inevitable upgrade to fibre to the home, so it just looks cheaper now when it will really cost more a few years later. |
07:47am 12/04/13 Permalink
Soooo much FUD in this whole debate. It's like give us fibre or kill us!
|
08:16am 12/04/13 Permalink
if the coalition wins, our future network will be s***.
The fibre network is only as fast as its slowest component, so going from fibre to copper at peoples houses will give them no more speed that what they have at the moment. |
08:18am 12/04/13 Permalink
if the coalition wins, our future network will be s***. Yeah but its cheaper so it must be better! Also telstra still gets to rip people on a phone line charge so its win win for big business. |
09:44am 12/04/13 Permalink
http://www.independentaustralia.net/Wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/FTTH.jpg
Coalition unveils high-speed rail plan. “It might not be as fast as Labor’s plan, but it’s cheaper and will be built sooner,” says Tony Abbott. BTW I win the thread. |
11:42am 12/04/13 Permalink
Comments on whirlpool seem to indicate that the Coalition alternative will still incur the Telstra line rental fee, which means that their pricing comparison is missing about $30 on their side.Additionally, apparently none of the to the node equipment is reusable for the inevitable upgrade to fibre to the home, so it just looks cheaper now when it will really cost more a few years later. I get confused with this statement (not saying it isn't true) but the Coalition is claiming individuals will be able to upgrade their house to fibre if the want, if they can do that then how come the government can't do all the housed supplied by the node later without reworking the node? |
11:42am 12/04/13 Permalink
Because you need a node capable of both fibre and VDSL (which means powered) which means more space, line cards are usually in multiples so you get to a point where there is not enought space to swap copper users to fibre without a second node or swapping all users over($$$$)
Additionally FTTN needs to be tightly manage around multiple lines, where as fibre gives you 4 sevices to a single strand and I believe there are 2 strands in to each home so scales so much better than FTTN. Overall short sighted lower price, long term exponential increase in cost. |
11:52am 12/04/13 Permalink
http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2013/04/10/1226617/322803-cheaoper-nbn-plan-meme.gif
How cartoonist David Pope from News Ltd saw the NBN plan. (Image courtesy news.com.au) |
12:00pm 12/04/13 Permalink
Additionally, apparently none of the to the node equipment is reusable for the inevitable upgrade to fibre to the home, so it just looks cheaper now when it will really cost more a few years later. I think that would really depend on what FTTN gear they were using. If upgrading to FTTH/FTTP was always on the cards then it stands to reason that they would deploy gear that can do that task also down the track, after all it has existed as far back as 2010. link |
02:26pm 12/04/13 Permalink
Because you need a node capable of both fibre and VDSL (which means powered) which means more space, line cards are usually in multiples so you get to a point where there is not enought space to swap copper users to fibre without a second node or swapping all users over($$$$) Ahh so it is a matter of space in the node, which means I could try to upgrade to fibre and they say "opps sorry that node is at full capacity for fibre your stuck on copper" which would be seriously weak! |
02:39pm 12/04/13 Permalink
http://www.abc.net.au/technology/articles/2013/02/21/3695094.htm
Pretty damn comprehensive write up on why liberals nbn plan is complete s***. He even mentions THE COPPER NETWORK. (hint: it's in a complete s*** house state and a complete dead end tech wise) |
03:14pm 12/04/13 Permalink
Ahh so it is a matter of space in the node, which means I could try to upgrade to fibre and they say "opps sorry that node is at full capacity for fibre your stuck on copper" which would be seriously weak! Yes it leaves us where we are now where upgrades to fttp for some could potentially become commercial decisions similar to the issue now with congested DSLAMs, RIMs only capable of 8mbit, but instead there will be 60,000 of these points of contention littering the streets Amusingly you still run fibre past 90% of the houses anyway to build the nodes, so why not just go straight to FTTP, the ongoing cost of copper maintaince, power (FTTP fdu nodes are passive and require no power), batteries is just not worth it. I have ADSL2 ATM with 24mbit sync, when I download I pull down max speed, and I'm pretty happy with this speed. Do I still want NBN? He'll yes because i believe we need to bring the national cumnications network upto scratch and I have no faith in the copper network to deliver beyond 5-10years with how Telstra invests in maintaince of it and is locked down by ACCC. This infrastructure being owned by the government is how Telsta should of been sold off years ago. 7+ year Telstra employee who manhugs for NBN. My house begins getting its NBN deployment in May to July, so regardless of what happens at the election I will have my NBN, but I cannot stress enough at how much this needs to be a national network it is not a matter of "I got it, too bad for the rest", this is one of the few times in history where an infrastructure project will set our country on the path to decades of reliable and increasing affordability and parity of communications access to all. |
03:59pm 12/04/13 Permalink
http://www.abc.net.au/technology/articles/2013/02/21/3695094.htmNow now, we can't be making sense in here. |
04:54pm 12/04/13 Permalink
Do I still want NBN? He'll yes I don't even particularly want the NBN, since I'm currently lazily content with getting a lucky >1 MB/s download, I just don't want the coalition to put in a s***tier more-expensive-in-the-long-run thing to make a political 'win' in the short term. |
05:16pm 12/04/13 Permalink
I don't even particularly want the NBN, since I'm currently lazily content with getting a lucky >1 MB/s download, I just don't want the coalition to put in a s***tier more-expensive-in-the-long-run thing to make a political 'win' in the short term. I too am happy enough with the speed of my internets http://speedtest.net/result/2640302406.png |
05:33pm 12/04/13 Permalink
Speed is of the essence in this project!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-11/clarke-and-dawe-a-very-smooth-presentation/4622942 |
05:39pm 12/04/13 Permalink
From 2003... Telstra will axe copper network.
Telstra's manager of regulatory strategy, Tony Warren, gave the Senate broadband inquiry details of the company's problems with its ageing copper network. |
08:26pm 12/04/13 Permalink
http://www.independentaustralia.net/Wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/AbbottTheHabbit.jpg
Sydney Morning Herald cartoonist Alan Moir’s incisive take on Tony Abbott’s lifelong ambition. |
08:48pm 12/04/13 Permalink
From 2003... Telstra will axe copper network.And yet he wants to buy their last roll of copper. What more can this genius think of? |
08:53pm 12/04/13 Permalink
And yet he wants to buy their last roll of copper. What more can this genius think of? Abbots new sound bite "Internet speeds will always be lower under a Coalition Government." |
09:25pm 12/04/13 Permalink
And just like miners are wringing more productivity out of spent gold and oil mines with new technology, so too are extracting more life out of the copper network. Not really that amazing.
|
09:53pm 12/04/13 Permalink
Putting the copper network on a respirator and pumping its chest yelling "Come on last until just after the election!" isn't extracting more life out of it it is nothing but prolonging its death.
|
11:20pm 12/04/13 Permalink
^ It's seemingly worse that they're throwing away money on the copper network, which won't last long, just to say that they're doing it 'cheaper' in lack of foresight land.
|
04:47am 13/04/13 Permalink
And just like miners are wringing more productivity out of spent gold and oil mines with new technology, so too are extracting more life out of the copper network. Not really that amazing. not really, they are wringing more and more out of mine that were once deemed unprofitable, when they were mining X and the sale price was $20, they called the mine spent, because the cost to mine it was $19 but now that the sale price is $60, it makes more sence so it infact has sweet f*** all to do with technology (after all, there hasn't been much improvement in blowing holes in the ground) |
06:45am 13/04/13 Permalink
What the coalition should do is accept FttP is the way forward and work out a deal with Google Fibre to build in cities. Google can pay for the majority of city work, whilst the government extends the network into rural areas that Google wont cover themselves. Surly that would save heaps of cash, letting a private company take the brunt of the costs (and later profits) whilst also servicing the areas where google just wont go....
|
03:26pm 13/04/13 Permalink
I'd prefer an Australian owned company to do it though.
|
04:17pm 13/04/13 Permalink
04:29pm 13/04/13 Permalink
What the coalition should do is accept FttP is the way forward and work out a deal with Google Fibre to build in cities.That would be a quicker death than their current plan. Lets hand over a fiber monopoly to a foreign company that also happens to be the worlds biggest spy agency. People seem to think google does s*** out of the kindness of their heart but they do it for your private information, this isn't even a secrete, advertising based off information they have gleaned from your internet use is their main revenue source. It's hard enough to do anything on the internet without google knowing about it, if they were your ISP you can kiss your privacy goodbye. They can't do any deal with any private company anyway, purely because it would be anti-competitive. If they did a deal with telstra to build the fttp in major cities while the government covered the rest it would mean that other ISP's would be at the mercy of telstra's pricing (like they are now, which is one of the reasons for the NBN in the first place). |
05:18pm 13/04/13 Permalink
If they did a deal with telstra to build the fttp in major cities while the government covered the rest it would mean that other ISP's would be at the mercy of telstra's pricing (like they are now, which is one of the reasons for the NBN in the first place). LNPs Fraudband keeps Telstra in the same monopoly, this is why it has to be FTTP. |
08:23pm 13/04/13 Permalink
Smashing it out on copper at 2.1 Mbps today.
everyone in my area must be out enjoying the sun cause this is fast for me. I had a Youtube video that didn't catch up to the little grey status bar, winner!! (ok it was only SD) |
01:05pm 14/04/13 Permalink
well, i'm jelly of morts speed atm
|
04:10pm 14/04/13 Permalink
i would be upturning tables at all venues if i had cm's first world porblems.
|
04:21pm 14/04/13 Permalink
back to normal *sigh was enjoying my own personal NBN there for a while
http://www.speedtest.net/result/2644648924.png |
06:27pm 14/04/13 Permalink
08:21pm 14/04/13 Permalink
Tell us why that is all wrong mr noalition infi
I am sure you can tell us why it is all wrong |
07:48am 15/04/13 Permalink
Pave it's simple. It isn't a Coalition plan, so it is pretty wrong. From the way Infi speaks it seems he will never vote for anything but Coalition :/
|
08:17am 15/04/13 Permalink
Does anyone else get the impression that the Coalition are introducing this laughably bad NBN alternative and quoting some ridiculous number for Labor's plan so that when they get elected they can just say "welp, looks like Labor's plan has progressed too far to turn back now so looks like we'll have to build it. Good news however, it's not going to cost $90 billion dollars"?
|
09:10am 15/04/13 Permalink
Pave it's simple. It isn't a Coalition plan, so it is pretty wrong. From the way Infi speaks it seems he will never vote for anything but Coalition :/ He's a high ranking whatsit in the queensland liberal party. Not a politician, just an officially registered fan. |
12:08pm 15/04/13 Permalink
i can see how the costs are so high with all the incompetent companies that are getting subbied in to do the work.
Who the f*** installs a new 100mm pipe run that goes through 4x 90 degree bends and some 45's to go 55metres? So much wasted money at the moment. |
12:15pm 15/04/13 Permalink
There's no need to for me to debate FTTH anymore because it won't be happening.
I look forward a) to all the indignant whingeing over the Coalition's "third world" "fraudband" blah blah blah, and b) to getting faster broadband to my businesses that don't rate a mention on NBNCo's plans at the moment. |
12:22pm 15/04/13 Permalink
There's no need to for me to debate FTTH anymore because it won't be happening. I look forward a) to all the indignant whingeing over the Coalition's "third world" "fraudband" blah blah blah, and b) to getting faster broadband to my businesses that don't rate a mention on NBNCo's plans at the moment. Ok. Now what about those of us complaining about the coalition's apparent wasteful spending to score political points. Do you think that it's a good investment to buy all of the FTTN boxes which go on every streetcorner (the size of two fridges), which will be thrown away in a few years if we're going to continue the trend of technological and economic growth in Australia? Why spend money on that when you could buy the inevitable fibre optic straight up? (which allows far higher speeds in the future, just by changing the end routers, 1 gigabit-per-second plans will be available next year for example). How about continuing to pay to maintain the copper network? Paying the power bill on the FTTN boxes which FTTH wouldn't need? It's like not building a bridge yet because you can buy more ferries, which are inevitably going to have to be thrown away anyway, fuelled, maintained, aren't as good, and are just a wasteful investment when the bridge is still going to be built in the long term. |
12:32pm 15/04/13 Permalink
I look forward to Infi's rage when his business has no internet because people have cracked open the 'Node' for the tasty expensive batteries inside.. again..
|
12:50pm 15/04/13 Permalink
There's no need to for me to debate FTTH anymore because it won't be happening. Oh f***, I really, really hope the Coalition's s*****, low value broadband policy sinks their campaign - just so that smug tone gets smashed out of your f*****g posts. Its a long way to September and you're going to be insufferable the whole way. Another 3 years of Joolia would be worth it for NBN + your wailing. |
12:59pm 15/04/13 Permalink
I liked the bit where Hogfather thought a broadband policy would determine the election...
|
01:10pm 15/04/13 Permalink
I liked the bit where Hogfather thought a broadband policy would determine the election... Hahaha, it's amusing isn't it? it had no effect on the 2010 election another 3 years of Ghoulie would be a nightmare for the whole country. |
01:12pm 15/04/13 Permalink
Are you going to answer my question infi, or just circle jerk over political rhetoric with door?
|
01:15pm 15/04/13 Permalink
I liked the bit where Hogfather thought a broadband policy would determine the election... Considering it is something that will determine how our country will grow; either with fast-speed broadband that will help nurture a technology-equipped country or a slight increase in what we have today and the eventual re-design that could have been avoided by taking FTTP. Either way, I'd say it is pretty high up there in terms of determining an election. |
01:15pm 15/04/13 Permalink
Do you think that it's a good investment to buy all of the FTTN boxes which go on every streetcorner (the size of two fridges), which will be thrown away in a few years if we're going to continue the trend of technological and economic growth in Australia? Why spend money on that when you could buy the inevitable fibre optic straight up? yes I am fine with that, and happy to wait for the next new technology. this is fast and cheap way to rollout broadband in the burbs. if someone wants FTTH they can pay for it. |
01:18pm 15/04/13 Permalink
I liked the bit where Hogfather thought a broadband policy would determine the election... Hoped, not thought. Considering it is something that will determine how our country will grow; either with fast-speed broadband that will help nurture a technology-equipped country or a slight increase in what we have today and the eventual re-design that could have been avoided by taking FTTP. Either way, I'd say it is pretty high up there in terms of determining an election. Its a sign of how piss poor this election is. Broadband policy is a big deal ... but even with their retarded, shortsighted copper-league NBN policy and their total f*****g muppet of an alternative PM they'll s*** it in anyway! They don't even have to give a s*** about good policy. There has never been a worse set of choices for Australians IMO. |
01:21pm 15/04/13 Permalink
yes I am fine with that, and happy to wait for the next new technology.And what new technology is that? Saying we should hold off because in 15 years there might be something better is dumb. In 15 years when the better thing comes along (if it does) why wouldn't you just say then to hold off for another 15 years because something even better might come along? Is there even something on the horizon that may be a better solution than fibre optic in 15 years? |
01:21pm 15/04/13 Permalink
yes I am fine with that, and happy to wait for the next new technology. this is fast and cheap way to rollout broadband in the burbs. if someone wants FTTH they can pay for it. So you are happy with gaining slight increase to current average speeds when we know for a fact that we will have to spend MORE money to gain what is currently under-development? How does that make logical sense? |
01:23pm 15/04/13 Permalink
This is one of those threads where infi could have fooled us into thinking he is a rational functional human being by going 'well I am an LNP supporter, but by golly their internet plan sure is terrible... Labor have the better option this time around'.
|
01:25pm 15/04/13 Permalink
yeah it's a shame really,
also sucks i am now stuck in the future in aspley and can't leave the suburb because i will have to suffer the noalitions backwards alternative if i move somewhere else oh wait, they will have created a magical new alternative that is cheaper than fibre optic cable by then - lul Is there even something on the horizon that may be a better solution than fibre optic in 15 years? i'd highly doubt it, not anything worth holding off on upgrading to optic fibre now for but it is an easy throw away line for noalition supporters to use it's akin to 'we'll worry about it later' really |
01:28pm 15/04/13 Permalink
Is there even something on the horizon that may be a better solution than fibre optic in 15 years? Very unlikely. Its either pay to lay new wires (be they copper or fibre) to the houses or hope that magic over-the-air internet fixes everything. Wireless to the rescue for main-use broadband is about as likely as quantum entanglement devices, ie, its science fiction. Even if we can squeeze a few more years out of s***** copper lots of it is rotting and needs replacing anyway ... which means more lines to the houses, and paying to lay more copper in 2020 for broadband is the 100% stupidest idea on the planet. The cost of the build is in the labour, and we are going to pay that regardless as the network doesn't and can't last forever. This is one of those threads where infi could have fooled us into thinking he is a rational functional human being by going 'well I am an LNP supporter, but by golly their internet plan sure is terrible... Labor have the better option this time around'. Its what is so infuriating. No shortcoming of LNP exists it seems, and no ALP plan can have any merit, ever. |
01:28pm 15/04/13 Permalink
I am not happy with the speed or the cost performance of the NBN Co to date and want a faster cheaper solution. Nor do I have any faith at all in the NBN Co's costing. Their earliest performances have indicated cost blowouts, and all of the ALP's make work projects to date have also resulted in cost blowouts.
|
01:32pm 15/04/13 Permalink
infi, once fibre optics are in place, the upgrades in speed are gained by changing the end routers, not the fibres. Granted they can maybe get a little bit faster, but at a current ~80% the speed of light, they're not the limiting factor and won't be for a very long time.
And if you support waiting until the next new technology comes along, why are you supporting the coalition building their's now? It's because it comes from the "right" party isn't it? |
01:32pm 15/04/13 Permalink
This is one of those threads where infi could have fooled us into thinking he is a rational functional human being by going 'well I am an LNP supporter, but by golly their internet plan sure is terrible... Labor have the better option this time around'. Well said. Labor's implementation of their plan has some glaring flaws, but the coalition's plan is a disaster for the future. It'd make more sense for them to scrap the build completely than to spend 30 billion dollars just to bring blackspot premises up to par with current ADSL speeds. |
01:34pm 15/04/13 Permalink
why are you supporting the coalition building their's now? he isn't, he is one of these noalition fundies who think the whole thing should be built by private companies - as if there is a company even b ig enough in aus to do that but he either toes the party line or /exit's this thread i guess the noalition had to provide something because after all it was 'voted on' last election, they know better than to come out say they want to s***can the whole nbn if they win the next election because it probably would turn into an election losing topic for them ps. noalition - it is so fitting |
01:41pm 15/04/13 Permalink
I thought the collation was building some NBN because there are contracts in place now that they can't back out of, or at least not easily.
The Telstra shutdown is a done deal as far as I'm aware. |
01:46pm 15/04/13 Permalink
How do you pronounce 'noalition'? I am assuming 'no-al-ish-an' but I am confused about what an alition is and why they don't have any.
|
01:46pm 15/04/13 Permalink
I am not happy with the speed or the cost performance of the NBN Co to date and want a faster cheaper solution. Nor do I have any faith at all in the NBN Co's costing. Their earliest performances have indicated cost blowouts, and all of the ALP's make work projects to date have also resulted in cost blowouts.You aren't going to get anything better then what the current NBN is offering. Seriously if you think the Coalition plan of utilising 30 year old tech is good, you should probably stick to corded phones. Copper is out dated, it is as simple as that. Fibre offers up to 1GB/s, something 50 other countries are also implementing. It won't get better then a GIGABYTE A SECOND for a very long time. I can understand supporting other Coalition promises, because they make sense(ish) but this doesn't. They are wanting to use copper, an out-dated and now defunct technology that the rest of the world is trying to get out of. Sure it will be "quicker" to lay down, but you are gaining little speed increase for the billions of dollars spent. Factor in the cost of ripping that newly placed copper that is being bought from Telstra (lol) to then place in fibre and you have one of the most absurd plans for national broadband ever. Sure you can "get" fibre by buying it on the Coalition's plans, but why should we when the Labour's NBN can do it for free? Denouncing the entire plan because "something better will come in the future" is like saying "I'm not buying a car because hovering cars will be here soon." |
01:54pm 15/04/13 Permalink
Isn't it a bit ironic that Infi is wanting higher bandwidth/speed broadband for his business now but wants to replace it with something that is adequate for his needs now and a little into the future. With the hopes that it will be upgradable at a reasonable cost for government in roughly 5 years time.
He sites that the labor plan is too costly and surpasses his current need now and will keep his bandwidth requirements into the future well stocked. Never mind that telehealth services are expected to be a strong growth area particularly for the elderly (of which he is in the business of servicing). Also keep in mind technologies such as reasonable affordable noninvasive diagnostic equipment is close to the horizon (thanks X-Prize foundation) all of which will require data transmission both ways, who knows how much data.. All we know from past history is roughly what the needs will be in future. NBN Co is also expected to have a rate of return on investment of 7%, so at the point in the future where Infi wants to upgrade his nations broadband capacity he wants to be forking out more $'s, whilst NBN Co will be earning $'s. We have research equipment here (UQ) that generates gigabytes of data in a short amount of time. Manipulating that data in realtime remotely wouldn't work so well. Not all researchers and staff work in the University. A strong point of Australian economy is our education and services, we have the capacity to build further on this and doing so will include having national access to a high bandwidth network, of which is most likely exponentially more useful the more it penetrates into every dwelling in Australia. |
01:56pm 15/04/13 Permalink
Fibre offers up to 1GB/s, something 50 other countries are also implementing. It won't get better then a GIGABYTE A SECOND for a very long time. ^ Gigabit is the next planned upgrade speed, available on NBN fibre next year I believe. Divide bits by 8 to get bytes. 1Gbps ~= 125 MBs. (still f*****g amazing) |
01:58pm 15/04/13 Permalink
So I went to look into this coalition nbn policy thing....
http://i.imgur.com/fW2WbsN.png LOLs aside, here's something I want to know. The Coalition's NBN is going to cost 30B, right? Does this get paid back to the government like the NBN pays itself back? |
01:59pm 15/04/13 Permalink
There's no need to for me to debate FTTH anymore because it won't be happening. I look forward a) to all the indignant whingeing over the Coalition's "third world" "fraudband" blah blah blah, and b) to getting faster broadband to my businesses that don't rate a mention on NBNCo's plans at the moment. er, FTTH HAS ALREADY HAPPENED so your first point is a fail the libs are preaching a 3rd world option, BECAUSE THAT IS THE SORT OF PLAN 3RD WORLDS ARE ROLLING OUT!!! |
02:03pm 15/04/13 Permalink
Toll the articles about telehealth are all hype that stuff doesn't really get used except in remote areas - sick people like to be touched by real human beings and Medicare pays accordingly.
