The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > 1000Mbps is sexy, it’s cool, but is it worth $43bn? > Comments

1000Mbps is sexy, it’s cool, but is it worth $43bn? : Comments

By Jeff Hosking, published 17/8/2010

There has been a lot of hype about the national broadband network but do we really need its speed and capacity now?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
I suggest that there has been a bit of an inverse rule operating- as machines and connection speeds have gotten faster, people have expanded file sizes at an even faster rate.
For example A lot of Jpeg (and PDF) files these days are ridiculously large for screen only display needs.
Email protocols may soon need to be changed to some thing like FTTP.
The main new use that the system could be used for is internet TV, whether this is such a pressing national need is a bit doubtful.
Posted by pedestrian, Tuesday, 17 August 2010 9:40:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My understanding of this hugely expensive NBN is that no commercial plan has been undertaken. At the amount envisaged, there has to be a cost by users to repay the capital invested. The question that I ask myself is, what number of users will be prepared to pay for it? Obviously that are many people who will have a use for the high speed, but I doubt many in the domestic area will want to spend the money or even many commercial outlets who are content with present speeds.

I think private enterprise should be responsible for this undertaking. They will then establish on commercial grounds the feasibility and economics of such a project, Otherwise, we shall just have more waste by this Gillard government who seem to have no concept when it comes to spending other people's taxes.
Posted by snake, Tuesday, 17 August 2010 10:00:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If Telstra had been split right back in the beginning, would we be doing this at all?
Perhaps we just paying for the overinflated share price we (collectively) got for selling Telstra as effectively a monopoly?
Posted by pedestrian, Tuesday, 17 August 2010 10:18:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To summarise,

For all the benefits that Julia Gillard is touting for the NBN, all of them can be met by the 12Mbps offering of the coalition for less than 14% of the cost.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 17 August 2010 12:06:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
At the launch of the oppositions policy there was the figure of $1000.00 if you wanted to use the new commercial networks. $1000.00 is about what it costs for cable TV.

It sounded very much like the opposition proposed to pay commercial operators to roll out cable TV and then internet would be available as a carrot to join cable TV.

Where does the bandwidth for the wireless side come from? Possible from free to air being put out of business. Was this policy announced for the benefit of the Australian people or Mr Murdoch?
Posted by Daviy, Tuesday, 17 August 2010 12:36:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The applications for this technology have yet to be invented.
This will transform our society and our lives.
It will reverse the decline of country town. Turn a lot of them into high tech production hubs.
It will allow our brightest minds to shine.
It will attract the brightest minds in IT to our shores.

It is the future and the sooner we get it the sooner we can become the high tech country we should be.
Posted by mikk, Tuesday, 17 August 2010 12:45:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I hear a lot of people saying like Mikk does that the higher speeds will create new industries. Which raises a question in my mind.

If that is the case, then the existing Internet should have created some new industries too, but I'm scratching to find them. Sure there's spam and social media and web design, and there's a smattering of things that we can do now that we absolutely couldn't previously, like linking remote computers together to do data-crunching.

But what genuinely new industries have been created?

On Line Opinion is an Internet only production, but it is part of the publishing industry, and we don't need higher bandwidth.

It seems to me that the Internet has mostly been applied in existing industries, in which cases it has often added costs, rather than taking them away, and used for things that were done using alternative technologies in the past.

If most of what the NBN does is allow broadcasters to use the Internet rather than broadcast spectrum, it is a pretty expensive toy.
Posted by GrahamY, Tuesday, 17 August 2010 1:32:58 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The answer is yes. How much did it cost to electfy Australia? that's the sort of transformation we are talking about.

Jeff as an IT guy as well I find it funny the tone of your piece here. I'll remind you of a very famous example of "going for bronze rather then gold" moment. PC's had for many, may years memory limitations due to a short sighted Engineer saying that noone would ever need more then 640K of memory.
Posted by Kenny, Tuesday, 17 August 2010 1:53:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If Telstra had never been PRIVATIZED, we would most likely have had this service half a decade ago.

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, unless there is a cheaper way to plant fibre-optic cables and keep them under public ownership, then I would say YES. If EITHER of those criteria failed to be met, then no- and it would be the absolute last chance the Labor party would have had to redeem itself.
This might come as a surprise to some but the faster broadband would actually greatly help most internet users, who may have to download large (and legal) documents, and preferably immediately so they can get to work on them instantly instead of put their life on hold, maybe leave their computer running till the download crawls up to completion.

I would say this is the first good idea Labor have had in decades.
I would simply demand they re-evaluated their costing because fibre-optic cable really is NOT expensive.
Posted by King Hazza, Tuesday, 17 August 2010 2:07:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Telstra was privatized - there is no undoing the omelet.

There is a touch of 'build it and they will come' about the proposal.

And there is a bit of self interest about some of the opposition to the proposal- High speed broadband is a threat to the cable networks. Our failure to adopt it years ago had a bit to do with Mr Packers clout.
Posted by pedestrian, Tuesday, 17 August 2010 2:26:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mikk summarized this nightmare:

"This will transform our society and our lives"

So yet again, this is a call for revolution, akin to Mao's cultural-revolution: those who are unhappy, desire to overturn the established ways of life, forcing their new life-style and toys on all others, including those who are happy with everything as it is and have no need for their toys.