I would be fine if I could just access with an 8/8 line for each of my services to run VOIP and VPN. If more was needed it would be to serve out internet to my residents on a commercial basis so a) the cost would be passed onto the consumers and b) I would happily pay for an infrastructure upgrade from the node. When I wanted Natural Gas run to my site at Merrimac I had to pay the gas company $20,000 because they don't run NGTTH, it's only NGTTN. |
02:07pm 15/04/13 Permalink
Well Hogfather, you need to add on to the cost of that 30B the inevitable upgrade in 5-10 years time. Plus all the outsources of maintenance costs of the high maintenance copper wire to Telstra. Keep in mind that the maintenance of fiber optic cable is significantly cheaper and less labour intensive than copper.
Also remember that the current copper network is highly susceptible to interference and complete failure during wet weather condition, particularly the connections in the pits that services premises, the very same pits that the Coalitions plans to continue using whilst fiber optic cable is unaffected by wet weather. |
02:08pm 15/04/13 Permalink
Well the Coalition hasn't really said much about it and the media isn't reporting on it being paid back. So I would assume it does not.
|
02:11pm 15/04/13 Permalink
Just to be clear I'm quite upset with Labor's plan to take money away from Universities (directly and indirectly) to pay for per-tertiary education. That is something I'll also strongly consider leading up to the election. Who I'm voting for isn't set in stone at all.
On a quick inspection it may be that Coalitions plan as similar revenue projections as labor. However both sides are failing to detail the expected on going maintenance costs.. |
02:15pm 15/04/13 Permalink
Labor has been desperately whipping out these "Shuffle policies" as i like to call them. Where they rip money out of somewhere to announce a new policy that might get them a few extra votes come September, but it always backfires because the public then get angry about the money that was ripped out of the other area.
Not to mention their constant attempts at trying to get states to pay for no policies that states simply don't have the money for. |
02:23pm 15/04/13 Permalink
When I wanted Natural Gas run to my site at Merrimac I had to pay the gas company $20,000 because they don't run NGTTH, it's only NGTTN. NGTTN would be like bottles, NGTTH would be like having the line run outside your house, giving you the choice I have NGTTH, it cost $2000 because the line is right outside the house, and as such I have limitless gas, FTTH is pretty much the same, except during the roll out, NBN co is subbing the cost to the home (if I opt in later, I will no doubt bear the cost of installing NBN into the home) , I can choose to stay on my crappy ADSL 2 line (which will not improve if the do FTTN, yet if there is FTTN, I get no choice and the price will go up), your arguements are pretty f*****g thin at best infi NBN in it's current format is giving people choice, and WILL be cheaper over 50years the watered down option the libs are trying, will not give me choice, will cost more in maintaince, and will require upgrades at least once, or more over the next 50 years short sighted is not the way to move forward |
02:35pm 15/04/13 Permalink
Seriously .. can anyone tell me if the Coalition's expenditure on the NBN-lite is paid back by users? It's still NBN Co. Company. Profit. |
03:04pm 15/04/13 Permalink
Not if (/when) they produce a s*** product that no-one wants to buy.
Or is it compulsory that we sign up to a s***** sub-par service? At least with ALP NBN we were forced to sign up to the best available service (in the world at the time) |
03:17pm 15/04/13 Permalink
i really really want labor to win this election (not because they are the only sane choice of gubernment), but just to see infi break down.
that would be the most satisfying thing to me in the world. |
04:14pm 15/04/13 Permalink
It's still NBN Co. Company. Profit. Confused as s***. So NBNCo will be rolling out little boxes at the end of streets that use telstra copper for the connection to premises and people can optionally take it up? What happens with existing ADSL / PSTN? |
04:38pm 15/04/13 Permalink
Where they rip money out of somewhere to announce a new policy that might get them a few extra votes come September, but it always backfires because the public then get angry about the money that was ripped out of the other area.This is what literally every government has done since literally forever, so nice call resident QGL political enthusiast. You should stick to not posting. |
05:42pm 15/04/13 Permalink
I wonder if the Fraudband will have security, cameras and patrols, because I can see people causing damage to these boxes on street corners.
|
06:07pm 15/04/13 Permalink
I wonder if the Fraudband will have security, cameras and patrols, because I can see people causing damage to these boxes on street corners. now now jim, it isn't fair to point out the flaws in a half baked plan, |
06:26pm 15/04/13 Permalink
I wonder if the Fraudband will have security, cameras and patrols, because I can see people causing damage to these boxes on street corners.
I am sure they will do it when they do it for traffic light control boxes too. |
06:40pm 15/04/13 Permalink
What happens with existing ADSL / PSTN? Would it not be reasonable to expect a significant uptick in nationwide sync rates for ADSL? I mean most people under 1K from the exchange are 15Meg and up. So there's a free upgrade off the cuff. Then you go to VDSL, and all the various technologies it enables (DSM/Vectoring/Bonding) at high bitrate/low copper length. Then you, if need be, go to FTTP. Plus you get the option of using Cable as it goes beyond 100Mb/s currently. (and who knows what wireless will bring). Myself, until this magical day of holographic 3D remote surgery arrives, I think that's a reasonably healthy roadmap to live with. The one caveat I am not sure how they deal with is the copper from node to home. I think Malcolm is suggesting the Govt. buys the residual from Telstra and then provides it to all wholesale access seekers at a common negotiated rate; inclusive of the ISAM port, speed, ala AGVC etc. Then part of that access fee we, the consumer pays is amortized against the maintenance cost of the copper. Which is presumably contracted out to TLS to maintain, or whomever TLS contracts it out to these days. Seems like a winner to me. |
06:52pm 15/04/13 Permalink
Why the hell would anyone go out and vandalize a communications box? Are the arguments for FTTN getting that benign?
|
06:53pm 15/04/13 Permalink
^ I can't seem to edit, but I meant FTTH.
|
06:57pm 15/04/13 Permalink
I wonder if the Fraudband will have security, cameras and patrols, because I can see people causing damage to these boxes on street corners.I am sure they will do it when they do it for traffic light control boxes too. well concidering that copper theft is on the up, it is a real risk hell, didn't people steal a heap high voltage lines from Vic rail not long ago?, and you think it isn't a risk also, have you seen what in a traffic contol box, it isn't worth much, and they do currently get damaged, |
06:58pm 15/04/13 Permalink
^ I can't seem to edit, but I meant FTTH. dude, FTTP, and FTTH are getting thrown around, and I thought they meant pretty much the same thing Fibre To The Home Fibre To The Point either way, the internet tubes are running clear and free to your house/buiness on a new network with a long life, and less issue than the current copper one |
07:01pm 15/04/13 Permalink
Why the hell would anyone go out and vandalize a communications box? Are the arguments for FTTN getting that benign? It's predicted by those in the industry: http://delimiter.com.au/2012/04/30/fttn-a-huge-mistake-says-ex-bt-cto/ Not that I imagine it being a big deal, but you know that if commentary like that came up regarding the NBN, the coalition would be howling for a mile about labor's worldly ineptitude, with a front page piece on the The Australian every day for a week regurgitating the new thieving industry that labor intends to build. |
07:48pm 15/04/13 Permalink
Why the hell would anyone go out and vandalize a communications box? Are the arguments for FTTN getting that benign? Are you serious? Have you not seen what goes on in the world today? People vandalize s*** all the time. They go out and break as many car windows as they can, throw steel balls at cars, drop bricks from bridges, kick over rubbish bins. Do you seriously thing a group of drunk teenagers walking down the street one night aren't going to see this big box and just think "hey lets kick the f*** out of this thing." ? I'm betting the only reason the one outside my house (from the time dinosaurs roamed the earth) hasn't been done over yet is because it's entirely made of cement, d*******s round here kick over bins & have fights in the middle of the street, one night a bunch of them tore the gate off out the front. C****. |
07:55pm 15/04/13 Permalink
Nerf Lord, I'm shocked.
Cherry picking an article like that. From further down the page. Cochrane is an out and out evangelist for fibre broadband, and it shows in his one-sided approach to the matter. There really is no point, he says repeatedly, in rolling out anything other than fibre He might be a well educated advocate, but he is an advocate. People Vandalizing Fibre Nodes is a facile argument. |
08:08pm 15/04/13 Permalink
yeah some a******* slashed my tyres the other day. Did a bunch of other cars in the street too.
|
08:09pm 15/04/13 Permalink
dude, FTTP, and FTTH are getting thrown around, and I thought they meant pretty much the same thing. Fibre To The Home. Fibre To The Point. either way, the internet tubes are running clear and free to your house/buiness on a new network with a long life, and less issue than the current copper one Fibre To The Home Fibre To The Premise(s) so yes, exactly the same thing. |
08:13pm 15/04/13 Permalink
Cherry picking an article like that. Cherry picking? People Vandalizing Fibre Nodes is a facile argument. See where I said: "Not that I imagine it being a big deal" |
08:19pm 15/04/13 Permalink
Dude citing as an authority someone who is so obviously an advocate for something an not another, with out acknowledging it, is cherry picking.
That's like citing a Sony Director as an authority for why you should adopt blu-ray as a standard and saying its industry predicted problems with HD-DVD. |
08:26pm 15/04/13 Permalink
He's not selling it, he's advocating it, but I only posted it as a response to the question, as I'd seen comments about stolen components recently and that was the first that I found on google.
|
08:29pm 15/04/13 Permalink
Blind obedience to the party line, sounds like North Korea.
Maybe they should be invited to tender for the Coaltions plan. On a side note, what's the biggest thread ever on here, is this one on it's way to that record? |
08:32pm 15/04/13 Permalink
Stimulus thread. Or one of the vash ones.
|
09:09pm 15/04/13 Permalink
yeah, gotta be the einy / melissa thread I'd reckon
|
09:23pm 15/04/13 Permalink
melissa thread was 38 pages with 20 posts per page, this one is only 18.
|
10:31pm 15/04/13 Permalink
Lol. Turnball was quoted today saying FTTN will probably cost the same as FTTP in the end.
http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/459033/turnbull_nbn_could_cost_same_long-run/ |
10:47pm 15/04/13 Permalink
In that link it is written:
So the Coalition is saying that their NBN is better than Labor's but they haven't done a cost benefit analysis? |
11:03pm 15/04/13 Permalink
So the Coalition is saying that their NBN is better than Labor's but they haven't done a cost benefit analysis? Why let little things like reality and research get in the way of politics? I mean, it'll be worth all that money for essentially s*** on a stick FTTN if it gets them elected, right? ::EDIT:: I guess I'm lucky either way. I live close enough to Gosford which currently has construction for the NBN going on. Hopefully it should be done before the elections (or at least so far done it's not worth stopping) so even if the fraudband happens (god forbid) I might be one of the lucky few able to get FTTH. The only downside is, well, it's f*****g GOSFORD! Last time I was there, I was almost mugged and then flashed (nasty saggy meat-curtains, man...) by a very hideous and old crazy woman. |
11:50pm 15/04/13 Permalink
On a side note, what's the biggest thread ever on here, is this one on it's way to that record? my rudd bux thread was 1000+ posts |
05:04am 16/04/13 Permalink
free money for all (earning under 100k)(we're back on) 2019 Spook |
05:05am 16/04/13 Permalink
Has anyone actually gone through the process of getting NBN connected? If so, how did the process go? Any annoyances or nuances we should know about? I need to arrange it soon so it's ready when I move in, but you can bet they won't give me enough notice.
|
08:36am 16/04/13 Permalink
Well Hogfather, you need to add on to the cost of that 30B the inevitable upgrade in 5-10 years time.People are assuming this but there's no reason that cost couldn't be born by industry (i.e., Telstra) as part of a long term deal. I am not trying to defend the Coalition plan but f*** me, the FUD about it is ridiculous. If it wouldn't have been as equal suicide to not have a policy they should have just shut up about it. Talk about rock and hard place. We have research equipment here (UQ) that generates gigabytes of data in a short amount of time. Manipulating that data in realtime remotely wouldn't work so well. Not all researchers and staff work in the University.You need to understand that when you say this sort of stuff you basically announce your position as: "the average citizen needs Internet that is as capable as that required by a University." Anyone can create gigabits of data in a short time (there's another thread posted here today where someone is talking about compressing gigabytes of video to make it easier to upload to youtube). The question isn't whether or not fibre is the best thing to move this data from A to B. Obviously it is (...subject to finite upper limits where sneakernets/posting will be superior). Universities have always paid top dollar for Internet for their data requirements. Fibre is obviously the end game for any broadband network, but in a society where the government has bowed out of telecomms and then suddenly wants to get back in (competing against the ISP they sold and presumably having a massive long term effect on its value as a company) because "digital economy" I think its supporters need to be able to make a better case than "citizens need university-level broadband in their homes". I appreciate the need for investing in the future but the spurious for and against arguments trotted out in favour of the NBN and against any other solution at all are really irritating. There can exist a middle ground in this argument that is in between two extremes. |
08:39am 16/04/13 Permalink
I appreciate the need for investing in the future but... So do you approve of Turnbull blowing taxpayers $30B wad on fanciful 50 megabit/sec claims and communications infrastructure that is obsolete before it even goes into the ground? |
09:55am 16/04/13 Permalink
That's what I don't get. The old Coalition plan of under 10B for a s***** FTTN network at least made sense, its a halfway job for a much lower price. Fine.
But if you're gonna throw down 30B, just finish the f*****g thing that's already been started? How many lucky ducks get taxpayer-funded fibre and how many leftovers get rotting copper? Seems like political spite? Do people with NBN / HFC pay for the copper upkeep or do they not only get taxpayer-funded fibre but also avoid the maintenance of the old network? Also, NBN rollout map looks to have been updated. My house is now construction starts February 2014 ... do I get the nice internets or do I get the s*** internets? Edit #2: look at brissy now: http://i.imgur.com/7qEvjz3.png Purple - NBN is on Orange - s*** is being built Teal - being built within one year Green - within 3 years So we can assume that the people in purple and orange probably get fibre since its already on or under construction and contracts signed etc. Teal maybe. Green and no plans yet are boned and will stay copper / FTTN. What a f*****g MESS |
10:04am 16/04/13 Permalink
The NBN commenced construction in Sep 2012 in my area. Except the boundary ends on the other side of the road to where I live. :(
|
10:18am 16/04/13 Permalink
Purple - NBN is on lol who the hell designed the NBN rollout colour scheme anyway? Purple and green should be swapped. Green means GO TIME dammit. |
10:27am 16/04/13 Permalink
Fibre is obviously the end game for any broadband network, but in a society where the government has bowed out of telecomms and then suddenly wants to get back in (competing against the ISP they sold and presumably having a massive long term effect on its value as a company) because "digital economy" I think its supporters need to be able to make a better case than "citizens need university-level broadband in their homes".They aren't competing against telstra, they are buying up it's copper network which will put telstra out of the wholesale broadband business. You've used this argument a lot, that because the Gubberment sold off telstra they shouldn't be allowed to enter back into the telecommunications game or that if they want to then they should have to buy back telstra. But that's exactly what they are doing, they are essentially buying out telstra's copper network, taking off of their hands a huge liability and giving them a strong revenue in return. This works out exceptionally well for telstra, prior to this they were considering a forced split of telstra between retail and wholesale. Which do you think shareholders would prefer, cash for a defunct and aging network that costs a fortune to maintain or being forcibly split? |
10:46am 16/04/13 Permalink
So do you approve of Turnbull blowing taxpayers $30B wad on fanciful 50 megabit/sec claims and communications infrastructure that is obsolete before it even goes into the ground?I already said I'm not going to defend the Libs plan. It doesn't seem great to me either. I agree with Hogfather that now that it has been started and so much money already spent on design, infrastructure, etc, that it probably makes more sense to finish it. Which do you think shareholders would prefer, cash for a defunct and aging network that costs a fortune to maintain or being forcibly split?I can't see any long-term future for Telstra that is not grim. They're getting a vast amount of customers handed to them as part of the NBN deal (i.e., customers that are going to be forcibly migrated to a Telstra NBN plan), so that's a complete win for them. But once things settle down and people realise they can get an equivalent data service from basically any other provider, there's no real reason for them to stay. It'll come down to Telstra providing better bundling, which they may be able to do simply because of their mobile network (I sort of have written off Foxtel as a useful asset for them because despite the best attempts of rightsholders, bundled models like that will go out the window). The once off "sale" of their assets and their customers moving onto third party infrastructure that they can't onsell to everyone else sounds like a much worse deal to me over the long term. It might look great on the quarterly balance sheet but the NBN is going to balkanize service provision like nothing else and that is not in Telstra's interests because this move will level the s*** out of the playing field. That is great for citizen consumers (which is obviously a good thing overall) but I think bad for Telstra shareholders. I am not one, but I feel bad for the people who were sold Telstra shares thinking that they were buying into this great Australian monopoly that would basically last forever. Thinking about it that is probably the biggest reason it irritates me. I hate privatisation of what I consider core services and I think telco is one. This might seem weird because I generally sound anti-NBN. Of course, when the NBN company is privatised, Telstra might still be in a unique position to buy a significant chunk of the network :) That would be hilarious. |
11:46am 16/04/13 Permalink
Of course, when the NBN company is privatised, Telstra might still be in a unique position to buy a significant chunk of the network :) That would be hilarious. No, that'd never happen! Never! |
11:59am 16/04/13 Permalink
The once off "sale" of their assets and their customers moving onto third party infrastructure that they can't onsell to everyone else sounds like a much worse deal to me over the long term.My understanding is it isn't just a once off but also an ongoing rental situation. They get paid for the copper that gets removed and rent out the conduits so not only is it a nice income for an aging and costly network but a continual income from the rest of the networks assets. My point is though that without the NBN, telstra would likely have been forcibly split by now. This way they get to keep their wireless 3/4g phone network and ditch the costly and aging copper network without having to shoulder responsibility as a private company of out fitting non-densely populated areas with better broadband connectivity or even the responsibility of maintaining services to those areas. Technically, what you claim could happen to telstra should have already happened to them since they were meant to be paying for their own wholesale service at the same rate as their competition and yet they are still the biggest in the country. |
12:54pm 16/04/13 Permalink
Probably. As I said above (I think?), I'm sure we all agree that structural separation should have happened ages ago. I would be inclined to argue that would have a greater short-term effect than the NBN because it would free the country from a lot of the stupid peering arrangements that are responsible for keeping bandwidth prices so high domestically.
|
12:56pm 16/04/13 Permalink
Oh f***, I really, really hope the Coalition's s*****, low value broadband policy sinks their campaign - just so that smug tone gets smashed out of your f*****g posts. Its a long way to September and you're going to be insufferable the whole way.Another 3 years of Joolia would be worth it for NBN + your wailing. I (and a lot of other people) would have to wait through at least 2 federal elections before getting NBN service. I just can't see Labour lasting that long unless they really pull their socks up, so for a lot of us the coalition NBN is the only option we are going to get. When you look at it, going from crappy 2Mbps to 25Mbps (10x increase) and then doubling in the following 3 years sounds like a pretty good deal, especially since the with the Labour plan there won't be any increase in speed until 2018-2021. I know FTTH is the best solution and FTTN will probably cost more long term to upgrade to FTTH at some point but the NBN is being rolled out too slowly and to wait near on another decade for a speed increase makes it pretty much non-existent. What is the saying? Don't let best be the enemy of good? |
02:07pm 16/04/13 Permalink
So i've been following this thread with interest. My opinion on a few things so far:
Does anyone else get the impression that the Coalition are introducing this laughably bad NBN alternative and quoting some ridiculous number for Labor's plan so that when they get elected they can just say "welp, looks like Labor's plan has progressed too far to turn back now so looks like we'll have to build it. Good news however, it's not going to cost $90 billion dollars"?Yes. I have had this thought and I think it is more likely than them just cutting off works when they win in september and rolling out some backwards alternative. How do you pronounce 'noalition'? I am assuming 'no-al-ish-an' but I am confused about what an alition is and why they don't have any.It's a bit like lolbertarian, it's a word that makes no sense used by people who like to troll others. Also, 3x0dus's post #256 is probably is the one post that makes most sense to me. As i'm sure you know by now, i often err on the side of a traditional Conservative government 'don't tax, don't spend' approach. However in this instance, where the LNP is proposing to spend 70% of the cost to achieve 25% of the results seems like madness to me. Why pull fibre past 90% of homes but insist on bottlenecking glorious fibres with limited copper? In this thread, there is a rough correlation between the quality of a person's current broadband connection and whether or not they support the NBN. I doubt hogfather would be wanting the NBN to the same degree if he had a 20mb sync, for example. For this reason, I find it hard to work out whether someone wants the NBN because they think it is the way forward for australia's future, or because they hate their 4.5Mbit sync which drops out daily. Also, i'm not really sure whether those charts showing a linear increase in average broadband speed will really project in the way they have been. I have had a 20mb sync for over 5 years now, and I don't find myself in any more situations now than I did 5 years ago where I said 'gee I wish my internets was faster'. Email attachment limits are still 10mb, word docs are still the same size. File size hasn't increased according to moore's law in the 21st century. Yes, yes, HD video, yes, but most other file formats have stayed stagnant in size. Maybe my experience is atypical. Also, enough with the 'the copper is rotting! the copper is rotting!' nonsense. Your grandparents and parents currently pay enough to telstra in "line rental" to ensure that any copper faults that crop up will get sorted. |
02:10pm 16/04/13 Permalink
especially since the with the Labour plan there won't be any increase in speed until 2018-2021.The thing with the current NBN is that the speed on offer to begin with is double what the Coalition will be able to offer 5-6 years down the track. Also factor in that as said before, the speeds of fibre can only go up. Obviously the big problem here is not that the Coalition's plans are utter stupid (we know this), it is that the current NBN is going slow and how exactly can this be changed. I'm hoping Labour can stay in for another term at the very least, but that is highly doubtful with the amount of lack luster they are pulling on other subjects. I just don't see why the Coalition can't figure out a quicker way to roll out the NBN, offering the exact same deal but just quicker. If they did this people would be happy and we could all get along. |
02:12pm 16/04/13 Permalink
Also, enough with the 'the copper is rotting! the copper is rotting!' nonsense. Your grandparents and parents currently pay enough to telstra in "line rental" to ensure that any copper faults that crop up will get sorted. This is a stupid statement and you should be ashamed of it. The copper is rotting (requires lots of ongoing maintenance) and this is why line rental is expensive. Accepting this as appropriate status quo is really stupid hardware. You're starting to sound like infi, take the blinkers off. Fibre line maintenance is much less than copper. |
02:20pm 16/04/13 Permalink
The thing with the current NBN is that the speed on offer to begin with is double what the Coalition will be able to offer 5-6 years down the track. Also factor in that as said before, the speeds of fibre can only go up. Obviously the big problem here is not that the Coalition's plans are utter stupid (we know this), it is that the current NBN is going slow and how exactly can this be changed. I'm hoping Labour can stay in for another term at the very least, but that is highly doubtful with the amount of lack luster they are pulling on other subjects. I just don't see why the Coalition can't figure out a quicker way to roll out the NBN, offering the exact same deal but just quicker. If they did this people would be happy and we could all get along. The speed for the current NBN maybe 2x the speed of the coalition NBN, but I as I said I will have to wait near on a decade to get it (with no speed increase at all inbetween). Meanwhile with the coalition in 3 years I will have 10x the speed increase, I might have 50x by 2021 but both are an order of magnitude increase in speed so they are both likely to provide me with similar quality of life improvements for internet. I agree I wish they could just work out a way to roll it out quicker or at least with some kind of speed increases so we can all start feeling the benefit of the NBN instead of it just being a pipe dream. |
02:21pm 16/04/13 Permalink
Yeah but I think it's already been pointed out that the Liberals speed increases are mostly based in fantasy or "best case scenario" as line attenuation will still be in effect along with bad connections and weather conditions which is why you only get 2mbps now instead of 20mbps.
On the other hand the stated speed of fiber is purely limited by congestion (which affects copper as well) so when they say you will get 100mbps it is an actual real thing. |
02:34pm 16/04/13 Permalink
Why do you assume that Coalition NBN will be on time in 3 years? You realise they are doing a CBA study first, and that they don't have the resources in opposition to REALLY be sure about their timeline? What we have is a sketch at best, and 3 years to a node box on every street corner is rather optimistic, IMO.
|
02:36pm 16/04/13 Permalink
Yeah but I think it's already been pointed out that the Liberals speed increases are mostly based in fantasy or "best case scenario" as line attenuation will still be in effect along with bad connections and weather conditions which is why you only get 2mbps now instead of 20mbps. On the other hand the stated speed of fiber is purely limited by congestion (which affects copper as well) so when they say you will get 100mbps it is an actual real thing. Yeah I understand how fibre works I would love to have that at my doorstep. I would think that no matter what I with the libs NBN reducing my copper line from a few kms down to 800 or so meters will probably give me a great speed increase. It is just a matter of it taking too long for fibre to actually get to my doorstep. |
02:40pm 16/04/13 Permalink
Why do you assume that Coalition NBN will be on time in 3 years? You realise they are doing a CBA study first, and that they don't have the resources in opposition to REALLY be sure about their timeline? What we have is a sketch at best, and 3 years to a node box on every street corner is rather optimistic, IMO. I can only assume what they are selling me, for both Coalition and Labour. As it stands I know that Labour won't be delivering me NBN until 2018 - 2021 based on their current estimates and plans and the Coalition say it will be 2016 when I get my first speed increase. I doubt that neither plan will be delivered on schedule but I could probably assume the same time gap would exist for both plans. |
02:47pm 16/04/13 Permalink
In this thread, there is a rough correlation between the quality of a person's current broadband connection and whether or not they support the NBN. I doubt hogfather would be wanting the NBN to the same degree if he had a 20mb sync, for example. This is a really interesting point. I have a decent speeds now and I'm obviously pro-NBN but that's most likely because I've been on both sides. I used to live just over the border on the outskirts of Tweed Heads NSW, well outside ADSL attenuation distance. Dial-up internet access in 2007 was not fun, believe me. Now we're centrally located in high density on the Gold Coast with ~17Mbit sync. There's still the occasional dropout but it's a world of difference. I'm expecting the jump from ADSL to fiber would be a similar jump as in "holy crap, there are so many scenarios that are possible now that were just a pipedream before" because the assumption can be made that the majority of premises are on (at least) a 100+ megabit level playing field. Typical Labor isn't selling the story well enough that by simply upgrading the network interface units on either end your 100Mbit connection goes to 1000Mbit or perhaps more in the future. You realise they are doing a CBA study first, and that they don't have the resources in opposition to REALLY be sure about their timeline?Then there's the part where Telstra rubs money hands together because Malcolm's election promise involves instructing NBN Co to turn the FttP ship around 180 degrees. |
03:03pm 16/04/13 Permalink
http://m.theaustralian.com.au/business/in-depth/ultra-hdtv-not-enough-to-justify-nbn/story-e6frgaif-1226621147225
|
03:07pm 16/04/13 Permalink
http://m.theaustralian.com.au/business/in-depth/ultra-hdtv-not-enough-to-justify-nbn/story-e6frgaif-1226621147225not even HDTV can possibly justify a universal 100mbit roll out.That seems somewhat counter-productive to claim that HDTV is the only reason we are trying to upgrade our nation's broadband scheme. In this thread alone there have been multiple examples of what fibre cabling would offer to Australia besides HDTV. Let us just throw away the fact that with an NBN like Labor's a very large portion of Australia will finally be offered decent connections instead of relying on aging copper speeds that will have to be ripped up and replaced anyway. It seems like the main idea I'm getting from Liberal supporters and the actual party itself is that investing billions of dollars into a system that will accommodate only the very near future is better than supporting a network designed to last at least 50-60 years. It just seems pointless and I really think its just a plan to show others that Liberal at least "has" something. |
03:42pm 16/04/13 Permalink
the point is that investing this much capital today right now is not an efficient useage of taxpayer's money.
you may have heard the story of china's ghost cities - ENTIRE CITIES built to house 1million+ people eachin the anticipation that at some time in the future residents will need to move there. however right now they are completely vacant. what a waste... as Malcolm said in his door stop, the eventual Coalition network may end up costing the same but it won't have been all spent at the start and as such that excess money will be out there doing other stuff for the taxpayer instead of sitting in spare capacity depreciating away. |
03:48pm 16/04/13 Permalink
In this thread, there is a rough correlation between the quality of a person's current broadband connection and whether or not they support the NBN. I doubt hogfather would be wanting the NBN to the same degree if he had a 20mb sync, for example. im on 100mbit cable and i want the nbn, because we have such s*** uploads in australia. even if i had something better liek 50/20, id still want the nbn because i can see all the great things it would be used for now and in the future. |
03:49pm 16/04/13 Permalink
Ah yes The Australian, the Foxnews of Australian journalism. Have they ever had an NBN article that wasn't complete partisan bulls***?
I would think that no matter what I with the libs NBN reducing my copper line from a few kms down to 800 or so meters will probably give me a great speed increase.There isn't really any guarantee that new nodes will be built closer to your house though, even more so for the rest of the country. Some people will be better off by a lot, most probably by very little, at this stage there is no knowing where you will sit in that regard. For $30B or roughly the same investment as Labors NBN, gives what is believed to only be a few mbits on average increase and wont cover the same kind of area, the Liberals plan is not even remotely a good investment of tax money. |
03:49pm 16/04/13 Permalink
Yeah I understand how fibre works I would love to have that at my doorstep. I would think that no matter what I with the libs NBN reducing my copper line from a few kms down to 800 or so meters will probably give me a great speed increase.It is just a matter of it taking too long for fibre to actually get to my doorstep. okay, there wont be a reduction of copper lenth to your home, changes are that the "node" will be placed at the current exchanges, so the speeds that you will get are at best twice the current speed you are getting now, however those speed increases are unlikely, also, if your currently unable to get adsl2, the details are lacking (the high end of the speed that the Libs are offering is what those people are currently able to get, so no improvement) infi, you are a fool, full stop. if the government never invested big money in projects that required massive capital, and private business, then we wouldn't have the current phone network, dams, rail, or many other things FACT: the internet is requiring more and more bandwidth, and it is hard to predict what is required in 10 years time FACT: the copper is more effected by weather, and costs more to maintain that fibre FACT: copper has more limits to speed than fibre, it also doesn't maintain bandwidth over distance, (distance is the main reason that services of any sort cost more in this country than others) |
04:05pm 16/04/13 Permalink
http://images.freeola.co.uk/adsl2/adsl2graph.jpg
check the chart look at the speed, here is a nice easy chart i'll just make up now one speed ___________________________________ over any distance, |
04:10pm 16/04/13 Permalink
the point is that investing this much capital today right now is not an efficient useage of taxpayer's money. Are you willing to suggest a time where interest payable on government bond loans would make large capital expenditure more attractive than now? |
04:26pm 16/04/13 Permalink
Ah yes The Australian, the Foxnews of Australian journalism. Have they ever had an NBN article that wasn't complete partisan bulls***?There isn't really any guarantee that new nodes will be built closer to your house though, even more so for the rest of the country. Some people will be better off by a lot, most probably by very little, at this stage there is no knowing where you will sit in that regard. For $30B or roughly the same investment as Labors NBN, gives what is believed to only be a few mbits on average increase and wont cover the same kind of area, the Liberals plan is not even remotely a good investment of tax money. I think this is just full of inaccuracies, the coalition NBN will rollout about 60,000 nodes which is about 1 node for every 166 households, more frequent than the current exchanges so the line of copper will be significantly shorter for most of the population. The average speed in Australia is currently 4.3Mbps so increasing that to 25Mbps is not a few Mbps it will be a significant jump for most of the population. There are many problems with it as well, such as having a freaking box in the street every 166 houses, god know what that is going to look like or the poor suckers who get it out the front of their house. We will have to throw out/rework significant parts to do the eventual upgrade to fibre (nodes, copper, VDSL or whatever units in the home) which will have to happen eventually, which will probably make the whole thing cost more. Having a speed of 25Mbps by 2016 would make me quiet happy and from now until 2018 I could put $15 a week (take lunch to work 1 more day a week) into a piggy bank and upgrade to fibre by 2018, at least 1 or 2 years before Labour could deliver it to me and I would have much better internet way earlier. |
04:32pm 16/04/13 Permalink
sorry, where are you getting this average speed from??
according to speed net, my speed is pretty much bang in the middle of what people get, and i dont get 4.3mbps also, they are very coy on the real facts, most of it are promises that dont hold much water also, fibre is a copper replacement, and as a replacement it is cheaper to maintain long term, faster net, and clearer voice japan as had fibre for how long now?, 15-20 years? |
04:43pm 16/04/13 Permalink
the point is that investing this much capital today right now is not an efficient useage of taxpayer's money. Err, isn't it paid for by an issue of bonds and private equity, that is in turn repaid by the final product which is why its not in the budget? Is a cent of the project actually being paid for by general revenue (aka this taxpayer's money you're on about, our actual taxes)? If I'm wrong on this point please let me know (no bulls***, I want to be informed on the issue). That said ... even if it is 'taxpayer's money' - why is it better to spend a mildly less huge pile of our money on a significantly s***tier project that will likely need to be upgraded .. when the full broadband solution is already under construction, creating a random mishmash of broadband inequity across our cities? It just reeks of partisan policy at the expense of the nation to me! Like I said, I was fine with the under 10B FTTN proposal if that's what got up.. but isn't it too late to sensibly f*** with the build? Is it not possible that in this case the Coalition has it wrong, even if their plan was a better idea back in 2007? |
04:47pm 16/04/13 Permalink
the point is that investing this much capital today right now is not an efficient useage of taxpayer's money. What are you talking about? The government isn't spending money on the NBN, it's a business which has taken out a loan, and will repay it with its income from user subscriptions. If somehow it failed it might require taxpayer input, but worst case scenario is probably that they have to lower their costs a little and offer a few more basic packages, and the debt will take a little longer to repay. As an added bonus, once it's done, the country has a revenue generating asset. Also I already sync at 15 Mb/s, it'd be a major waste for the coalition to spend billions to bring a marginal increase to those in my position just to say that they did it cheaper, may as well not do anything and save the money. The NBN at least allows speeds up to something like 10,000 Mb/s. |
04:50pm 16/04/13 Permalink
sorry, where are you getting this average speed from??according to speed net, my speed is pretty much bang in the middle of what people get, and i dont get 4.3mbpsalso, they are very coy on the real facts, most of it are promises that dont hold much water also, fibre is a copper replacement, and as a replacement it is cheaper to maintain long term, faster net, and clearer voicejapan as had fibre for how long now?, 15-20 years? Got the average internet speed from http://www.akamai.com/stateoftheinternet/ Just did a test on speedtest.net from work and got 7.61 Mb/s which it says is B+ 75% for Australia, so only 25% of connections in Australia are faster than this connection. Which to me gives more credit to the akamai 4.3mbps figure. I know fibre is a replacement for copper, I understand how fibre works and have been wishing for a fibre to my doorstep for years. Fibre is a brilliant technology and I love it to bits. Don't really give a rats about cleaner voice though, can't remember the last time I picked up a land line. I just think Labour are rolling it out way too slowly and for a lot of us the timeframe for when we will any speed increase pretty much put it into non-existent territory, meanwhile the lib plan is like "ohh it won't be as good long term, and we will have to upgrade at some point, but man it does peak my interest to get more speed in 3 years rather than 7+" |
04:57pm 16/04/13 Permalink
Does anybody know why they couldn't roll out the NBN faster to places that really need it? Presumably it's as established now as it's ever going to be that they've done the trials and final implementations in some areas, and presumably they're not moving the same workforce around the country to do it.
|
05:01pm 16/04/13 Permalink
Err, isn't it paid for by an issue of bonds and private equity, that is in turn repaid by the final product which is why its not in the budget? Is a cent of the project actually being paid for by general revenue (aka this taxpayer's money you're on about, our actual taxes)? If I'm wrong on this point please let me know (no bulls***, I want to be informed on the issue).That said ... even if it is 'taxpayer's money' - why is it better to spend a mildly less huge pile of our money on a significantly s***tier project that will likely need to be upgraded .. when the full broadband solution is already under construction, creating a random mishmash of broadband inequity across our cities? It just reeks of partisan policy at the expense of the nation to me!Like I said, I was fine with the under 10B FTTN proposal if that's what got up.. but isn't it too late to sensibly f*** with the build? Is it not possible that in this case the Coalition has it wrong, even if their plan was a better idea back in 2007? I found this to be pretty clear: http://nbnmyths.wordpress.com/how-are-we-paying-for-it/ Basically we are borrowing money by selling bonds with an interest rate of 4% but because the NBN is expected to make a profit of 7% when completed the tax payer doesn't need to pay the debt back. Saving money doesn't automatically make it available to other places in the budget because the tax payer would then need to pay back that debt. I am not clear on if we need to service the 4% interest each year on the debt until it started getting the 7% return or if the debt increased by the interest + any expenditure each each and we only start making payments when NBN Co starts making money. I would assume the later so the NBN Co doesn't cost any money unless there is a massive f*** up and the profits over 4% aren't made. |
05:09pm 16/04/13 Permalink
And when it's done, paying for our internets means putting revenue into the national budget, possibly lowering taxes if they do it right... (Though I think that their plan might be to sell it)
|
05:29pm 16/04/13 Permalink
Got the average internet speed from http://www.akamai.com/stateoftheinternet/Just did a test on speedtest.net from work and got 7.61 Mb/s which it says is B+ 75% for Australia, so only 25% of connections in Australia are faster than this connection. Which to me gives more credit to the akamai 4.3mbps figure.I know fibre is a replacement for copper, I understand how fibre works and have been wishing for a fibre to my doorstep for years. Fibre is a brilliant technology and I love it to bits. Don't really give a rats about cleaner voice though, can't remember the last time I picked up a land line.I just think Labour are rolling it out way too slowly and for a lot of us the timeframe for when we will any speed increase pretty much put it into non-existent territory, meanwhile the lib plan is like "ohh it won't be as good long term, and we will have to upgrade at some point, but man it does peak my interest to get more speed in 3 years rather than 7+" which is wrong, go back thru the thread you'll see my speed, which is well under the quoted speed you have there, and i'm at the 52% mark, so much closer than your guess work also, you seem rather happy to go with the promises of the libs, and backhandedly using lib data, there difference in roll out times between the two are only 1-2 years, and if the libs gets in, it is likely that they take 1-2 years to change tack, and get the tooling up to speed for all the nodes, so same time, no delivery bonus there likely |
05:58pm 16/04/13 Permalink
And when it's done, paying for our internets means putting revenue into the national budget, possibly lowering taxes if they do it right... (Though I think that their plan might be to sell it) depends on the government nerf the ole labor builds it, libs sell it rings true most of the time |
06:00pm 16/04/13 Permalink
If I had 1Gbs speeds now it would only take about 48 seconds to download CoH2.
|
06:42pm 16/04/13 Permalink
Also something to keep in mind.
I haven't seen much about the expect latency and how each plan would differ. Latency, by my guess, would have a profound effect on human-human interaction over the internet, particularly teleconferencing/telepresence and remote control of various computer and mechanical applications for instance the strong rise in robotics. Another example would be Cloud computing. Ultra low latency would make cloud computing more viable for a range of products currently available and expected soon, particularly the entertainment industry. So if Australia was upgraded to fiber for the most part, what would the latency to foreign networks be like, US/Japan/China/India and so on? I do agree with Infi that it is an awful lot of money for something that would not be useful for many years, bandwidth wise at least. |
06:48pm 16/04/13 Permalink
According to some random poster on whirlpool:
However in practice, once the equipment is added, an ADSL service will typically have a propagation delay of 10-15ms (one way) whereas a fibre service will be less than 1ms (one way). At a guess, I'd say that fibre optics offer better latency, given that they're used in all the international links. S***, I'd be interested to know what effect the Coalition's copper->fibre boxes would have on latency... |
06:55pm 16/04/13 Permalink
O it surely offers better latency in Aus. It will feel awesome in games, however doing a tracert to www.slashdot.org I get 270ish ping, a jump from 50 to 200 is presumably an intercontinental hop.
So providing the other end is high fiber too (US isn't, Google is sorting that out though) we would get roughly 200 ping to other countries. The big phat pipes in the water, what are they? |
07:01pm 16/04/13 Permalink
From everything I've read, optics is much better than copper for latency -
But. And this is a very big potential but for anybody who ever wants to play a game online. The main contributor to latency is the signal transformation and processing points at either end. What are the battery-powered boxes in the middle of the FTTN network going to do to latency? We could find that our Internet actually gets worse under the coalition plan, latency is more important than bandwidth for most Internet usage, once bandwidth is over a certain point. |
07:07pm 16/04/13 Permalink
On a quick inspection of cables going from Australia to various countries it seems these cables have capacity from 5gbits to 1000gbits. All up it seems our capacity to shift large amounts of data internationally is strongly capped by our international cables.
Imagine if every house in Australia was transferring 1gbs data internationally. We would choke our countries international internet connection to a crawl. Does any know of future plans to increase that capacity greatly? I wonder what the effect of having a nation wide increase in latency for background international internet usage, faster packet turnaround time could potentially lead to more packets at any one time?. Does that sort of thing happen with increased speed network? So perhaps all the wonderful technologies I posted above wont be very viable from Australia until those links are beefed up considerably? What is Australia's total export of data /s? Are we even close to our limits? |
07:18pm 16/04/13 Permalink
They're always adding more submarine communications cables and upgrading them, plus they don't last forever
|
07:26pm 16/04/13 Permalink
Yup, they are the ones I looked at. we have about 5000gbit/s all up I think give or take.
|
07:29pm 16/04/13 Permalink
AFAIK heavy content would often be replicated locally rather than everybody pulling it from overseas, which is what steam does. (I think that the ausgamers guys might actually be involved in some of that). I think that google's cloud engine for example replicates data to localised servers throughout the world.
Looks like Fibre to the Node equipment may increase latency too, which would make it a step backwards for gaming/video calls/remoting/etc... |
07:37pm 16/04/13 Permalink
AFAIK heavy content would often be replicated locally rather than everybody pulling it from overseas, which is what steam does. (I think that the ausgamers guys might actually be involved in some of that). I think that google's cloud engine for example replicates data to localised servers throughout the world.Looks like Fibre to the Node equipment may increase latency too, which would make it a step backwards for gaming/video calls/remoting/etc... that link is broken. |
07:57pm 16/04/13 Permalink
Hrm, maybe would have to try copying and pasting http://adslm.dohrenburg.org/uverse/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=71:a-more-stable-vdsl2-what-is-the-compromise&catid=1:uverse-new-blog&Itemid=6 directly, or googling for "A more stable VDSL2? What is the compromise."
|
08:06pm 16/04/13 Permalink
As you can see Japan isnt having issues with fast Internet connection announcing 2gbps an 1gbps upload
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2034643/sony-isp-launches-worlds-fastest-home-internet-2gbps.html |
09:29pm 16/04/13 Permalink
Hrm, maybe would have to try copying and pasting http://adslm.dohrenburg.org/uverse/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=71:a-more-stable-vdsl2-what-is-the-compromise&catid=1:uverse-new-blog&Itemid=6 directly, or googling for "A more stable VDSL2? What is the compromise." I got my IP logged and told off not to spam that website when I tried clicking the link lol. I think there might have been a threat about reporting my IP if the spam continues, not that I am too worried. |
09:55pm 16/04/13 Permalink
#ReachTEL Poll Preferred broadband plan: ALP Plan 45.5 L/NP Plan 40.0 #auspol
|
09:57pm 16/04/13 Permalink
which is wrong, go back thru the thread you'll see my speed, which is well under the quoted speed you have there, and i'm at the 52% mark, so much closer than your guess workalso, you seem rather happy to go with the promises of the libs, and backhandedly using lib data, there difference in roll out times between the two are only 1-2 years, and if the libs gets in, it is likely that they take 1-2 years to change tack, and get the tooling up to speed for all the nodes, so same time, no delivery bonus there likely No guess work on my part, I gave you my source for the speed and then said my results in speedtest.net give more credit to the akamai numbers. What was the result you got for your 52%? *Whoops didn't see your post earlier with your speed.* I am not backhandedly using lib data, I am using data from what both the libs have provided for their plan and what labour has provided for their plan along with the rollout maps directly from NBN Co. The difference between rollout times for getting any speed increase is not 1-2 years, and that is what I am talking about. |
10:45pm 16/04/13 Permalink
From everything I've read, optics is much better than copper for latency -But.And this is a very big potential but for anybody who ever wants to play a game online.The main contributor to latency is the signal transformation and processing points at either end. What are the battery-powered boxes in the middle of the FTTN network going to do to latency? We could find that our Internet actually gets worse under the coalition plan, latency is more important than bandwidth for most Internet usage, once bandwidth is over a certain point. Fibre optics and copper cables both run at about 2/3 the speed of light, but any differences in them would be completely negligible. It would take about 25micro seconds to travel 5km and even if copper was 1/2 the speed that would be 50micro seconds. The latency is all about the computers between you and the destination, every hop a computer has to do something and that adds up. You get a bit of delay from pure distance (like the fastest you could send a signal from here to LA would take about 50ms) So having something something processing a single from copper to fibre in the node would cause a delay, but we already have that in the exchanges so not sure how much worse than now it would be if at all. Obviously better if this delay wasn't there at all.... |
11:19pm 16/04/13 Permalink
#ReachTEL Poll Preferred broadband plan: ALP Plan 45.5 L/NP Plan 40.0 #auspol I'd bet if you educated everyone polled on the differences between the two, the costs and the future potential of both, it'd be maybe 5% of people for the fraudband just because of political ideals. The rest would recognise that piece of s*** for what it is. |
11:49pm 16/04/13 Permalink
The rest would recognise that piece of s*** for what it is. http://delimiter.com.au/2013/04/16/the-coalitions-policy-is-a-sensible-nbn-alternative/ Even Renai, one of the biggest supporters of Labor's NBN in the tech media, says it is a good alternative. Not technically better but not terrible either. But the Coalition’s policy is not a bad policy, or even a neutral policy. It is a good policy, and fundamentally sound as pre-election policies go; considered, researched, very detailed, and backed by an informed and well-educated Shadow Minister on op of the nuances of his portfolio. It maintains the bones of Labor’s policy and will deliver on many of its aims, while offering the potential to be more financially astute and delivered more quickly; and it will maintain infrastructure competition in some areas due to the continued existence of the HFC cable networks. Your writer has always argued that the shutdown of the HFC cable networks — and the huge payouts to Telstra and Optus that were to result from the move — was highly anti-competitive, and even the ACCC had severe misgivings about the idea. |
07:39am 17/04/13 Permalink
My biggest issue with the Lib plan is the cost of it. It still costs an awful lot of money, if it was half again as cheap then it would be a winner.
|
08:00am 17/04/13 Permalink
I have never thought the Coalition's plan as "terrible" more that what they plan to do will simply cost more for the same product, and the only benefit being people get on average a slight increase quicker. What the Coalition's plans will do is simply delay fibre, pushing it back several years for another government to worry about.
I also fear that if Liberals do get in, they'll commence their projects but probably not get far enough when the next election comes around, and if they do lose that election then Labor will have to restart the cycle and money will have been wasted yet again. |
08:01am 17/04/13 Permalink
Err, isn't it paid for by an issue of bonds and private equity, that is in turn repaid by the final product which is why its not in the budget? Is a cent of the project actually being paid for by general revenue (aka this taxpayer's money you're on about, our actual taxes)? If I'm wrong on this point please let me know (no bulls***, I want to be informed on the issue). A few points I'd like to make: 1) The government already has spent money on the NBN. According to NBN Co's Corporate Plan 2012-15, the Commonwealth has already injected $2.8b of equity into the company including $1.5b in FY2012. Any claims that the government isn't spending any money on the NBN are wholly and utterly inaccurate. They may expect to recoup this money at a future point in time however this is an uncertain future outcome that may not necessarily eventuate. Whether the source of these funds was general revenue or debt brings me to my second point. 2) That trying to claim that the source of funds is debt vs. general revenue is pointless and misleading. Dollars are fungible. At the end of the day, the government wants to spend X and is expecting to receive Y in revenue. X > Y therefore X-Y = new debt. Trying to ascribe certain funding obligations as being funded by debt and others as being funded by revenue is arbitrary and meaningless as all currency is fungible. If it wasn't then it wouldn't be a very good currency. 3) My understanding of the off-balance sheet arrangements for NBN is that under the relevant accounting standards the government can keep the NBN off balance sheet as long as it is expected to generate a profit. If this assumption is ever in doubt then the entire project comes back on balance sheet. I am not an accountant, however. |
08:55am 17/04/13 Permalink
2) That trying to claim that the source of funds is debt vs. general revenue is pointless and misleading. Dollars are fungible. At the end of the day, the government wants to spend X and is expecting to receive Y in revenue. X > Y therefore X-Y = new debt. Trying to ascribe certain funding obligations as being funded by debt and others as being funded by revenue is arbitrary and meaningless as all currency is fungible. If it wasn't then it wouldn't be a very good currency. We were responding to the claim that the NBN is funded by tax dollars. |
09:05am 17/04/13 Permalink
I looked up fungibility and still have no idea how it means that "taxpayer's dollars" (which is to me, money I pay to the ATO) are being spent on the NBN rather than debt. I get that a few B have been spent on the NBNCo but is it not true that the vast bulk of the build is funded via debt, to be repaid from the revenue of the project's deliverable?
|
09:14am 17/04/13 Permalink
My point is that whether the dollars allocated to NBN are sourced from debt or general revenue makes absolutely no difference to the project itself or any other macroeconomic variable.
It is a meaningless claim to make. |
09:36am 17/04/13 Permalink
My point is that whether the dollars allocated to NBN are sourced from debt or general revenue makes absolutely no difference to the project itself or any other macroeconomic variable. It does, because it won't affect tax rates nor create any conflict in federal spending priorities, nor is it a 'spend' without return as being represented by many. It's a standalone business which requires such a long term initial investment that only governments and massive private entities such as google can realistically do it. It's like any business taking out a loan, except the government can do it cheaper. Conservatives should be happy about this, it doesn't rely on some contributing more than others via progressive taxation, it's entirely customers who pay for it. |
09:41am 17/04/13 Permalink
My point is that whether the dollars allocated to NBN are sourced from debt or general revenue makes absolutely no difference to the project itself or any other macroeconomic variable.It is a meaningless claim to make. I am not an economist, but the message that infi et al are selling is that our "tax dollars" (money I send to the ATO) are being thrown into a money pit for fast internet. Its not f*****g true as far as I can tell. From what I can see the Government is mostly raising the capital for the project via debt and that we the tax payers are responsible for paying for settling that debt if the deliverable doesn't meet its expected returns. From a macro economic perspective this may not make any difference but to a layman it does. It might seem like a pointless claim to you, but the story we are being sold is that our weekly PAYG is being dumped into a hole in the ground for fast cat pictures. Which feels like FUD. |
09:55am 17/04/13 Permalink
2) That trying to claim that the source of funds is debt vs. general revenue is pointless and misleading. Dollars are fungible. At the end of the day, the government wants to spend X and is expecting to receive Y in revenue. X > Y therefore X-Y = new debt. Trying to ascribe certain funding obligations as being funded by debt and others as being funded by revenue is arbitrary and meaningless as all currency is fungible. If it wasn't then it wouldn't be a very good currency. Fungible doesn't mean economically equivalent though. The difference is that if the market is willing to take on the govts debt without crowding out private investment then there's no downside. Increased taxation burden though would've been economically difficult over the last couple of years though. This is a project that the Howard govt should've had the forsight to undertake in it's last years rather than attempt to buy elections with middle-class tax cuts. |
10:10am 17/04/13 Permalink
It's like any business taking out a loan, except the government can do it cheaper. LOL |
10:17am 17/04/13 Permalink
LOL How would you beat Australian Government Bonds? Additionally, found numbers from a year ago, and it looks like the NBN was/is actually on track to pay itself off faster than expected, as users are choosing the faster plans over the unoptimistic expectations laid out in the NBN's costings. Even if every new user signed up at the slowest plan, they'd still be above their expectations. |
10:23am 17/04/13 Permalink
LOL See any corporate bonds this low? http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates-bonds/government-bonds/australia/ |
10:37am 17/04/13 Permalink
It does, because it won't affect tax rates nor create any conflict in federal spending priorities, nor is it a 'spend' without return as being represented by many. It's a standalone business which requires such a long term initial investment that only governments and massive private entities such as google can realistically do it. Tax rates are set separately and are not affected by whether the source of funds for the government's purchase of equity in NBN Co is sourced from debt or revenue. Unless you assume some sort of extreme constraint whereby governments can't issue debt and thus must balance its budget every period. Conflict in federal spending priorities? I don't understand what you mean. Unless again you are alluding to the fact that in a world where government can't issue debt its spending must be less than or equal to revenue? 'Spend without return'? This is not a project characteristic or macroeconomic variable..? If this is something infi or someone else has incorrectly claimed then I am not here to defend it. I am not an economist, but the message that infi et al are selling is that our "tax dollars" (money I send to the ATO) are being thrown into a money pit for fast internet. Both infi's claim and your counterclaim are equally meaningless. The government is spending X and receiving Y. X - Y = new debt. Whether the particular dollars you that personally send to the ATO are used in the NBN Co or spent on defence or education or whatever is a pointless thing to discuss. It's like claiming that certain drops of water that go into a rain tank are used for certain things. Once they're in the tank it's all water and all perfectly substitutable. Money is exactly the same. Fungible doesn't mean economically equivalent though. The difference is that if the market is willing to take on the govts debt without crowding out private investment then there's no downside. In the scenario we are discussing the government debt is a given. Government is spending more than it receives and thus by necessity has to issue debt. The point of contention is whether the dollars used on one project vs another are sourced from debt vs revenue. It simply doesn't matter. Whether the funds used to purchase equity in the NBN are sourced from revenue or debt, the government has still spent, received and borrowed the same amount of money. Say for example equity purchased in NBN Co is funded by debt, then other spending obligations are funded by revenue. Conversely, if the NBN Co equity was funded by revenue then by necessity other government outlays would be funded by debt because revenue < spending. Government spending > government revenue Therefore, government spending = revenue + debt. These things do not change no matter how you artificially allocate the revenue and debt to different spending obligations. I'm not having a go at either of you, hoggy + nerf. Reading back, it seems to me like you were responding to something nonsensical infi has said and were drawn into the misleading framework/conceptualisation he set up with his "tax dollars going towards the project" claim. I guess I'm trying to point out that what he said doesn't make any sense from an economics point of view and neither does your response. |
11:06am 17/04/13 Permalink
Conflict in federal spending priorities? I don't understand what you mean. Unless again you are alluding to the fact that in a world where government can't issue debt its spending must be less than or equal to revenue?Example. TONY Abbott has ramped up his call for the National Broadband Network to be abandoned as an expensive white elephant in the wake of the devastating Queensland floods. From what I can find, it's part funded by debt, possibly part by tax, though the revenue will also continue after the debt is paid off, paying off the latter, and it's not on budget because of this. |
11:21am 17/04/13 Permalink
Well you are always, always, going to have conflict in federal spending priorities due to the concept of opportunity cost. This is going to be the case whether the NBN, or any other project or spending obligation is funded by debt or revenue.
For example if it is funded by revenue then the opportunity cost is the next best alternative foregone by spending that revenue on NBN. If it is funded by debt then the opportunity cost is the next best alternative foregone by spending the proceeds of that debt issue on the NBN. Opportunity cost is present under both examples and is not affected by the source of funds. Trying to claim that because the equity in NBN Co is funded by government debt that it doesn't create any conflict in federal spending priorities is downright wrong, imo. From what I can find, it's part funded by debt, possibly part by tax, though the revenue will also continue after the debt is paid off, paying off the latter, and it's not on budget because of this. Correct, it is not on budget because it is expected to generate a profit. If this assumption changes it has to be brought on budget. However, I believe this includes the capital gain from the sale of part or all of the equity and is not solely due to revenues derived from user subscriptions. |
11:31am 17/04/13 Permalink
If it pays itself off, then it has no effect on whether any other activity can be undertaken, unlike things which must be funded by revenue (aside from whatever rate raising effect issuing more bonds has).
|
11:36am 17/04/13 Permalink
I don't think you understand opportunity cost Nerf.
|
11:43am 17/04/13 Permalink
If it pays itself off, then it has no effect on whether any other activity can be undertaken, unlike things which must be funded by revenue (aside from whatever rate raising effect issuing more bonds has). You are ignoring the impact of timing. For example, the government spent ~$1.5b on purchasing equity in NBN Co in FY2012. This is $1.5b that could have been spent on literally anything else the government wanted to achieve. Saying that the government will receive that $1.5b back in 10, 15 or more years in the future doesn't negate the fact that this $1.5b spent on purchasing equity in NBN Co had a multitude of uses that it could have been used for in the meantime. Thus it most definitely does have an impact on other activities that can be undertaken. This is the definition of opportunity cost. It does not matter what the source of funds is, opportunity cost will always be present. |
11:45am 17/04/13 Permalink
I don't think you understand opportunity cost Nerf. Then you're wrong. Straight from the wiki definition - "between several mutually exclusive alternatives given limited resources." The NBN corp's debt component is not taken from limited resources (except to the extent that issuing bonds effects theoretical further bonds for something else also off budget), and is not exclusive to funding anything else. The government spent ~$1.5b on purchasing equity in NBN Co in FY2012. This is $1.5b that could have been spent on literally anything else the government wanted to achieve. That's a different discussion, we were talking about the part not on budget, debt taken out exclusively to fund the NBN business, which doesn't prevent debt being taken out for anything else except for the extent that if effects rates or hits some government debt ceiling, if there is one. |
11:51am 17/04/13 Permalink
and it looks like the NBN was/is actually on track to pay itself off faster than expected, as users are choosing the faster plans over the unoptimistic expectations laid out in the NBN's costings. Even if every new user signed up at the slowest plan, they'd still be above their expectations. I would take this with a grain of salt, early adopters are always going to be the biggest spenders and with the best plans to me this was always expected. Also the NBN is currently behind schedule which would delay new users signing and delay and profits. Again not really unexpected that a multi-decade project of this size would have delays (this is not a poke at any government etc, long running/large projects are always prone to delays and is the nature of the beast). |
11:57am 17/04/13 Permalink
That's a different discussion, we were talking about the part not on budget, debt taken out exclusively to fund the NBN business, which doesn't prevent debt being taken out for anything else except for the extent that if effects rates or hits some government debt ceiling, if there is one. So you're saying that the debt issued to fund the purchase of equity in NBN Co doesn't have any opportunity cost because the government can issue further debt for other activities it wants to undertake? Or am I misunderstanding? |
12:01pm 17/04/13 Permalink
I would take this with a grain of salt, early adopters are always going to be the biggest spenders and with the best plans to me this was always expected. Also the NBN is currently behind schedule which would delay new users signing and delay and profits. Again not really unexpected that a multi-decade project of this size would have delays (this is not a poke at any government etc, long running/large projects are always prone to delays and is the nature of the beast). Even if all the late adopters chose the absolute slowest speed though, they'd still be over their expectations, just by how many people have chosen the fastest speeds from the first 20 - 50% of adopters. Additionally, the comments seemed to indicate that Telstra was aggressive in ensuring that a lot of people were on copper contracts for a year or two just before the NBN rolled out, so I wouldn't be surprised if there are many more who would choose the high speeds, and just aren't able to make the switch yet (whereas everybody else gets rolled across something like 18 months after the article was posted). So you're saying that the debt issued to fund the purchase of equity in NBN Co doesn't have any opportunity cost because the government can issue further debt for other activities it wants to undertake? There are obvious potential interest rates side effects or ceilings regarding issuing more debt. The main point is that the NBN is an off budget business which draws its capital from national bonds, not a taxation spend competing with spending on anything else. |
12:19pm 17/04/13 Permalink
some posters make it sound like it's invevitable it will be paid off at a real investment return rate - a veritable river of gold.
Name one thing Labor has done which has not resulted in a disastrous financial outcome. As with all budget blowouts and income shortfalls, the taxpayer foots the bill. I expect the eventual NBN abortion to be the same. I have no faith in Labor to run any quasi-commercial venture. e.g. they appointed Mike Kaiser convicted vote rigger to a $450k NBNCo position without any competitive recruiting. The best thing about about selling-off government assets and keeping commercial style projects in the private sector is that the taxpayer does not wear the moral hazard - it is private shareholders. Neither do you have politicians prostituting these assets to their personal ends (e.g. porkbarreling wasteful roll-outs agendas). The toll tunnels are a great example of overcapitalised projects built for the benefit of the public a limited cost to the taxpayer. The shareholders did lose their shirts though. |
12:33pm 17/04/13 Permalink
A thought occurred to me as I was wondering about international data exchange earlier and that was the projected revenue. If there was a part of that projected revenue that included a charge on per megabyte (or whatever) data, or having data caped plans with the intention of increased income from higher tier plans that is a potential area of a shortfall. For instance, as we have alluded a large portion of the total Labor NBN network will be unused for a lengthy period of time hopefully projected revenue already accounts for that.. |
12:51pm 17/04/13 Permalink
Meanwhile the April rollout info is out.
http://www.nbnco.com.au/assets/documents/rollout-info-monthly-apr-2013.pdf My estimated ready for service date has gone from 31-May to 15-Jun. Disappointing. |
12:54pm 17/04/13 Permalink
People have to buy those bonds with money. Those people and that money is limited. That limited money could be spent in other areas. If you don't think that issuing bonds effects further bonds for something else also off budget, then you, sir, are wrong.
Opportunity cost. |
12:54pm 17/04/13 Permalink
some posters make it sound like it's invevitable it will be paid off at a real investment return rate - a veritable river of gold.Name one thing Labor has done which has not resulted in a disastrous financial outcome. As with all budget blowouts and income shortfalls, the taxpayer foots the bill. I expect the eventual NBN abortion to be the same. I have no faith in Labor to run any quasi-commercial venture. e.g. they appointed Mike Kaiser convicted vote rigger to a $450k NBNCo position without any competitive recruiting. The best thing about about selling-off government assets and keeping commercial style projects in the private sector is that the taxpayer does not wear the moral hazard - it is private shareholders. Neither do you have politicians prostituting these assets to their personal ends (e.g. porkbarreling wasteful roll-outs agendas).The toll tunnels are a great example of overcapitalised projects built for the benefit of the public a limited cost to the taxpayer. The shareholders did lose their shirts though. super, snowy mt hydro forming the RAN medicare ANU CSIRO also, those tolls that really failed have been can-do's doing more so than anything else gateway dup, was all labor which didn't go broke?? |
12:59pm 17/04/13 Permalink
If you don't think that issuing bonds effects further bonds for something else also off budget, then you, sir, are wrong. I said that it did like nine times. It's always the same people who lack reading comprehension. |
01:04pm 17/04/13 Permalink
So if it does, that would restrict the money available for other projects. Therefore opening up an opportunity cost argument around the money spent on the NBN.
|
01:08pm 17/04/13 Permalink
This would have been so much faster if you'd just bothered to read where I said that like nine times.
As I said, it might be describable as an opportunity cost if it effects future bonds to any meaningful extent, but it's not a battle of where to spend tax dollars, which is what hoggy and I were responding to. |
01:17pm 17/04/13 Permalink
The main point is that the NBN is an off budget business which draws its capital from national bonds, not a taxation spend competing with spending on anything else. By this logic all government spending has zero opportunity cost because the government can always issue more debt to fund whatever it wants to do (assuming no impact on rates). I can't understand how you fail to see that the proceeds from the bond issue used to purchase equity in NBN Co could have been used on literally anything else the government wanted to do. It is irrelevant that NBN Co is off-budget from an economic perspective. This is an accounting treatment, not a reflection of the economic reality. The government has still issued that debt and spent that money. That money has an opportunity cost. |
01:34pm 17/04/13 Permalink
The return on the NBN (not a f*****g commercial return, just will it pay for itself) is in the bag infi. You don't believe it but you think that the ALP is the devil so your opinion there isn't worth much. Can you point to any analysis that says that the full NBN can never realistically pay for itself?
I get what you're saying about the lack of real difference between deficit debt and issue of bonds I guess taggs. The thing is though that the accounting s*** matters because the NBN is generally and honestly expected to pay for itself, rather than being a 50B-90B empty bill to the nation that infi and the Coalition deceptively keep suggesting, which is what I was trying to (badly I guess) articulate. |
01:45pm 17/04/13 Permalink
The thing is though that the accounting s*** matters because the NBN is generally and honestly expected to pay for itself, rather than being a 50B-90B empty bill to the nation that infi and the Coalition deceptively keep suggesting, which is what I was trying to (badly I guess) articulate. Fair enough and I'd agree with that. |
01:51pm 17/04/13 Permalink
The Return is not in the bag hogfather. It is a projected income and as such has the inherent risk that it will not eventuate as thought.
The Brisbane tunnels had projected income that 'was in the bag' too. Turns out it was incredibly over-estimated. |
01:55pm 17/04/13 Permalink
The Return is not in the bag hogfather. It is a projected income and as such has the inherent risk that it will not eventuate as thought. Yeh I dunno. This isn't a road, this is a monopoly infrastructure telecommunications project with a 50+ year lifespan. We know from history that the copper network more than (significantly more than!) paid more than the PMG laid out, don't we? I'm not saying that the return will be as quick or the cost exactly as planned, but a Government asset doesn't need the sort of return that a private project does. Personally, I think the risk is the other way - as a monopoly the wholesaler could potentially rape the s*** out of our wallets, especially if privatised as planned. |
02:05pm 17/04/13 Permalink
because the government can always issue more debt to fund whatever it wants to do I can't understand how you fail to see that the proceeds from the bond issue used to purchase equity in NBN Co could have been used on literally anything else the government wanted to do. You know exactly what the limiting factor is on taking out bonds and why the NBN money could not be used on anything else - it doesn't justifiably exist on the books without the revenue from the NBN paying it back. It has to be paid for in some other way if it's used for other spending, i.e. competing for tax dollars, which is the limiting factor for taking out bonds for other spending, which you've suddenly become so stupid that you've forgotten exists. But getting a political partisan like you to admit that you're making dishonest and wilfully-stupid comparisons just for the sake of criticism and being difficult is nigh impossible, so I'm done. |
02:14pm 17/04/13 Permalink
But getting a political partisan like you to admit that you're making dishonest and wilfully-stupid comparisons just for the sake of criticism and being difficult is nigh impossible, so I'm done. Heh, comments like this are why engaging you in a discussion is typically a futile endeavor. |
02:36pm 17/04/13 Permalink
But getting a political partisan like you to admit that you're making dishonest and wilfully-stupid comparisons just for the sake of criticism and being difficult is nigh impossible, so I'm done. Lol, ironing is delicious as always. I guess you missed the part in this thread were I stated repeatedly that I find it difficult to decide between the Coalition's FTTN and the ALP's FTTH because a robust CBA hasn't been applied to either. But I guess it's easier to claim that someone is a partisan than to address an argument. You know exactly what the limiting factor is on taking out bonds and why the NBN money could not be used on anything else - it doesn't justifiably exist on the books without the revenue from the NBN paying it back. If it were used on something else it may very well be on-budget - this is irrelevant! Just because it's off-budget doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If the funds were used on a 0 or negative NPV project like a highway the debt, and the asset would be on-budget. If it were used on some other positive NPV project both the debt and the asset would be off-budget. Whether the project is on or off budget is an accounting treatment. Something being off-budget doesn't magically wipe away its opportunity cost. Let's use an example that you might be able to understand better. Nerf wants to undertake an investment in one of his 'businesses'. This investment has an initial capital cost of $50k and is expected to generate a positive NPV of $100k with the cashflows occurring over the next 5 years. Nerf does not have $50k and thus must borrow it in order to undertake this investment. Now this investment 'pays for itself' in the sense that at some future point Nerf can reasonably expect to have his initial investment back (plus a tidy return). Using nerf's logic, the fact that he had to borrow $50k to undertake this investment has absolutely zero opportunity cost and does not affect his ability to undertake any other activities assuming that nerf can continue to borrow money on the same terms he borrowed his initial $50k from. |
02:51pm 17/04/13 Permalink
Heh, comments like this are why engaging you in a discussion is typically a futile endeavor. After saying things like "I can't understand how you fail to see that the proceeds from the bond issue used to purchase equity in NBN Co could have been used on literally anything else the government wanted to do" after the bajilloin times that it was explained that the NBN funding isn't being pulled from revenue nor competing with anything else, what else is there to say? Hog called him out on his partisan problem too. But I guess it's easier to claim that someone is a partisan than to address an argument. I did address your claim that the NBN spending is money taken from other things, which it isn't. Using nerf's logic, the fact that he had to borrow $50k to undertake this investment has absolutely zero opportunity cost and does not affect his ability to undertake any other activities assuming that nerf can continue to borrow money on the same terms he borrowed his initial $50k from. Piss off. Every single post I qualified that there might be run on effects of having to issue bonds for other things, but we were talking about whether the NBN is competing for tax money, which it isn't. No use talking to you, you're just proving my point. |
02:53pm 17/04/13 Permalink
It would have zero opportunity cost IF he was freely able to borrow more $'s (unlimited) and his own time was not a factor. Unfortunately the world doesn't work this way. The borrowable money is limited at some point, therefor it is not possible to borrow unlimited amounts of cash, hence the Labor plan does have an opportunity cost at some level.
By your logic it seems that we should also just start building the massive ultra high speed rail network, because it will generate money long term too, use the same model as NBN for costing and it then costs the government nothing, no opportunity cost right. Why stop there? Why not start building other Mega-projects that give a positive return, since effectively you can get this money? Maybe because you can't. That money has to come from somewhere, someone has to lend it out. Sure you can print more, even that has limits. Hence there is an opportunity cost. |
02:57pm 17/04/13 Permalink
ITT: The same crowd as always who have the worst reading comprehension in the history of the Internet.
You keep trying to tell me what I've already said in every single post, regarding how taking on debt can have an effect on taking on more debt. Why? We weren't talking about that, we were talking about whether the NBN competes for tax dollars, but you guys are just out to criticize as always and so invent your own argument. It gets real old real quickly. |
03:08pm 17/04/13 Permalink
Because you say that the Labor NBN plan has no opportunity cost, it was said it does.
So you agree now that it does indeed have an opportunity cost? edit: Excellent, so you do agree there will be an opportunity cost. That is all I care about. Perhaps you need to dumb your mighty communication skills down in order for my piss-poor comprehension skills to cope. Does your curiosity peak with the possibility that the error of continual failure to communicate what you mean (across multiple threads) rests at your feet? Just sayin'. |
03:16pm 17/04/13 Permalink
After saying things like ... what else is there to say? You're right, apparently "You stupid dirty right wing liar. I'm taking my bat & ball and going home" seemed like the only possible thing left to say. :) |
03:19pm 17/04/13 Permalink
If it pays itself off, then it has no effect on whether any other activity can be undertaken I really missunderstood this. Because it's wrong, but you say it's right. |
03:33pm 17/04/13 Permalink
Because you say that the Labor NBN plan has no opportunity cost, it was said it does. I've told you in every single post that it has a possible opportunity cost on preventing other debt from being taken out. I don't understand what's wrong with you at this point. I really missunderstood this. Because it's wrong, but you say it's right. Haha jesus. It came with a technical qualification which you cut from the end of the sentence, just to start an argument? GDIAF. |
03:50pm 17/04/13 Permalink
So to simplify this discussion, which it really seems needing ponder this:
If we (Australia) could build any mega-infrastructure that returns a positive income, but we could only build 1 at a time (or spaced 5-10 years apart), what would it be? Is there a better project than a National High Speed Fiber Network? Assume costs to be irrelevant, and a positive rate of return. |
03:55pm 17/04/13 Permalink
Replace running water with running, ice-cold beer.
|
04:03pm 17/04/13 Permalink
Considering the amount of debt that governments have (including Australia's, which should start shrinking now), I don't see why anybody is worrying about whether the NBN's 37 billion investment over a decade would take us anywhere near exhausting our potential credit.
|
04:07pm 17/04/13 Permalink
i just popped into this clusterf*** of boredom thread coz i thought someone mentioned beer!
|
04:10pm 17/04/13 Permalink
Maybe high speed rail Brisbane-Melbourne? Not sure if its a better project but its a good one. |
04:27pm 17/04/13 Permalink
I guess the question for the Coalition supporters is. With the money 'saved' with the coalition plan, what projects (positive ror) would they undertake now or soon with the $15billion that would put Australia in a better position?
That is something I want to hear, not how much better their NBN is (because as we know it isn't better), but what else they are going to do with their time, that otherwise couldn't be done with Labor's plan. Or something like that. |
04:29pm 17/04/13 Permalink
I guess the question for the Coalition supporters is. With the money 'saved' with the coalition plan, what projects (positive ror) would they undertake now or soon with the $15billion that would put Australia in a better position?What money saved? The Liberals plan is $30B the Labor plan is $30.7B. $6B comes from private investment (apparently) and the magic numbers that the Liberals come up with are (again apparently) to do with on going running costs already covered by the NBN's revenue. Essentially the investment from the Government is more or less the same except one comes with a well researched business plan and provides a far more robust network and the other is delivered slightly faster with no indication of how it will make revenue or if it will simply be an asset liability. |
04:43pm 17/04/13 Permalink
Well cased close then. Labor's NBN plan is superior. What other polices are on the cards from both parties that we should be weighing up for the coming election?
|
04:56pm 17/04/13 Permalink
We could use that freed up money to strengthen our borders and to repeal the Unfair Dismissal Laws. It's what Australia deserves.
|
05:00pm 17/04/13 Permalink
$700 million for coastal artillery fortifications each with a huge cannon from Broome to Perth to repel errant fishing vessels.
If communications policy is this backwards looking, why not immigration & foreign policy as well? |
05:06pm 17/04/13 Permalink
You guys debate politics as if you are going to change the opinions of the stupid.
Thankfully the media has jumped on the fact that the coalition plan is f*****g stupid which will hopefully tell the sheep it's a bad idea. |
05:38pm 17/04/13 Permalink
Well cased close then. Labor's NBN plan is superior. What other polices are on the cards from both parties that we should be weighing up for the coming election? Abbott will be PM if the Coalition is elected. Gillard will be PM if the ALp gets back in. Superior NBN plan but have to put up with Gillard or a s***** NBN plan and putting up with Abbott. |
07:44pm 17/04/13 Permalink
i just popped into this clusterf*** of boredom thread coz i thought someone mentioned beer! if they did, then the Coalition's plan is to buy one carton of VB "cause it's less expensive and we can upgrade" while Labour's plan is to buy Little Creatures straight out and deliver it to your house |
07:44pm 17/04/13 Permalink
if they did, then the Coalition's plan is to buy one carton of VB "cause it's less expensive and we can upgrade" while Labour's plan is to buy Little Creatures straight out and deliver it to your house nar, I think it is best descibed like this the labor plan allows you to drink from tallies, from an esky next to your chair while watching some sporting event, and this option is available to all the libs plan delivers the same amount of beer, however, you'll have to get them from the fridge, which will be in the kitchen, you also have to drink it from a straw (not a thick maccas straw, but one of those thin little black ones), same amount of beer, and the libs plan is cheaper because it isn't installing eskys, |
08:21pm 17/04/13 Permalink
if they did, then the Coalition's plan is to buy one carton of VB "cause it's less expensive and we can upgrade" while Labour's plan is to buy Little Creatures straight out and deliver it to your house Think I'd prefer a Guinness on a 457 visa. |
08:27pm 17/04/13 Permalink
I think a better analogy would be that Labor intends to just build the beer refinery now, Libs say let's spend 2/3rds of that on inferior imports and then pay the inevitable refinery cost after paying for all that pointless shipping, because it's cheaper in the short term.
|
08:27pm 17/04/13 Permalink
You guys debate politics as if you are going to change the opinions of the stupid.Thankfully the media has jumped on the fact that the coalition plan is f*****g stupid which will hopefully tell the sheep it's a bad idea.That is something I'm actually thankful for. The media plays a big part in elections (even though they shouldn't) and with the wide reports that Coalition's NBN plans are stupid hopefully it will sway voters to think before putting pen to paper. |
08:32pm 17/04/13 Permalink
The media plays a big part in elections In politics never mind elections. And the Australian news media is in essence owned by 2 people. |
08:45pm 17/04/13 Permalink
Beer analogies win in describing the differences!
|
08:55pm 17/04/13 Permalink
Sony Just Launched a Ludicrously Fast Internet in Japan. From http://mashable.com/2013/04/15/sony-internet-japan/ |
09:19pm 17/04/13 Permalink
I think a better analogy would be that Labor intends to just build the beer refinery now, Libs say let's spend 2/3rds of that on inferior imports and then pay the inevitable refinery cost after paying for all that pointless shipping, because it's cheaper in the short term. no, that is a crap passion filled fact ignoring analogy, and I for one think that you should have to buy a beer for all those that have posted in this thread I mean, RBJ's are real, why not nerf buying us beer? |
09:19pm 17/04/13 Permalink
brisbanetimes is reporting that there will be a 1Gbps service by the end of the year.
|
08:21am 19/04/13 Permalink
$700 million for coastal artillery fortifications each with a huge cannon from Broome to Perth to repel errant fishing vessels.If communications policy is this backwards looking, why not immigration & foreign policy as well? The LNP version would be to spend $70 million to pay the people smugglers not to send people. Like they did under Howard.... |
11:03am 19/04/13 Permalink
250mbs, 500mbs, 1 gbps. By the end of the year, bring on NBN
|
02:18pm 20/04/13 Permalink
250mbs, 500mbs, 1 gbps. By the end of the year*, bring on NBN * Assuming that the Fraudband(tm) service isn't deployed instead to the rest of the country. |
04:10pm 20/04/13 Permalink
http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/26/4271702/vermont-telephone-company-offering-35-per-month-gigabit-internet
Vermont telephone company offering $35-per-month gigabit internet service The telephone company has been working on building out a fiber network direct to its customers' homes since it won a $81 million grant from the USDA as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2010. The company plans to replace all of its current customers' DSL connections with fiber service by the end of the year for no extra cost — hence the $35-per-month price tag. |
03:34pm 27/04/13 Permalink
Just applied for a graduate job at DBCDE so I guess I'll be voting labor... lol
|
05:21pm 27/04/13 Permalink
05:51pm 07/05/13 Permalink
Cool website. I hope sanity prevails and we get good internet rather than terrible stone-age internet.
|
06:14pm 07/05/13 Permalink
We will have phones built into our heads by then.
|
06:17pm 07/05/13 Permalink
Game of Thrones download speeds from iTunes simulation, damn them and their black hearts.
|
06:18pm 07/05/13 Permalink
From iTunes of course shad
(y'arr) |
06:51pm 07/05/13 Permalink
A comparison site that may be of interest. Best site evah, shame Labour didn't do it themselves, its pretty clear for non techno savy out there. |
07:57pm 07/05/13 Permalink
Yep, the non techno savy people are going to be tricked by the lies and misinformation on that fancy looking website.
youtube has never let me upload at my max speed it can take hours on my 100/40 connection (I do not even bother uploading at the max quality because of how long it takes) I just attempted to upload a 300mb picture file to facebook another site this link refers to it took 6min not to mention facebook lowers the quality of all pictures you upload so there is no point in trying to upload anything in HD to facebook (nowhere near my max upload speed not even close) so that's another thing this webpage misleads basically lies to people about if you have seen the NBN TV commercials there is 1 with a lady standing in front of a mirror but the mirror shows her wearing a different dress she is shopping from inside her own home maybe the website should add a button for how long it would take for each dress to load into the mirror ? because what this website already shows its about as stupid as that NBN TV commercial |
08:21pm 07/05/13 Permalink
right now Liberal's biggest problem is that they've not been able to 'take care' of the sons and their kids as they once were able too.
Labour has the same problem... though currently they're seen to be the solution to all of everyone's problems by the public Technology has moved so fast now that both these groups have become out of date. Vote for who ever ever you want to guys.. I'll happily poke fun of you at random for pure comedy reasons. Though if you have a member in your area who is truely making a difference - give the person some credit where it's due. Chuck a piccy of him/her in your post, link to what he/her has done to help. If your member also does work internationally (as a lot of you religious type do now) feel free to detail that too.. sometimes us Aussies forget how lucky we are, and feel we have to leave it to the yanks to set the better example. this is not always so ;) |
09:58pm 07/05/13 Permalink
oh s***...
sorry guys.... back on subject... we are a major NBN provider @ work and our future hinges on the project going forward. ultimately... I don't really think that people really know how much power they have in their hands (or care). meanwhile.. did you know that you can can Optus or Foxtel cable TV even if you move to an area that is not serviced by cable?? buy stuff:... and things... meh - not gonna link... google it... you just plug new cable boxes in by an ethernet cable now... or just look at content provided by your ISP unmetered... wow this is too confusing |
10:07pm 07/05/13 Permalink
Wait Sheer, are you on the NBN? Yes |
12:19am 08/05/13 Permalink
The day where I am able to torrent at 2 meg/sec, stream live HD TV, upload live twitch feed and play online games all simultaneous, will be a glorious one.
Vote #1 gillard! |
03:20am 08/05/13 Permalink
Forget Labors failings as a government in every....single........area, VOTE FOR GOOD BROADBAND! WOOOOOOOOOOOOO
|
03:36am 08/05/13 Permalink
A comparison site that may be of interest.http://howfastisthenbn.com.au/ My main interest in the NBN is that it seems to be better forward thinking, better value for money. Gotta criticize that site because the idea that downloading tv shows faster is a major concern seems to undersell the true strength of the NBN versus the Coalition plan. (There's also likely limitations on harddrive write speeds, international congestion if there's no local mirroring, etc). |
04:58am 08/05/13 Permalink
So Sheer you are currently on the NBN, which means you are set unless you move houses. Why then are you so against it? Or is it the "I've got it now so no one else needs it?" Shouldn't you be supportive of it now that you've seen the potential?
|
08:33am 08/05/13 Permalink
So Sheer you are currently on the NBN, which means you are set unless you move houses. Why then are you so against it? Or is it the "I've got it now so no one else needs it?" Shouldn't you be supportive of it now that you've seen the potential? i think his point is that it's not a good enough reason on it's own to vote Labour. The problem the coalition have is their plan is s***, so for those people who might be swayed by this one issue, (and there will be some, not everyone looks at the big picture) it's not a vote winner. I reckon there would be a shift if they simply said they will proceed with the current plan and look at ways to reduce costs, if that's the biggest issue in the current NBN plan, after they are in. |
08:56am 08/05/13 Permalink
I guess the main reason why i want the NBN is for better upload speeds. I have a NAS drive atm and I would like to give one to my parents. I want them to sync with each other for my parents easy access and for me to have some sort of backup. Another reason why I want it as i want to host my own Vent and TeamSpeak server :) And if i feel like hosting a old game server :) Bring back some Jedi Knight or Quake 3 action!
|
09:24am 08/05/13 Permalink
i think his point is that it's not a good enough reason on it's own to vote Labour. I'd agree with that, NBN isn't a good enough reason to vote for Labor. Swan and Wong don't fill me with confidence, they can't seem to agree on a week to week basis how much of a budget black hole there will be. However, is the coalition NBN plan worth voting for at all? If the coalition shows the same level of policy stupidity in other areas as are currently showing in communications (e.g. razor gangs) it doesn't sound like they have the foresight to nudge the country in a good direction. |
09:45am 08/05/13 Permalink
If Coalition came out and just said we'll use the Labor NBN plan but cut costs where possible they'd get in with a much bigger vote. Currently though their policies (at least from what I've read) are simply a complete opposite of Labor policies just because they are opposition. Ther eis no "yeah that actually sounds smart" instead its "well we are the opposite, we can't agree with you!"
Honestly Coalition will no doubt get in, there is no denying that fact. My problem is one similar to Dazhel, in that if the current Coalition policies and movements are anything to go by - especially with a communications minister who doesn't know how to set this country up for a brighter future - how can we expect them to do well in other areas? How can we expect them to "nudge the country in a good direction" like Dazhel puts it. |
11:02am 08/05/13 Permalink
As someone who probably won't get the NBN because of where I live, I want 4G out to my area pronto! I got 35/25 on speedtest with a 35ms ping.. craps all over my ADSL connection.
|
01:47pm 08/05/13 Permalink
So Sheer you are currently on the NBN, which means you are set unless you move houses. Why then are you so against it? Or is it the "I've got it now so no one else needs it?" Shouldn't you be supportive of it now that you've seen the potential? Because it's a ridiculously costly program. Not everyone NEEDS a superfast connection and certainly not a $4000 dollars per house hold one. If they want one, they should pay for it. I already had a 100mbit connection beforehand which was provided by Telstra and before that i was on 25bmbits which i could easily go back to and still have good speeds to play games, browse the web etc. Private businesses can roll it out if you are willing to pay. i think his point is that it's not a good enough reason on it's own to vote Labour. Yep, that's my second point. Just say for a second that the costs weren't ridiculously high per household, the nbn isn't a justifiable reason to vote Labor and it's dumb that people are going to vote Labor just for the NBN even though LAbor is an incompetent government and is incapable doing basic things a government should do. The problem the coalition have is their plan is s***, so for those people who might be swayed by this one issue, (and there will be some, not everyone looks at the big picture) it's not a vote winner. It's cheaper and still better than what a lot of people have right now. |
02:11pm 08/05/13 Permalink
It's cheaper and still better than what a lot of people have right now. But this isn't the case, because the use of copper that is currently reaching its use by date will further push costs up when they have to rip it all out and re-do it. Why not embrace the Labor NBN plan but cut some costs? |
02:35pm 08/05/13 Permalink
especially with a communications minister who doesn't know how to set this country up for a brighter future I give Turnbull more credit than that. I'm sure he knows the policy is a dud, but he's tasked with selling a cheaper anything simply as an alternative to Labor. Notice how it was both him and Tony Abbott on the podium at the policy announcement? If the FTTN costings go tits up after the election both 'The Mad Monk' and 'Mr Broadband' will no doubt be playing the blame game with each other. |
02:36pm 08/05/13 Permalink
It's cheaper and still better than what a lot of people have right now.By what scale is it cheaper? If I bought a 10kg bag of potatoes for $11 and you bought a 1Kg bag of potatoes for $10 it is pretty clear which of us is getting the better deal. The NBN is costing the Government $30.7B for a system capable of over 1gbps, the Liberals plan costs $30B for a plan that at it's very best will deliver 25mbps and will likely average well below half of that. Not to mention that the NBN will be profitable whereas the Liberals plan doesn't have any chance of delivering profitability while maintaining a competitive price with it's much higher overheads and it's reliance on other networks including telstra copper and telstra line rentals. No one will want to buy it either, the NBN is an investment which can be on sold if needed, the Liberals plan is a $30B liability which no private company would want to pick up. If this is an example of Liberal fiscal responsibility then we are f***ed. |
02:42pm 08/05/13 Permalink
It's also not true that it will cost $4000 a household but Door doesn't let facts get in the way of his frothing hyperbolic rants.
|
02:43pm 08/05/13 Permalink
I'd say what suburb in Melbourne i live, but considering there are a few crazies on this forum(fpot with this "Door" character thing) i'd prefer not to say.
Wouldn't want to look out my front window and see someone wearing a potato sack screaming "DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRR" hysterically. |
04:30pm 08/05/13 Permalink
Even if you weren't Door your craziness was in full display during your brief little stint as bonertron69. Wasn't that account permabanned?
|
04:58pm 08/05/13 Permalink
For me, Tony Abbott's pure insanity is enough for me to not vote for him. Oh that, and their butchering of the NBN.
Its a sad state of politics when the current government is the best option. |
05:27pm 08/05/13 Permalink
The worst part about Tony getting into the PM role, is he will then receive the PM pension after he gets back-stabbed out of the position. That pension is absolutely ridiculous and is an insult to most Australians.
|
05:40pm 08/05/13 Permalink
Only the ALP would be dumb enough to dump a sitting PM, lol
|
05:47pm 08/05/13 Permalink
Only the Liberal party would be dumb enough to have Tony as leader lol
|
05:50pm 08/05/13 Permalink
Only the Liberal party would be dumb enough to have Tony as leader lol ^^ |
05:55pm 08/05/13 Permalink
More fool on us that even with a leader like Tony, people still will vote for liberal even with that clown at the front.
|
06:17pm 08/05/13 Permalink
Well, Ol mate Clive Palmer couldn't rattle the poles a little and bring in a much needed shake up of the political landscape.
His campaign: Hay. vote for me I'm not Liberal or Labor and might even have a chance unlike most other parties. |
06:20pm 08/05/13 Permalink
Problem is that Clive would promote an even more corpocracy than a liberal government would.
|
06:57pm 08/05/13 Permalink
It's cheaper and still better than what a lot of people have right now. Under the Liberal plan I would still have to pay for a phone line. $260 a year for something I don't want but I have to have if I want the internet at a quota that I don't burn through in a few days. Labors plan allows me to dump the phone rental and save $260 a year. An extra couple of hundred a year in my pocket and really good speed internet or money still being taken out of my pocket with Liberals "our plan is cheaper!" plan. Hmm hard decision. |
07:33pm 08/05/13 Permalink
Under the Liberal plan I would still have to pay for a phone line. Has this been confirmed? I've been specifically curious about this, as the cheapest NBN plan is being locked in at $30 or something, which means the same cost as a phone line today, with faster Internet. |
04:24am 09/05/13 Permalink
Has this been confirmed? I've been specifically curious about this, as the cheapest NBN plan is being locked in at $30 or something, which means the same cost as a phone line today, with faster Internet. Considering they would be running it over Telstra's network, I'm pretty sure they'd still charge rental being that they would still own the copper and the line rental would be to cover keeping the copper network running + lining a few pockets. Unless the Libs buy out the copper network, in which case they're beyond hope and don't deserve to be in power, or they seriously blackmail Telstra into free rental, which would add costs to the FTtN plan because they'd have to cover the costs themselves, making it an even worse sustainable plane than it already is. |
11:15am 09/05/13 Permalink
Yeah, it seems sort of a lose lose. If they go out of their way to buy copper, which seems like a terrible short term investment with ongoing costs, then that's the point where it seems they're just being difficult because it's a Labor policy, not because it's a bad policy. If it weren't for that I had a lot of respect for Turnbull, I wouldn't be suspecting that there's something which I'm missing in all this...
|
11:26am 09/05/13 Permalink
If they go out of their way to buy copper, which seems like a terrible short term investment Yeah but the copper network is old and busted, think about how cheap they'll be able to buy it for. A real fixer-upper! /sarcasm |
11:40am 09/05/13 Permalink
http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/05/09/youll-love-the-how-fast-is-the-nbn-site-until-you-read-this/
The key problem with the website is that Labor’s NBN is portrayed as delivering 1000 megabits per second, or Mbps (i.e. 1 Gbps), download speeds and 400 Mbps upload (a pair of speeds usually shown, as it is on the site, as 1000/400 Mbps). This is contrasted with the Coalition’s 25 Mbps down and 5 Mbps upload. That comparison is unfair and misleading. also worth a read - Turnbull's NBN background paper A feature of the Corporate Plan is extremely rapid growth in Average Revenue per User (ARPU) between FY2012 and FY2021. Wholesale ARPU starts at $22.46 per month (slightly below the wholesale prices for NBN Co’s products) but rises to $62.11 by 2020‐21 and the end of the build (assuming construction is completed on schedule). ready for 9% yearly upgrades to the cost of internet. it is like energy prices all over again except we are meant to be using less energy, and more internet.. |
05:25pm 09/05/13 Permalink
The comparison plan speed will be available this year, but also kind of expensive I think. It's worth noting though that the coalition contrasted a false NBN speed in their paper (suggesting that it only offers connections up to 12 or 24 megabits per second, versus their eventual 25 to 50), so they deserve this bit of poorly explained information floating about. :P
ready for 9% yearly upgrades to the cost of internet. it is like energy prices all over again except we are meant to be using less energy, and more internet.. That's still looks cheaper than an internet plan in today's dollars if you include that the phoneline will be removed, and afaik the cheapest plans are locked in at something like ~$30/month for a few years... So it seems to really just be 'catching back up', while offering dramatically improved connection quality and speed? |
05:33pm 09/05/13 Permalink
Yep, the media have picked up on that bogus nbn speeds website. It was only a matter of time considering how bogus the information on it was. People are tricked so easily!
Even conroy tried using it against turnball by tweeting it to turnball with a smug comment. It just goes to show how stupid conroy is. |
05:34pm 09/05/13 Permalink
That's still looks cheaper than an internet plan in today's dollars if you include that the phoneline will be removed, You can get dsl or cable already without needing to pay monthly phone line costs... afaik the cheapest plans are locked in at something like ~$30/month for a few years... please site a source for that, because i believe it to be incorrect, iinet/node have their cheapest plan at $50/month and that is during the honeymoon rate period that nbn are currently in. sure you might be able to lock that in for 2 years but i can't see them offering it after that when the honeymoon is over and real costs costs have gone up 9% year on year. At the same time NBN Co has made some startlingly frank confessions during its regulatory process. In particular it has explicitly acknowledged that its current prices do not reflect market demand, its operating and capital costs or the user charges needed to recover its reasonable costs and make the returns for taxpayers promised by Labor. |
05:43pm 09/05/13 Permalink
You can get dsl or cable already without needing to pay monthly phone line costs... Naked factors in the copper rental cost, you just don't have to pay the (tiny) phone service component to Telstra. please site a source for that, because i believe it to be incorrect http://delimiter.com.au/2013/04/12/turnbull-openly-lying-about-nbn-says-conroy/ > The ACCC ruling: it’ll be no price rises until 2017, and CPI-1.5% until 2040. So, that $29.95 a month plan will actually reduce in price. |
06:00pm 09/05/13 Permalink
People are tricked so easily!Seems to be working for the Liberal NBN plan, people think it will actually be cheaper. |
07:36pm 09/05/13 Permalink
So the ALP build this giant infrastructure that can't pay for itself on current market rates. They trick consumers into thinking it is value for money by giving honeymoon deals to the resellers, although these honeymoon deals don't actually represent a proper return on investment as originally promised by the ALP. THEN after the functioning copper network is completely dismantled and there is no other competition to the NBNCo, they can jack up prices.
I'll give it to them, ALP sure know how to destroy any possibility of competition whilst extracting the LEAST value for money for consumers/taxpayers. The cable installers must think this is manna from heaven. I had not read the Coalition's document in detail until tonight. It is a fascinating read for the "NBN Fans" - it''s all properly referenced back to government and NBN Co documents. In their revised corporate plan, the NBN Co has reduced the speed of the rollout, increased the cost of the rollout, and decreased the estimate revenue of the NBN Co. This is all before they have even made a small dent in the total plan. Their estimates really are just guesstimates - Conroy has no idea what he is doing. There will be lots of telco executives (and other unemployable scumbags like Mike Kaiser) getting nice fat cat salaries while installers fatten their superannuation funds on the back of a government induced telco investment boondoggle. And as to the ACCC ruling. Have you seen what happened to electricity prices under competition watchdogs in Australia? yeah... That undertaking lodged by NBN Co can be relodged and amended at any time. It ain't worth s***. I also noted the following clause from NBN Co's Special Access Undertaking: 1C.4.3 That's what you call a honeymoon deal. How many NBN Subscribers are being sucked into these super cheap honeymoon plans? |
09:20pm 09/05/13 Permalink
not a source for the 30$ plan
a source for the locked in no price rises till 2017 and only "CPI-1.5%" after that because it contradicts their own ARPU forecasts. http://www.nbnco.com.au/assets/documents/nbn-co-corporate-plan-6-aug-2012.pdf (page 69) http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Background.pdf (page 21) one could argue that as people use the NBN as time goes on that they will move to higher value plans therefore raising the average revenue per user, but this is the opposite of what we currently see in retail internet. where plans stay stable or decrease in price while more data and/or features are added. so either their corporate plan is incorrect and their cash flow is all wrong and they won't be making their return on investment to the government OR their corporate plan is correct we will be paying more for internet year on year. |
10:26pm 09/05/13 Permalink
You can get dsl or cable already without needing to pay monthly phone line costs... This is incorrect I am with Naked and its same price as having a phone line as it costs you 26.95 a month to use the cooper. |
10:52pm 09/05/13 Permalink
one could argue that as people use the NBN as time goes on that they will move to higher value plans therefore raising the average revenue per user, but this is the opposite of what we currently see in retail internet. Source? A year ago the NBN was experiencing better than expected revenue per user. http://delimiter.com.au/2012/05/29/higher-100mbps-uptake-will-spur-nbn-price-cuts/ The business case estimated an ARPU of $33-$34 per month, it's currently at $38. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/19/nbn_can_stay_on_budget_says_quigley/ |
06:25am 10/05/13 Permalink
You mean because the roll out has been so slow and the take up has been so low, the userbase is skewed to early adopters on more expensive plans instead of a representation of the wider expected userbase?
|
11:13am 10/05/13 Permalink
That possibility was discussed, even if everybody choose the slowest plan from then on in those areas, there'd still be more than the expected number of people who had choose the expensive plans, just because of how many people have already gone on them.
http://delimiter.com.au/2012/05/29/higher-100mbps-uptake-will-spur-nbn-price-cuts/#comment-429491 Per the plan,10% using 100Mb (of 70% of households using the NBN) giving 7-8% of households using 100mb. |
11:20am 10/05/13 Permalink
as per their own SUA, there are never NBN price cuts, the price goes up or stays the same.
|
11:32am 10/05/13 Permalink
What's that in response to? the whole premiss of that article. |
01:32pm 10/05/13 Permalink
Which was posted in response to this:
one could argue that as people use the NBN as time goes on that they will move to higher value plans therefore raising the average revenue per user, but this is the opposite of what we currently see in retail internet. People are already starting on higher value plans it seems, already more than was expected in total, while still at less than half of the number of users expected to sign up. |
01:36pm 10/05/13 Permalink
Which was posted in response to this:People are already starting on higher value plans it seems, already more than was expected in total, while still at less than half of the number of users expected to sign up. i'm not sure what you are arguing now? that prices will come down - which the NBN SUA doesn't allow, prices can only go up or remain the same. that prices will stay the same - which isn't what the NBN business plan says as ARPU goes up year on year. |
01:46pm 10/05/13 Permalink
I'm not sure what's going on at this point. Weren't you arguing that we should expect the NBN to fail to meet its forecasts due to people on average being likely to sign up to lower value plans than was predicted? (where the opposite is evidently happening)
not a source for the 30$ plan Additionally, if you read the article, it pointed to this: http://www.whistleout.com.au/Broadband/National-Broadband-Network-NBN-12Mbps-Plans That's the same cost as a current phone line, with fibre optic internet and 15gig of data to boot. I think that Tier 1 is 12 megabits, which is 1.5 megabytes per second since I think that there's no line attenuation on fibre as with copper. As best I can tell, the ACCC's rules prevent any long term price inflation. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-04/nbn-wholesale-agreement-rejected-by-accc/4609294 |
02:10pm 10/05/13 Permalink
I'm not sure what's going on at this point. i was stating that as per their business plan and SUA to the ACCC, they expect their plans to go up year on year. turbull's paper makes this rate to be around 9% year on year. |
02:22pm 10/05/13 Permalink
Your information seems to be dated: http://www.smh.com.au/business/accc-wants-more-power-over-nbn-prices-20130404-2h9ax.html
Under NBN Co's undertaking, prices will stay the same until 2017 and future increases must be below inflation. "Consumers will pay what they pay now for their internet services and prices should go down in real terms over time," Mr Sims said. As for whether people might sign up for more expensive plans but is apparently not seen in markets today - it seems that people have signed up for the more expensive plans, in the data released so far. |
02:27pm 10/05/13 Permalink
?
that article is about what the ACCC wants. not what NBN Co it in its current form has a business plan for or is proposing to the ACCC. |
02:34pm 10/05/13 Permalink
Under NBN Co's undertaking, prices will stay the same until 2017 and future increases must be below inflation. "Consumers will pay what they pay now for their internet services and prices should go down in real terms over time," Mr Sims said. Sounds like that part's already a done deal, proposed by NBN Co. In this, it said that "The ACCC says it is happy with much of the proposal, including a cap on prices." (Both of these are from the last 30 days or so, so perhaps the rising costs plan from before is out of date) |
02:40pm 10/05/13 Permalink
let me know when they have a new business plan out, but i doubt it will happen before the election and then it will all change anyway, so kind of moot.
|
02:48pm 10/05/13 Permalink
They just submitted an updated paper to the ACCC on how prices will be locked, f***ed if I'm going to read all that though. :P
|
04:20pm 10/05/13 Permalink
09:59am 22/05/13 Permalink
living bro, nice one!
i yearn for your upload. another fun fact from the market survey group i did last nite on former labor voters. out of 8, only 1 person cared about the NBN (me), and everyone else was concerned about the costs :( |
10:17am 22/05/13 Permalink
Bumping this thread just to say 'yay'!http://schicklgruberfest.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/klink.jpg Raaaaavvennnnnn!!!! |
10:21am 22/05/13 Permalink
Bumping this thread just to say 'yay'! Lucky bastard... I'll join you in a few years... Assuming I don't get stuck with s***** ass FTTN and see almost no speed increase lol. |
11:12am 22/05/13 Permalink
LAN party at Raven house!
I live in New Farm so no love for me, see you there in 10 years or so |
12:03pm 22/05/13 Permalink
So I think that I finally understand this NBN/FTTN thing, where it boils down to:
Labor says that it's more economical to roll out fibre to all houses at once while digging past them, and enough people will take up the higher tier speed plans that it will average out and pay back the corporation's cost for rolling out to houses (versus the cheaper node). They need a small percentage of people to take up the faster-than-FTTN plans for that to be financially viable. The Coalition says that nobody (or not enough people) will take up the 'faster-than-FTTN' speeds for the business to pay back those costs, and so intends to have people pay for 'faster-than-FTTN' house connections individually, which afaik will cost dramatically more for the users who get it than it would if it were just incorporated into a streetwide deal and rolled into fees for the higher speed plans (presuming that enough people take up the higher tier plans to pay that cost back). The coalition plan also requires paying for, maintaining, and removing the FTTN street corner boxes, which require power and airconditioning, and presumably will need to be there even if only one person stays on FTTN (which might cost more to power and maintain than just connecting them up to fibre?). It's unclear what happens to the Telstra line rental fee under FTTN, which disappears under the NBN's current intention of completely replacing the old copper network. From what we've seen, people are actually signing up to the high tier plans at a rate dramatically higher than Labor's conservative business plan estimates. So what exactly does the Coalition plan offer? It doesn't make low tier speed plans any cheaper for users, it just makes high tier speed plans more expensive. It doesn't save money through other avenues such as tax, as if often implied, as the payment of the corporation's startup debt is done through user fees, not tax dollars. (not to mention that the FTTN appears to leave a mess in several significant ways, from the FTTN boxes, to disparity of increased valuation to houses which have already been connected versus those which have not, to relying on the decaying and frequently problematic copper network). Do the Ausgamers crew want to interview somebody in the coalition over this? It would make an interesting and crowd drawing article me thinks... |
12:55pm 22/05/13 Permalink
i think you have a whole bunch of capital N's that are meant to be H's
|
01:05pm 22/05/13 Permalink
Nah I used NBN current plan to refer to FTTH.
|
01:11pm 22/05/13 Permalink
ok re-reading that makes sense now lol
|
01:17pm 22/05/13 Permalink
I'm thinking of moving closer to Brisbane just to get the NBN. The area I'm currently at has the 'you're not getting it for years' listing, which is kind of disappointing.
I'm spoken to my local member and he's basically hopeless. Anyone in Brisbane connected yet? |
03:32pm 22/05/13 Permalink
pave is our resident NBN man.
you must be bad to consider moving for it. where do you live? I melt the copper at 1.2 Mbps up near Caboolture. I'm sort of used to it now. |
04:04pm 22/05/13 Permalink
I want to know why the NBN is constantly advertised on tv when most Australians can't even get it?
|
04:10pm 22/05/13 Permalink
I'm down in redlands.. i get 7-8 mbps.
Not too bad.. but when I lived at coorparoo I was getting 12 mbps. I'm not moving for it.. I'm kinda needing to move anyway, so I thought I would push for an area with NBN as a bonus for all the moving pain. |
04:14pm 22/05/13 Permalink
Myself and raven have the fibres
|
08:28am 23/05/13 Permalink
I want to know why the NBN is constantly advertised on tv when most Australians can't even get it?It's called propaganda. Bagdad Bob will fill you in. I'm thinking of moving closer to Brisbane just to get the NBN. The area I'm currently at has the 'you're not getting it for years' listing, which is kind of disappointing.Would be nice to just have a whole bunch of new Exchanges rolled out on the cheap for areas which don't have decent ADSL. I'm OK I've got 12Mbps. NBN would be nice but I doubt my area is even in the 5 year scope. So seeing as I won't get it I need to vote so that as few others as possible get it as well :p |
08:37am 23/05/13 Permalink
I love politicians, they just never know when to be quiet.
http://delimiter.com.au/2013/05/27/coalition-nbn-plan-to-deliver-25-gigabit-rural-mp/ http://au.prime7.yahoo.com/n3/news/a/-/local/17300768/cobby-slams-government-nbn-cuts-video/ |
09:07pm 27/05/13 Permalink
I love politicians, they just never know when to be quiet. hey, it isn't like they are minister for communicators or anything... |
01:04am 28/05/13 Permalink
He really sounds like he knows what he's talking about.
|
08:19am 28/05/13 Permalink
Alston and Coonan were lawyers and these two presided over the communications portfolios which lead to the backwater we have today.
|
09:22am 28/05/13 Permalink
God dammit I dislike Stephen Conroy.
|
12:47pm 28/05/13 Permalink
Now there's Asbestos concerns.
They are going around digging up old pits with asbestos in them and now workers are being investigated for asbestos safety breaches by Comcare: Sydney family leaves home amid NBN asbestos safety breaches |
02:20pm 30/05/13 Permalink
Now there's Asbestos concerns.They are going around digging up old pits with asbestos in them and now workers are being investigated for asbestos safety breaches by Comcare: Sydney family leaves home amid NBN asbestos safety breachesWhich are Telstra subcontractors, not NBN subcontractors. Telstra is responsible for pit remediation not the NBN. |
03:25pm 30/05/13 Permalink
Now there's Asbestos concerns. just throw another billion or two on the tab. |
04:57pm 30/05/13 Permalink
^pretty much
It is a shame that in real life these sorts of brushes with asbestos are completely harmless |
05:11pm 30/05/13 Permalink
just throw another billion or two on the tab. Is this meant to be analogous to how the coalition is throwing money at FTTN boxes and copper lines? For about the same price that would connect homes directly and save all the long term hassles, allow a wider range of options, offer a more stable service, and allow NBN Co to generate more revenue through higher tier plans? |
05:16pm 30/05/13 Permalink
Wait so you are saying that the Coalition wouldn't have contracted their NBN plan with a contractor who subcontracts out to most likely the same companies and hit the same asbestos issue? Sure it may not have happened in the current coalition NBN phase plan, when they decide to foot the bill for doing the job properly it would have happened. So yer, that is a pretty s***** comment. |
05:49pm 30/05/13 Permalink
The NBN doesn't pay for the pit remediation costs, Telstra does, so infi is wrong about cost to build going up for the NBN. Telstra owns the pits and always will, even under the NBN arrangements.
|
06:12pm 30/05/13 Permalink
The NBN doesn't pay for the pit remediation costs, Telstra does, so infi is wrong about cost to build going up for the NBN. you think telstra won't find a way to sneak all its extra costs into contract variations. That's so cute. |
06:33pm 30/05/13 Permalink
you think telstra won't find a way to sneak all its extra costs into contract variations. That's so cute.Gotta love it when you talk more utter bulls*** to cover something you bulls***ted about prior. |
07:03pm 30/05/13 Permalink
My initial feeling would be (putting my pretend nbn engineer hat on here) if i recieved a variation from telstra for works relating to their own pits i'd be telling them piss off
But who knows what s*** gets spoken well abive the head of the guy looking at construction variations |
07:09pm 30/05/13 Permalink
I'm sure if any of those people did DIY self renovations they wouldn't give a s*** about asbestos and safe removal of it.
|
07:20pm 30/05/13 Permalink
hahaha asbestos concerns..
half the old existing pits are made of or have asbestos pipe in them.. The only concern is when its broken.. which many of them are not. Sounds like a load of rubbish to me |
07:21pm 30/05/13 Permalink
My initial feeling would be (putting my pretend nbn engineer hat on here) if i recieved a variation from telstra for works relating to their own pits i'd be telling them piss offNBN does not pay for pit remediation. Pit remediation is performed when the NBN can't push a fibre cable down a pit. Telstra then remediate the pit they own. The NBN does not rip or open up pits to lay fibre, they push it through the pit. Existing pits are only opened up by Telstra so Telstra have caused the asbestos issue. New pits don't have asbestos as of course they're new. No one in the Federal LNP have made an issue of the asbestos issue being a NBN problem, only their numbnut supporters attempting to derail the discussion have. |
07:59pm 30/05/13 Permalink
I wonder how Labors new Asbestosband will go down in the community.
|
08:08pm 30/05/13 Permalink
And lets be realistic here if you think the coalition wouldn't have run into this exact same problem are are either dreaming or a straight up liar
S*** like this happens all the time during construction - regardless of how big or small the project is If every construction job ran perfectly without a problem i'd be out of a job |
08:15pm 30/05/13 Permalink
Telstra is hiring an extra 200 safety specialists to inspect all asbestos-related work at sites where the National Broadband Network (NBN) is to be rolled out.So s*** for brains Sheerobesity how is this a Labor issue/scandal? That's right, it's not and you're just talking out your arse. |
08:20pm 30/05/13 Permalink
So s*** for brains Sheerobesity how is this a Labor issue/scandal? That's right, it's not and you're just talking out your arse. Shh stop quoting the ABC you know the Abbottpell groupies say its biased. |
08:57pm 30/05/13 Permalink
The National Broadband Network- Where do you stand? currently.. listening to the lads @work b****ing about ongoing greenfield install issues... and listening to the boss's responses. Life working for a bunch of Liberals... in a company who's future depends on the success of the NBN... it happens.. someone's got to install it properly I suppose... so it all goes in properly ( btw - I am neither Labour nor Liberal. I never planned to be in this s***** situation again where I had to comment about the guys and their petty political arguments. Personally - I just want them to do their jobs and instead of arguing with each other) |
09:16pm 30/05/13 Permalink
If Turnbull gets his way he would sell NBN Co as soon as he can so we would likely get stuck with the s*** FTTN plan the Libs are wanting. No private company is going to invest in going FTTH as share holders wont want to spend the money.
https://soundcloud.com/crosstalkcommsday/turnbull-says-fibre-to-the |
02:20pm 31/05/13 Permalink
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-31/man-dies-at-nbn-work-site/4726310
A man has died after being crushed between two trucks at a work site for the National Broadband Network (NBN) on the New South Wales south coast. terrible news. |
04:18pm 31/05/13 Permalink
that is clearly labor's fault, this wouldn't have happened under the coalition
|
04:26pm 31/05/13 Permalink
Of course it is, under the coalition they'd be using a horse and cart instead of a truck.
|
04:43pm 31/05/13 Permalink
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-03/asbestos-breaches-uncovered-at-nbn-sites-in-queensland/4730170
Workplace Health and Safety officers say the breaches in Queensland were at the Brisbane suburbs of Banyo and Carseldine and in the northern city of Mackay over the past three months |
07:59am 04/06/13 Permalink
Yeah I'd imagine encountering asbestos is fairly common when disturbing older construction work.
Can the rest of us borrow your pitchfork if you're not using it though, trog? |
10:45am 04/06/13 Permalink
Yeah fairly common
Found a few sheets of asbestos board buried shallow where we were about to dig a road at a job late last year $3k later to get 20 cubic metres of soil removed which can only be done certain people who are certified to remove it. In reality it could have been dug out with the excavator already there and sent to the dump and we would have had the same outcome |
12:26pm 04/06/13 Permalink
Out of interest, how often is abestos found in non-NBN-related construction work? It seems like the sort of thing that probably happens fairly regularly? Common enough that we have a line item automatically in our budgets for remediating sites before construction starts in earnest that allows for asbestos removal. It's a massive beatup, especially considering that the Howard government's communication minister had already sought information on the number of pits with asbestos, how frequently do they come into contact with asbestos and what is the best way of dealing with it from Telstra all in 2005. |
03:40pm 04/06/13 Permalink
Out of interest, how often is abestos found in non-NBN-related construction work? It seems like the sort of thing that probably happens fairly regularly? Yeah seems like the kind of thing that has legs. I get that it's not labors fault that exchanges built in the 50's have loads of asbestos, but if *every* old construction site has the same issue then its probably a legit criticism to say it wasn't properly anticipated. The beat up factor totally appreciated, I can't imagine there isn't going to be a knock on effect for the price tag. Seems like a good chance for Telstra to get their exchanges purged of asbestos on government coin, or at least not their own. |
04:01pm 04/06/13 Permalink
Out of interest, how often is abestos found in non-NBN-related construction work? It seems like the sort of thing that probably happens fairly regularly? In any construction built pre 1990's you are a chance of finding asbestos. Any buildings that suspect it should have an audit done and if found have an asbestos management plan in place. The regs used to require a register for buildings built prior to 1990 but that was moved to prior to 31st Dec 2003. Asbestos is not always an immediate hazard and does not present a risk to health when it is stable, encapsulated and contained in a bonded form. It is only when asbestos containing material is disturbed, or damaged in a manner likely to cause the release of respirable asbestos fibres, that any potential health risk exists. And the problem then is that it only takes one fibre lodged in your lung and it doesn't always present any symptoms for up to 30 years in some instances. if it's bonded no problems, record it and move on, however in these cases the workers broke it up causing fibre release. bad news. Sounds like Telstra need to audit all their pits, big job for someone. |
04:29pm 04/06/13 Permalink
Sounds like Telstra need to audit all their pits, big job for someone. They've engaged PwC to provide an opinion as to their potential liability over the issue and design a review/removal program afaik. |
04:38pm 04/06/13 Permalink
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-04/nbn-asbestos-risk-exaggerated-public-health-expert/4732418
asbestos guy that comes on at the end is very informative. |
10:57pm 04/06/13 Permalink
On this weeks episode of NBNCO fail, wireless towers that don't actually reach anyone, or towers that only reach 100 people.
His defence comes as fresh data from NBN Co reveals that several towers erected by the company at a cost of up to $450,000 each have a maximum reach of less than 100 customers – a figure experts say will not cover its cost. According to answers provided by NBN Co to Senators last week, seven of the 63 wireless broadband towers erected cannot connect to a single customer. A further five have a maximum reach of less than 100 homes or businesses with one base station in Sugarloaf Mountain near Tamworth only capable of reaching 44 premises. http://www.afr.com/p/technology/conroy_defends_nbn_wireless_rollout_2piSOSxUEjVhogO1Al6siN |
11:29am 06/06/13 Permalink
It was always their stated intention that the publicly run business would be able to use its revenue to subsidise equal-cost access for people in more remote areas. I don't know if I agree with it, but it's not some big "gotchya" moment unless you haven't been paying attention, the wireless component was not expected to pay itself back afaik.
|
07:17pm 06/06/13 Permalink
What's with the name changes possumman?
Didn't you like sheerobesity any more? |
09:32pm 06/06/13 Permalink
How does that excuse $3.15 Million spent on towers that cant reach ANYONE.
I think the NBN is a great thing, FTTH is something thats actoually going to swing my vote, but there are some people that seem to think that hte NBN should have a blank cheque without any oversight or checks. It should be reprimanded. And if anyone comes back with "It's only $3.15 million in the grand scheme of things it's not much" 1. F*** you. 2. It's a hell of a lot of money and 9%, NINE f*****g Percent of towers erected don't reach anyone. 3. They've barely even started the roll out and if they keep this 9% rate up that's a hell of a lot of wastage. |
09:40pm 06/06/13 Permalink
Yeah that's interesting if true, but like the coalition's week of claiming that the NBN was priced at ninety-billion-dollars!@$%, once somebody is being dramatically dishonest in one regard, I doubt their honesty in another regard.
Saying that towers won't make back their costs is a failure of the NBN, when it was the stated plan from the start, sets off a lot of alarm bells about this source. And I don't even necessarily agree with the subsidised towers thing, because it is revenue which the nation could be using (as the nation is the investor who gain when the NBN is profitable). But maybe socially productive monopolies on utilities is a good thing, I dunno. |
09:53pm 06/06/13 Permalink
According to answers provided by NBN Co to Senators last week, seven of the 63 wireless broadband towers erected cannot connect to a single customer. A further five have a maximum reach of less than 100 homes or businesses with one base station in Sugarloaf Mountain near Tamworth only capable of reaching 44 premises. |
09:55pm 06/06/13 Permalink
Yes but what is the context? Even in the most stupid possible situation, do you really think that's the whole story?
It's from a story which described the towers as being unable to make their costs back as a sort of "gotchya" failure of the NBN, when it was always the stated intention, so I'm just shrugging it off until a writer who hasn't proved that they're a nonce has summed it up for me properly. edit: Ah An NBN Co spokeswoman said the seven towers with no customers were designed to act as relay stations. F*****g partisan nubs. |
10:16pm 06/06/13 Permalink
Probably towers where the community cried about where nbnco wanted to place them for optimal coverage, so where moved, now said community cries over poor coverage.
|
11:16pm 06/06/13 Permalink
It's reasonable to build relay towers in situations where trenching your back haul isn't feasible.
Whether or not it's bulls*** you'd have to look at roll out/coverage plans to know for sure. Can't just look at the picture *right now* either - they may be building them now and linking them up later during another phase of the roll out. |
11:29pm 06/06/13 Permalink
Came across this, interesting solution.
Link: http://www.ted.com/talks/juliana_rotich_meet_brck_internet_access_built_for_africa.html tldr: wireless modem bricks using mobile wireless. |
03:55am 19/08/13 Permalink
Came across this, interesting solution.Link: http://www.ted.com/talks/juliana_rotich_meet_brck_internet_access_built_for_africa.htmltldr: wireless modem bricks using mobile wireless. Internet access for Africa... Now, if only they could get computers and electricity. |
07:33am 19/08/13 Permalink
I'm not paying for 100-1000mbps. Ruddy can F right off
|
07:48am 19/08/13 Permalink
So you would rather pay for 25mbps and use outdated technology?
|
08:05am 19/08/13 Permalink
that will probably end up costing the same anyway
|
08:16am 19/08/13 Permalink
Well according to Turnbull the ALP NBN will cost $90+ billion, if you make a few assumptions around cost, timeline etc etc.
Bwhaha, isn't that hilarious. I could also say that Tony Abbots PPL policy would cost $0 if everyone stopped breeding. Now, I understand their assumptions aren't as crazy as mine, but you can see the point. I REALLY doubt that the NBN is going to come in on time or on budget, but I mean what government programs do typically anyway? I highly doubt it's going to be $90bn though. I'm willing to pay for some risk. |
08:28am 19/08/13 Permalink
thang fug construction of nbn at my new place will be complete in september/october
http://images.codingforcharity.org/dmp/20101203/They-See-Me-Rollin_20101203191903_reg.png |
09:55am 19/08/13 Permalink
The last thing I want to do is vote Labour, but their NBN policy will have such greater benefit for my industry, that I can actually see myself voting Labour this time around. Doubt it will matter anyway, looks like stopping the boats and giving new mums 6 months holiday at full pay is more important. |
09:59am 19/08/13 Permalink
I REALLY doubt that the NBN is going to come in on time or on budget, but I mean what government programs do typically anyway? I highly doubt it's going to be $90bn though. I'm willing to pay for some risk.Yes but as has been pointed out on here before (possibly even in this old thread), the Australian Taxpayer's exposure to the NBN costs won't exceed $30.6B and if NBN Co. needs more money they are supposed to raise it through private investment. Also Abbott's magical numbers are based partially on running costs and mostly on bulls*** which are two things I doubt he has factored into his own sollution. The Libs plan is to spend the same amount of money over a shorter period of time for a result that only Rupert Murdoch would benefit from and an infrastructure that will be worthless even before it is installed. No one will buy the Libs liability of a network down the road when it comes time to fully privatize. |
10:19am 19/08/13 Permalink
It's paid back over time though. When do we get paid back for the billions spent on boat people?
|
11:10am 19/08/13 Permalink
So you would rather pay for 25mbps and use outdated technology? I don't actually give a f*** mate, what I have now is fine. I have a friend in hong kong that has unlimited fibre optics and phone internet for like 10 dollars a month but he just uses it for watching youtube in the morning and downloading high quality porn quickly etc. (20mbps is good enough for this anyway) |
11:11am 19/08/13 Permalink
is you giving a f***, mate. exactly, I don't care about excessively high speed but I do if I have to pay for it. |
11:16am 19/08/13 Permalink
Eh PJ, your sig is f*****g the thread up mang. Cool convo and all but the thing is flying off the edge of the screen.
This makes me a sad panda. :( |
11:27am 19/08/13 Permalink
Eh PJ, your sig is f*****g the thread up mang. Cool convo and all but the thing is flying off the edge of the screen.This makes me a sad panda. :( thanks for the feedback ph33x I'll fix that up later |
11:36am 19/08/13 Permalink
exactly, I don't care about excessively high speed but I do if I have to pay for it. You have to pay for slow-as-s*** internet anyway, why not have fast-as-s*** internet for the same price so people OTHER than you can benefit from it. Just because YOU can't see a use for it, doesn't mean no-one else can. |
11:41am 19/08/13 Permalink
That's all cool mang, just being the same community guy I was on GA.
Personally I can't wait for the NBN. As someone who leads raid groups, we have dsl related issues which funnel through into our enjoyment of the game. Sure, we could replace them, but that's not the long-term guild I envisioned. NBN will fix many of these intermittent problems, even though they need less than 1mbps. Ultimately you have to look at it this way: In the next 10-20 years, so much of the copper network will be degraded to the point where it MUST be replaced. If anyone can argue that 1m of multistranded '90 pair' copper cable is cheaper than fibre, then I'll take back years of experience and just follow Liberal policy on this one.. |
11:41am 19/08/13 Permalink
If anyone can argue that 1m of multistranded '90 pair' copper cable is cheaper than fibre, then I'll take back years of experience and just follow Liberal policy on this one.. That's the thing, you can't. Which makes me wonder how people still try. |
11:43am 19/08/13 Permalink
It's the ultimate point which ends debate on most other aspects of the NBN when debating with logical thinkers.
The cost will be there in 10-20 years, simple physics and copper deterioration dictate that. No amount of crying/money saving will save the copper from deterioration. If anyone has seen what carrier grade, pots approved cable looks like - The first thing that you think of is "Damn, that s*** must be very expensive". This is why all new estates are getting fibre from the get-go. It would be stupid to install more expensive copper for a lesser service. The ONLY argument for existing copper users is 'My s*** is fine for now' - but give it another 10 years and see how your copper is faring out. Bring on fibre, the best form of data transmission we have on the face of the planet. |
11:53am 19/08/13 Permalink
doesn't matter bros because the libs have pulled a number out of their ass that sounds cheaper
SO IT MUST BE BETTER |
12:02pm 19/08/13 Permalink
Yes but as has been pointed out on here before (possibly even in this old thread), the Australian Taxpayer's exposure to the NBN costs won't exceed $30.6B and if NBN Co. needs more money they are supposed to raise it through private investment.http://cdn.meme.li/i/o84ld.jpg |
12:49pm 19/08/13 Permalink
Mostly I think NBN cost overruns that the Libs are describing are in a world of pure imagination.
But that was a clever meme though, keep at it. |
02:33pm 19/08/13 Permalink
People in NBN are bored.. just saying..
|
02:35pm 19/08/13 Permalink
Mostly I think NBN cost overruns that the Libs are describing are in a world of pure imagination. But that was a clever meme though, keep at it. http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/fact-checker/will-the-nbn-cost-94-billion-20130816-2s154.html None of the senior telecommunications analysts PolitiFact spoke to wanted to go on record. Each shared one or more of Mr Turnbull's doubts about the NBN Co's assumptions. |
08:53pm 19/08/13 Permalink
This thread just goes round in circles.
|
09:13pm 19/08/13 Permalink
at them end of the day, there will be fibre to the home, so the question is do we want to pay for it now, and get the full benefit, or pay more over all (part roll out, and the full roll out that will happen anyway in 20 years) and get a have as good later
|
09:16pm 19/08/13 Permalink
CM i know of a house for sale in Aspley with NBN already connected up.... could use a quick sale too
|
07:51am 20/08/13 Permalink
CM i know of a house for sale in Aspley with NBN already connected up.... could use a quick sale too thats pretty northsidey bro |
08:14am 20/08/13 Permalink
He lives in caboolture, i am doing him a favor
|
08:56am 20/08/13 Permalink
I got my fibre installed today. I went with iiNet 100/40 1TB plan.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/1176315_10151806605991071_515290283_n.jpg |
02:43pm 20/08/13 Permalink
What I don't get about the liberal plan and the people who support it, do you think the need for the NBN is going to magically go away? Or that if we wait another 10 years to do the costs involved are going to magically disappear? Instead they spend another $25 billion on a temporary bandaid fix, and then in 10 years time when we're still the laughing stock of the technologically developed world and need an NBN because the copper network just can't handle it anymore, we spend the same money to do what should have been done in the first place. Except now we have a whole lot of useless nodes and its another 10 years before its even complete, so we end up even furthur behind the curve. Why not just bite the bullet and do it properly the first time? Instead of adopting this luddite, 'head in the sand' position of "If it aint broke, why fix it".
|
02:56pm 20/08/13 Permalink
I got my fibre installed today. I went with iiNet 100/40 1TB plan. i hate you with every fiber of my being |
03:13pm 20/08/13 Permalink
Why not just bite the bullet and do it properly the first time? Instead of adopting this luddite, 'head in the sand' position of "If it aint broke, why fix it". That's a good question, cc: rupert.murdoch@newscorp.com - he might be able to give you an answer. |
03:22pm 20/08/13 Permalink
7ms ping time, that is the stuff of dreams.
Hoggy, it is even worse when you know that across the road they have it.... I have a pit that runs through a walkway from my cold-de-sac into that street. It is soooooo close, I might have to run a cable across the road ;D |
03:26pm 20/08/13 Permalink
i'd like to think that infi and door have have gone halves in directly paying for my nbn connections at my place
thanks bros! |
04:51pm 20/08/13 Permalink
There's a box about 7m away from where Im sitting, but alas I don't think it will be plugged into my house before the election.
FFFFFFF.... so close. |
05:08pm 20/08/13 Permalink
anything at least currently being constructed will be finished regardless of the election
it won't be a case of drop tools come monday if the LNP win the election on saturday |
05:15pm 20/08/13 Permalink
F*** yes.
I was wondering about that. |
05:21pm 20/08/13 Permalink
F*** yes.I was wondering about that. Yeah, I'd imagine that there will be a fair while of construction while people finish contracts or various other things. I'm hoping that they see some f*****g sense and just say "well, we can't stop it since it's already in motion" and continue with it while saving a tiny bit of face. Better than them taking 3+ years to re-negotiate everything with Telstra and co and doing nothing in that time. Either way, it's going to be a f*****g shambles. Ethiopia will probs have fibre before we do if the coalition gets their way. |
05:25pm 20/08/13 Permalink
there are construction contracts and all kinds of s*** going on, i'd be surprised if construction under the ALP model was stopped in the first year of the LNP reign of chaos if they get in
|
05:30pm 20/08/13 Permalink
anything at least currently being constructed will be finished regardless of the electionit won't be a case of drop tools come monday if the LNP win the election on saturday Just enough to be significant and piss off people who miss out! |
05:30pm 20/08/13 Permalink
I was all set to run an ethernet cable out the front door and into the footpath.
|
06:39pm 20/08/13 Permalink
There is a pretty good chance I hope that the Coalition will find it to be very expensive to significantly change the NBN from what it is currently doing and will continue it as is, perhaps in areas with no plans of construction for 3 years might get stuck with FTTN, wheres as those areas already under construction may get FTTH.
Fingers crossed. |
06:50pm 20/08/13 Permalink
Given contractors are coming back to the NBNCo for 30% increases in their contract rates I think it would be quite easy for NBNCO to walk away from these contracts and implement their cheaper solution.
|
07:01pm 20/08/13 Permalink
Given contractors are coming back to the NBNCo for 30% increases in their contract rates I think it would be quite easy for NBNCO to walk away from these contracts and implement their cheaper solution. Could probably get bored Mums to do Work for the Handout, amirite?! |
07:04pm 20/08/13 Permalink
Given contractors are coming back to the NBNCo for 30% increases in their contract rates I think it would be quite easy for NBNCO to walk away from these contracts and implement their cheaper solution. And if they decide to go with the worse (FTTN) idea, they'll have to re-negotiate the contracts anyway and pay that extra 30% bare minimum to get them to even listen. |
07:35pm 20/08/13 Permalink
'd like to think that infi and door have have gone halves in directly paying for my nbn connections at my place lolz |
09:08pm 20/08/13 Permalink
Is it just me or is this an absolute no brainer on what is the better option? we're all still finding a way to are you an idiot or do you not understand this was how the system was designed? ;) |
10:22pm 20/08/13 Permalink
CM i know of a house for sale in Aspley with NBN already connected up.... could use a quick sale too I've decided to revert to 56k dial up in preparation for the coalition plan. Got to enjoy my new kitchen for a while first as well. Thanks any way bro ;-) |
06:42am 21/08/13 Permalink
Let me guess, it's a parody website....
|
09:00am 27/08/13 Permalink
Just more proof showing how idiotic his version of the NBN is. You don't offer a nation who is needing to advance old technology.
|
09:18am 27/08/13 Permalink
http://abbottsinternet.com.au/that suffers from the logical fallacy of cherry picking There are many good reasons to support the NBN; buying into some lame media stunt is not one of them |
09:42am 27/08/13 Permalink
The Australian actually published a somewhat pro-Labor's-NBN article, the world may be ending. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/it-business/coalitions-nbn-on-demand-offer-could-see-users-hit-for-4000/story-e6frganx-1226704552716
If you can't read it, just search the headline from google, and stop the page load before the login popup arrives. BUSINESSES and consumers wanting to pay for their own fibre connection may face costs of more than $4000 up front and $800-a-year rental under the Coalition's "fibre-on-demand" plan for the National Broadband Network. Bold empathises mine. The liberal plan will arrive sooner, the labor plan would be better value for money with less complications caused by VDSL boxes at the end of every street which require year round air conditioning, batteries, maintenance, upkeep even if half the people move to fibre presumably, etc. |
09:42am 27/08/13 Permalink
Don't worry we will make the transition from a Mining country to a service based country. O , yeah we wont give you the necessary infrastructure to do that.
|
09:59am 27/08/13 Permalink
Cloud computing for instance, at a latency time of 40ms it is a bit too slow. At 7ms though.. now your talking.
My computer can calculate, render and display a complex gaming frame in roughly 35ms. So if I was to use a cloud service to do something similar, it would need to be able to send me the image faster than 35ms, with Labor's NBN plan, that is a possibility. With Abbots plan, we have yet to see, although I suspect it isn't. That is a whole class of industry locked out, an industry that other countries can and are providing and will continue to build upon in the future. It's OK though, our mining will see us through. |
10:02am 27/08/13 Permalink
Turnbull admits upload speed of 4-6mbps A s***** upload speed for a s***** broadband plan. Australia will be in the dark ages of upload speeds for quite a while longer it seems.
|
10:04am 27/08/13 Permalink
Sweet jebus, I hadn't thought of that. If bandwidth's cheap, could be a better way of going about decent graphics in web-browser gaming, over trying to hack together a HTML5 implementation.
|
10:07am 27/08/13 Permalink
The real possibilities that 40mbps upload offer.
Just imagine the seed ratios! Imagine! |
10:59am 27/08/13 Permalink
I'll be changing to NBN for upload speeds alone. I'm fine with my 20mbs ADSL2 atm but I get less than 1Mbps upload. Even the cheapest speed NBN plans have 5, 20 would be a dream. My dropbox syncing wouldn't even be noticeable.
|
11:03am 27/08/13 Permalink
People record lots of video with their phones now. people want to share that around, at the moment in Australia they can't do that in a practical way. Thanks to our petty upload bandwidth.
Augmented reality is a growing technology that will quite possibly be a commercial reality in a few short years. The data pushed around by such systems can feasibly be quite high, particularly if you are trying to save costs and bulk by doing most of the computing remotely, O wait, yet another reason why low latency is important, as well as decent upload bandwidth. Although my argument for low latency with wearable computing stuffs is lessened by the need to have at least 1 wireless hop, hopefully of a very short distance to a fibre node, which I suppose gives more reason to have the lowest latency as possible. People are severely underestimating the importance of latency when it comes to next generation broadband system, of which the entire Liberal NBN plan has failed to mention any latency reduction/gains their system will have. I still hold the view that if the Coalition isn't going to do it properly, just don't bother. Doing a half-arsed job is going to cost more in the long run, simply getting it up to speed of where it should have been years prior. In essence, the Labor NBN plan is the bare minimum of what we should be doing, anything less is wasteful. |
11:09am 27/08/13 Permalink
Yeah, I've pretty much given up hoping for a half-decent broadband network though, since it looks almost certain that Labor is going to lose the election and we're going to be stuck with Liberal's laughable, prehistoric solution. Just have to make sure next time I move I move into a place that has the NBN already hooked up.
|
11:17am 27/08/13 Permalink
People are severely underestimating the importance of latency when it comes to next generation broadband system, of which the entire Liberal NBN plan has failed to mention any latency reduction/gains their system will have.As a gamer, you remember that a lot of Neat Things On The Internet aren't hosted in Australia, right? Having fibre will make f*** all difference unless there are locally hosted services. There won't be locally hosted services unless backbone access gets a lot cheaper. Neither the Labor nor Liberal plan addresses this in any meaningful way, and at the end of the day it doesn't even matter because if the people who make Neat Things On the Internet decide that there's not enough people in Australia to justify bothering rolling out a local node, we'll be accessing all our s*** from the USA anyway at 200ms. |
11:21am 27/08/13 Permalink
Is it possible that people who make these neat things on the internet will find Australia a more attractive location if we have a fully functioning NBN?
|
11:23am 27/08/13 Permalink
Yeah that is a sever issue with international data, way back in the thread I pointed out that our international links as they are cannot even come close to servicing Australian data if everyone used high portion of their link capabilities at the same time.
However having high latency will lock out any local business from even trying to offer services. |
11:25am 27/08/13 Permalink
Is it possible that people who make these neat things on the internet will find Australia a more attractive location if we have a fully functioning NBN?Well, see my comment above about the lack of cheap backbone access. The short answer is I don't know. Domestic bandwidth pricing right now in most scenarios is at least 10x what it costs in the US. I am currently working on a (speculative, unconfirmed) project to set up an American game company here in .au for their local node. I am talking to lots of carriers and getting lots of different prices. None of them are factoring the NBN (Labor or Liberal edition) into their forward looking estimates for pricing. In short there is no sign that we will be even REMOTELY competitive in the next several years for companies looking to set up a local footprint. Either they're massively rich and are prepared to suck up the insane costs of bandwidth (e.g., Valve do this) or they will simply write Australia off as too expensive to support too few people. If the NBN offered a 10x drop in domestic bandwidth delivery it would be a different story altogether, but so far nothing indicates that would happen (you can see this at retail in that most plans ultimately have roughly the same bandwidth allocation as non-NBN plans). Note: this is not a for-or-against NBN post, it is an actual summary of a real-world commercial situation in trying to convince a company to create a local service node in Australia. Certainly everything will change in several years once whatever NBN plan we get lands. But for a company like us trying to do business here I still am faced with the embarrassing scenario of trying to explain to Americans why it costs so much more for a setup over here when they want to do an exploratory foray. |
11:34am 27/08/13 Permalink
Yeah that is a sever issue with international data, way back in the thread I pointed out that our international links as they are cannot even come close to servicing Australian data if everyone used high portion of their link capabilities at the same time.. Worth considering is that if people get things done faster, they'll be congesting for a shorter time than they are now. Trog, do you know what makes Australia so expensive to host in? |
12:14pm 27/08/13 Permalink
Worth considering is that if people get things done faster, they'll be congesting for a shorter time than they are now. lacking logic much? how do they get things done faster if the congestion happens upstream of them? |
12:18pm 27/08/13 Permalink
BUSINESSES and consumers wanting to pay for their own fibre connection may face costs of more than $4000 up front and $800-a-year rental under the Coalition's "fibre-on-demand" plan for the National Broadband Network.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/it-business/coalitions-nbn-on-demand-offer-could-see-users-hit-for-4000/story-e6frganx-1226704552716 Paste the link into google search then click the link to read entire article(loophole thanks to now having to pay to read) |
01:02pm 27/08/13 Permalink
Damo Nerf posted that article a few hours ago.
|
01:13pm 27/08/13 Permalink
My bad, can't keep up with this thread anymore. ha
|
01:20pm 27/08/13 Permalink
My bad, can't keep up with this thread anymore. ha I gave up 22 pages ago. |
08:25pm 27/08/13 Permalink
BUSINESSES and consumers wanting to pay for their own fibre connection may face costs of more than $4000 up front and $800-a-year rental under the Coalition's "fibre-on-demand" plan for the National Broadband Network.Wait, you pay for the install and then crazy amounts per yeah for "rental"? How the hell do they justify the rental!? Labor are a bunch of idiots but, bloody hell, the other mob's NBN plans are a joke. I agree with Tollaz0r, if they won't do it properly, don't bother. It's going to be such a waste of cash. Simon Hackett (CEO Internode) covered it well in a speech a few months ago - no doubt someone has already posted that vid, I haven't waded through 35 pages to check. |
08:40pm 27/08/13 Permalink
So when the NBN roll out finishes in my area, new plans with internode should be available right?
|
08:54pm 27/08/13 Permalink
BUSINESSES and consumers wanting to pay for their own fibre connection may face costs of more than $4000 up front and $800-a-year rental under the Coalition's "fibre-on-demand" plan for the National Broadband Network. first, this is just an estimate, and second, is that "rental" the component of line rental/ongoing cost that your ISP would be paying NBN Co? It all seems a bit odd that you would be getting 2 bills, 1 from NBN Co and 1 from your ISP. seems like a lot of FUD to me. |
09:20pm 27/08/13 Permalink
first, this is just an estimate By people who work with it. In Australia, contractors who perform privately sponsored fibre rollouts say the cost can be much more than this. |
09:37pm 27/08/13 Permalink
maybe I should have been a bit clearer, I was talking about the rental component that was estimated based on what is happening overseas.
As for the installation costs, I do find those interesting, someone has to pay for them regardless to get fibre installed, the difference is under the opposition's plan it only has to be paid for where it is wanted/needed, under the Govt's plan it is paid for if it is wanted/needed or not. As you can see, some pretty large expenses that the NBN Co will be picking up for everyone, and then getting paid back to them, with interest, via line rental charges that everyone will be forced to pay. Also, I would love to see their estimates for getting fibre installed in apartment buildings since Labor forced NBN Co to scrap their FTTN plans for apartment buildings for political reasons. Going to get real expensive real quick when you have to start ripping up buildings to run fibre in. |
09:44pm 27/08/13 Permalink
I like how the cable rollout costings are going to make the cost for user pays households /prohibitively expensive/ apparently, but the NBN budgets are all going to come in on target ;) shyeah - nice one
|
09:52pm 27/08/13 Permalink
<--------- got FTTH today. Paid for 20mbps connection, got 20mbps connection. And the upload speed is epic. (this is in Kuala Lumpur tho - oh and installation was free lol) My mate in Singapore has 200mbps connection - now that's something else!
http://www.speedtest.net/result/2926957763.png SO chalk it up like this: I loved Abbot's NBN proposal so much - I left Australia. |
09:56pm 27/08/13 Permalink
I had a taste of 200mbps in Singapore from my hotel. i didnt even expect it. Was dumbfounded.
Just so bummed with the Liberals atm. |
10:07pm 27/08/13 Permalink
I do find those interesting, someone has to pay for them regardless to get fibre installed, the difference is under the opposition's plan it only has to be paid for where it is wanted/needed, under the Govt's plan it is paid for if it is wanted/needed or not. That misses the value for money concern though, when doing the whole street at once and already digging past each house. From the same article: Costs can be substantially less if a group of residents, businesses, or state and local authorities share costs for a private fibre extension. Meaning, for the cost of one or two houses in the street, you may be at or near the point where you may as well have connected the whole street anyway, and then not paid for the installation and upkeep of the VDSL box on every street corner, and then not missed out on the most profitable part of the NBN which is the high speed connections. --- I like how the cable rollout costings are going to make the cost for user pays households /prohibitively expensive/ apparently, but the NBN budgets are all going to come in on target ;) shyeah - nice one See above. There is a very simple reason for that. |
10:14pm 27/08/13 Permalink
we will probably be able to get 200mbps with tone's solution, in 2045.
|
06:46am 28/08/13 Permalink
The NBN may reach 25% percent of households by 2045.
|
08:30am 28/08/13 Permalink
So how are the libs going to do that any better?
It is a slow process regardless |
08:53am 28/08/13 Permalink
as they are using copper, they will probably be able to roll out their substandard service that embarasses australia quite quickly!
|
08:55am 28/08/13 Permalink
as they are using copper, they will probably be able to roll out their substandard service that embarasses australia quite quickly! I'm betting that with all the renegotiating that needs to be done, they'll get nothing done in the first three years, look like complete idiots, hopefully fall on their swords and switch to a full fibre model. Also, if they're conservative why the hell do they want to build a network that has to be overbuilt because it'll be obsolete on completion let alone the fact it's obsolete now, forcing taxpayers into a position where we have to pay twice? They have the hide to use the word waste when they mention Labor, but this is classic mismanagement and waste by the LNP! |
10:19am 28/08/13 Permalink
They'll be unable to start, continue to blame Labor for not being able to start and it costing more than they said it would cost. Charge the public more in taxed for doing nothing, then privatise something else to screw us even more before Labor takes over again.
|
10:55am 28/08/13 Permalink
"we coudlnt start our broadband network as we were too busy paying back all the massive debt blha bllah blha lbhal blha"
|
10:57am 28/08/13 Permalink
I like how the cable rollout costings are going to make the cost for user pays households /prohibitively expensive/ apparently, but the NBN budgets are all going to come in on target ;) shyeah - nice oneMaybe I am missing something here, but isn't it a pretty simple economic concept that when it comes to rolling out infrastructure it is significantly cheaper to roll it out to everyone rather than just a select few? |
10:59am 28/08/13 Permalink
"debt doesn't need to be paid back, think of it like free money, well actually it only costs $15b a year but it's almost a good as free because we borrow the interest too. deficits don't mean anything, in fact we are planning on spending even more. they really are just numbers on paper with no real world impact. blah blah blah"
Maybe I am missing something here, but isn't it a pretty simple economic concept that when it comes to rolling out infrastructure it is significantly cheaper to roll it out to everyone rather than just a select few? either way getting cable to every house is a massively expensive exercise, the labour iniolved is the same either way. what kind of discount do you expect to be achieved by doing every house at once vs doing only those whouses who absolutely need it - 10%, 20%, 50%. Some people may not have fibre optic cable needs for the next 20 years, and cable will be rolled to their houses when the effective lifespan of the copper effectively ends in an orderly manner instead of at the current contractor blackmail rates. We need to breed a culture of people paying for premium services instead of this relentless entitlement culture of "You can get the platinum grade service at taxpayers' expense." Government services come at base level which is standard for everyone - if you want an upgrade, open your wallet. |
12:04pm 28/08/13 Permalink
The real kicker is that Turnbull finally admitted that upload speed on the Libs NBN will be capped at 4-6Mbits...... yeah thats not going to cut it for business, we are still going to have to pay Telstra for our fibre link.
|
12:15pm 28/08/13 Permalink
debt doesn't need to be paid back, think of it like free money How many times has it been told to you that NBN Co is expected to pay back its startup costs and then some? And is getting a better ratio of high paying customers than planned for to meet that requirement? By your own logic, you must be against the coalition's plan, since the initial capital is also from debt, as it's the only way to do it before actually having the service for which to charge paying users. either way getting cable to every house is a massively expensive exercise, the labour iniolved is the same either way. what kind of discount do you expect to be achieved by doing every house at once vs doing only those whouses who absolutely need it - 10%, 20%, 50%. Did you read the Australian article? Current quotes are $4000 per house done individually, $1600 of that is the actual house connection, so about 60% of that is a sharable cost, from the sounds of things it doesn't sound like doing homes individually makes further homes cheaper (nor would that be fair or manageable). That is then combined with not having to install and remove the VDSL box at the end of every street, which requires year round air conditioning, batteries, maintenance - presumably even if most of the street moves to fibre - and the fact that FTTH is the real money making component of the NBN, which makes it seem crazy to be the part to abandon. |
12:23pm 28/08/13 Permalink
The NBN is doing the rounds of my town now. I saw some installers about 4 blocks away from home.
What i find sad is that there is an up market estate in development not far from here. And on the signs is huge sticker that says "NBN READY" in red writing. The thing is. I am in the middle of the estate and where i saw the NBN installers working. I understand that there is a pecking order in Australia. That rich come before poor. But this development is still just a paddock and it is NBN ready. I am used to having rich people come before me. But rich people who aren't even there yet? Come one man. |
12:37pm 28/08/13 Permalink
If it's a new estate, and if they were smart, they probably put the fibre down immediately when they had to do the rest anyway.
When I looked at the NBN implementation map, it seemed to be getting sent to areas on a regional basis, not a wealth basis. |
12:48pm 28/08/13 Permalink
It's got nothing to do with rich vs poor. New estates get priority because they have no existing infrastructure.
|
12:49pm 28/08/13 Permalink
yeah NBN ready is a bit of a play on words, developers will use anything like that when advertising
yes the development will be constructed with the telecommunications pits and pipe built to NBN specification and the developer will have signed an agreement with NBNco to have fibre installed but just because a development is "NBN ready" doesn't mean that when the development is finished that the first houses being built are being connected to fibre, it literally just means the the development is ready to take nbn fibre the kicker is that they aren't laying any more new copper with new developments - so as an example i am currently working on a multi stage development at oxley right now and the first stage and a half are almost completed with the telecommunications infrastruction built to NBN spec with an agreement in place with NBNco etc - construction of NBN fibre to the area as per the NBN rollout plan isn't slated to start for another 3 years so anyone that buys a lot in there will be on wireless internet until the NBN rolls out there check the nbn rollout plan for the development, you might find it is in a similar situation :] New estates get priority because they have no existing infrastructure. i wouldn't say they get priority specifically, i imagine they would be trying to roll it out to areas with higher development but there will still be a s***load of developments without fibre and copper for a while |
01:00pm 28/08/13 Permalink
Yeah services to new estates are awesome... old mate from work just moved into an estate with the Telstra Velocity network and it does free-to-air TV, foxtel, phone & internet all over the same ONT. Only downside I can see is that there's only a single provider so if you get pissed off with Telstra you're in a spot of trouble.
|
01:11pm 28/08/13 Permalink
How am i suppose to initiate a popular uprising if you people keep on dispelling my rhetoric?
|
01:31pm 28/08/13 Permalink
Why can't the Libs admit the Labour plan is better, technically, so they'll run with that, but just argue about managing the roll out better to save money.
Would make them look less incompetent. |
03:29pm 28/08/13 Permalink
Government services come at base level which is standard for everyone - if you want an upgrade, open your wallet. Yeah, and the base level is fibre. It's like saying tarred roads should be paid for by people who need it, instead of just doing it for everyone. I mean, you don't NEED tarred roads. You can drive up a dirt track. Sealed roads are just a luxury. The NBN is doing the rounds of my town now. I saw some installers about 4 blocks away from home. What i find sad is that there is an up market estate in development not far from here. And on the signs is huge sticker that says "NBN READY" in red writing. The thing is. I am in the middle of the estate and where i saw the NBN installers working. I understand that there is a pecking order in Australia. That rich come before poor. But this development is still just a paddock and it is NBN ready. I am used to having rich people come before me. But rich people who aren't even there yet? Come one man. Yeah, what the other guys said. It makes 100x more sense to lay fibre BEFORE they start work in building the estate. Even if you were in mansions and there was a housing commission area coming in next door, they'd get priority because it'd be substantially quicker and cheaper to do while it's just a paddock. |
03:58pm 28/08/13 Permalink
They aren't doing that bro, read my post before
you can't schedule in NBNco to come and do works in your new sub development during construction of the development itself like you could with telstra (well telstra contractor) you get fibre when NBNco gets to you |
04:07pm 28/08/13 Permalink
When I came home today I noticed that a bunch of Pits have been opened up and yellow/white hazard tape on poles next to them. I really, really hoping that NBN contractors have started work in this area..
|
07:51pm 28/08/13 Permalink
yeah that sounds like they are moving in
|
08:07pm 28/08/13 Permalink
It's like saying tarred roads should be paid for by people who need it, instead of just doing it for everyone.Heh, car analogies are awesome. Except when they're wrong. I barely leave the cities and I've seen about a billion unsealed roads in Australia. Sealed roads ARE a luxury if you live in the middle of nowhere. |
12:31pm 29/08/13 Permalink
Sealed roads ARE a luxury if you live in the middle of nowhere. and outside of urban areas they are mostly filled with potholes. but please keep this charming analogy going! |
12:34pm 29/08/13 Permalink
and outside of urban areas they are mostly filled with potholes. but please keep this charming analogy going!Even though they're filled with potholes, they're still largely serviceable in most cases, especially by the people who use them most - because they're prepared for the effects of the isolation and equipped to deal with it. Sure, they'd love a dual carriage beautiful concrete road all up over the place to make things easier, but they probably recognise the economic reality that there's never going to be a vast amount of traffic that needs to move along those routes and thus going to great expense to connect them to the road network is worth it. Hey, this IS fun! |
12:43pm 29/08/13 Permalink
all new developments should come with dirt roads, if you want asphalt constructed to your house you can pay the extra
|
01:02pm 29/08/13 Permalink
all new developments should come with dirt roads, if you want asphalt constructed to your house you can pay the extra they should all come with dual carriage ways right up to the garage, if I can't go 110km/h after pulling out off my garage it is pointless. little old lady next door needs a driveway that can handle driving 110km/h on it too, i mean, she doesn't have a car but one day someone might move in there and they might need to drive down the driveway at 110km/h, maybe.. |
02:20pm 29/08/13 Permalink
Why 110km/h? In European countries (specifically, Germany) they have roads where you can travel over 300km/h.
We're a slow country in every way. We have more kangaroos though, so screw everyone else. http://www.itnews.com.au/News/159232,australian-internet-fails-pigeon-test.aspx - 2009. "A pigeon has transferred a 700 megabyte file faster than a car or a Telstra ADSL internet connection in rural Australia. [...] The race started in Tarana New South Wales and finished 132 kilometres away in Prospect. The pigeon arrived first clocking in at one hour and five minutes, the car two hours and ten minutes and the internet dropped out twice and didn't even make it at all. When the upload began on the internet connection the estimated time of upload was between four and nine hours." |
03:16pm 29/08/13 Permalink
The bandwidth provided by IP over carrier pidgeon is undeniably huge but unfortunately the latency is quite horrible.
Cleaning up the mess caused by packet collisions can be pretty nasty too. |
03:34pm 29/08/13 Permalink
all new developments should come with dirt roads, if you want asphalt constructed to your house you can pay the extra You do have to pay. When a developer builds a new estate, They have to pay for the new roads and they also go into a contract with the local council, where the developer has to pay for maintenance on the road. eg fixing any potholes etc. I think they have to pay for the up keep for the first 3 yrs. It could vary from council to council though. And to the person about the German speed limit. You have to get a special permit before you are allowed to travel at those speeds. Australia also has roads where you can go as fast as you like. Plus you don't need any special licence to do it. I guess we have more Kangaroos and more freedom as well. |
03:42pm 29/08/13 Permalink
And to the person about the German speed limit. You have to get a special permit before you are allowed to travel at those speeds. I think a special permit to use the Internet is just what the Internet world needs. Australia also has roads where you can go as fast as you like. Not anymore. If so, where? |
04:17pm 29/08/13 Permalink
You do have to pay. When a developer builds a new estate, They have to pay for the new roads and they also go into a contract with the local council, where the developer has to pay for maintenance on the road. eg fixing any potholes etc. completely missed the point of my post but: the maintenance period is typically one year after construction and then the assets are handed over to council can be longer in some circumstances for certain things, like for example if something is build incorrectly - not necessarily badly but not correctly to a standard and it would cost a f***load of money to fix - council can just apply a 2 year maintenance period to whatever it is to make sure it doesn't fail |
04:22pm 29/08/13 Permalink
Yeah, it prevents developers using shoddy builders and the mess won't appear for at least a few months.
And I believe you are referring to builders defects. Lots of big companies who are guaranteed this type of things will do a huge inspection a few months before the defect time expires, and rack up as much new stuff as they can. |
04:26pm 29/08/13 Permalink
i'm refering to the maintenance period
it doesn't really prevent them from doing anything, at the end of the day the development doesn't go off maintenance until council are happy they can't rack up anything that isn't going to already be there, it is about identifying defects in the construction like sunken spot on a road or cracked kerbing - not just s*** like someone drove over a water meter box or grafitied a fence trust me bros i do this for a living hence (i'll try get this back on topic) why i know you can't just ring up nbn and go "we're building the first stage of an 80 lot subdivison starting tomorrow and construction should take 12 weeks and then you guys can come in and lay fibre" like we did with telstra https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/p206x206/529573_10200550953761537_1591134160_n.jpg |
04:35pm 29/08/13 Permalink
When a developer builds a new estate, They have to pay for the new roads and they also go into a contract with the local council, where the developer has to pay for maintenance on the road. i think you will find that new estate developers also have to pay for the pits and fibre cabling as part of their development approval, and the conditions imposed by telstra for allowing that subdivision to connect to the network. yet another reason why real estate is so expensive in Australia. |
04:40pm 29/08/13 Permalink
Not anymore. If so, where? There is a road in NSW in between Burren Junction and Wee Waa. that is unrestricted. I think the NT has only just changed their rules getting rid of the unrestricted speed limit =( As for your other quip i see you are from the GameArena so i'll let that pass as it will take you a while to start acting like a normal person. |
06:07pm 29/08/13 Permalink
Even though they're filled with potholes, they're still largely serviceable in most cases, especially by the people who use them most - because they're prepared for the effects of the isolation and equipped to deal with it. Sure, they'd love a dual carriage beautiful concrete road all up over the place to make things easier, but they probably recognise the economic reality that there's never going to be a vast amount of traffic that needs to move along those routes and thus going to great expense to connect them to the road network is worth it. Hey, this IS fun! Well fibre is only going to the urbanised parts of Australia as well, the regional areas are getting wireless or satellite (though which are still expected to operate at a loss as part of NBN's larger profitable activities afaik, which in a way is basically the taxpayer subsidising it since it's all federally owned - might be the same for regional roads though come to think of it). |
09:02pm 29/08/13 Permalink
1. http://www.nbnco.com.au/assets/documents/education-three-technologies-fact-sheet.pdf
The NBN aims to connect ninety-three per cent of Australians living and working in cities and regional centres to high-speed fibre optic cabling.2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_by_country Australia is one of the most urbanised countries in the world, with 89.2% of the country living in urban centres, roughly the same as the number targeted to be connected by fibre. 3. And, looking at regional queensland on the rollout map. http://i.imgur.com/hEQ2T4V.png |
09:58pm 29/08/13 Permalink
i think you will find that new estate developers also have to pay for the pits and fibre cabling as part of their development approval Really? We are the opposite down here. NBNCo has a separate division that handles greenfields. When the BA gets sent in for approval it must trigger something with NBNCo who then send out a rep, we give them plans and a program detailing when conduits etc are ready and they worked in tandem rolling out the fibre and then the terminations once lots are finished. We haven't had to pay for any fibre, as long as we have given access pathways. |
08:04am 30/08/13 Permalink
Not sure if already posted..
http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/government-it/pronbn-petition-most-popular-but-likely-ineffective-20130911-hv1po.html An online petition asking the incoming government to keep the fibre-to-the-home broadband model of the previous government has received more than 100,000 signatures in a few days, but seems unlikely to have any impact on policies. http://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/the-liberal-party-of-australia-reconsider-your-plan-for-a-fttn-nbn-in-favour-of-a-superior-ftth-nbn |
03:44pm 11/09/13 Permalink
09:48pm 11/09/13 Permalink
![[URL=http://www.speedtest.net][IMG]http://www.speedtest.net/result/2635758975.png[/IMG][/URL]](http://[URL=http://www.speedtest.net][IMG]http://www.speedtest.net/result/2635758975.png[/IMG][/URL]){kind=link}