"The applications for this technology have yet to be invented"

Looks like the devil is keeping himself busy!

"It will reverse the decline of country town"

It will send away those who preferred to live in country towns for their peace and quiet, simplicity, slow-pace and direct, physical, human contact, as well as parents who wished to protect their children from being infected by technological garbage, further out into the outback.

"It will allow our brightest minds to shine"

Those brightest minds are already shining. Do you think they are standing in line for more bandwidth? May I remind you that Einstein never used a computer!

"It will attract the brightest minds in IT to our shores"

Funny you mention this: the Australian government indeed accepted me in Australia just on those grounds, whereas in fact, one of my considerations in coming here was to look for a peaceful place that is rather backward, away from the technological-madness.

Mikk, this is a delusion, the boredom and discontent is subjective and the need for entertainment is insatiable: one who is not happy now with what they have, will not be happy with their new toys either, soon to throw them away looking for newer ones.

Fortunately it will all end soon. Once the global population-bubble explodes, the remaining pile of silicon-electronics will be totally useless.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 17 August 2010 2:46:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mikk "The applications for this technology have yet to be invented."

The applications might never be invented, broadband is not a panacea for stupidity, ignorance or laziness you know.

I guess this is like people saying if you give someone a really good guitar, to replace a crappy one, they will all play like Eric Clapton.

It just doesn't happen that way, uncreative people remain uncreative in the midst of creative people. Adding high speed internet will not make people smarter, how on earth do you come up with that, apart from listening to the ALP?

"It will reverse the decline of country town. Turn a lot of them into high tech production hubs. It will allow our brightest minds to shine."

No it won't, kids will actually find out much more quickly though the wonderful offerings of the big cities, and bugger off even faster - not everyone wants to live in the country, I don't mind the occasional visit to the country, but could not live there, for me, it's boring. The brightest minds do not want to live in the isolation of the country, they tend to live where they can get stimulated.

Do you think country towns are full of bright young things, and all they need to is faster internet "to shine"?

High bandwidth internet does not make you smarter, does not make you more creative, does not create jobs of it's own - we can't all be website designers you know - someone has to create a need.

If the need isn't there ..then there will be no jobs created.

It's just the usual silly leftist mantra .. much like the green jobs from renewables .. where are they? (probably waiting for that wonderful broadband stuff eh?)
Posted by Amicus, Tuesday, 17 August 2010 2:46:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah- But will it improve my chances with the girls?
Or will it be the end of Civilization and the beginning of Year ZERO?

Come on- A bit less moral panic on both sides ,,,Please
Posted by pedestrian, Tuesday, 17 August 2010 2:55:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For the first time in my life a new development in infrastructure is being proposed, something along the lines of the installation of electrical wiring of our nation at the beginning of the 20th century - when it was only for lighting and other applications had not even been conceived of.

And here come the naysayers - the reasons why Australia is always two steps behind and forever playing catch-up.

BUT, we get to choose. We can choose a patch-work system when we vote this weekend, the one touted by Tony Abbott.

Or we can choose to show some vision, vision which has been lacking for the past 40 years and actually plan for a future, that we won't see but our kids will.

I note that the same people who don't get the impact of our pollution on our environment are the same people who don't get the infinite possibilities offered by fibre-optics. Misunderstandings of the limits of wireless - it gets full easily and quickly, not convenient for peak load and often drops out - crucial if medical aid is being provided online.

Instead of passing judgement, learn. Learn what fibre-optics are about, then you can choose.

http://www.ehow.com/fiber-optics/
Posted by Johnny Rotten, Tuesday, 17 August 2010 3:10:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The government went to the last election with a broadband policy costed at about 5 billion.

It all changed when Rudd and Conroy wanted to shaft Telstra after the arrogant Sol decided to put in a 13 page tender.

Most businesses have fibre connections, so it is purely consumer broadband we are talking about, so the economic benefits are overstated.

Bosses will always want their staff at the office. There is no trust. Never will be. Remote desktop to the office uses FA bandwidth.

No matter how good video conferencing is, execs just need to speak face to face. ie need travel perks.

There are cost savings in the government rolling out the network since it stops the Foxtel/Optus type duplication of infrastructure.

The 'tech heads' will obviously be all for it, who wouldn't want a new toy paid for by the tax payer. Read their opinions like you'd read a fund managers opinion on the need for 20% super.

It's about time the government looked further than the next 3 years for infrastructure projects.

The nature of technology means the risk of a white elephant is greater because of the pace of change.

That also means that the current infrastructure could be outdated soon.

With the current levels of satisfaction with the existing network, this smells like a solution looking for a problem. Julia finally found a problem (Online GP Consultations) but it reeks of desperation.

It doesn't matter what the speed of our broadband is when no work is done on our connection to other countries. No use having a wonderful network of 4 lane motorways that all lead to a 1 lane dirt road.

Who knows what it will really end up costing, who knows what the economic benefits will actually be. The governmnet wont release any business case. That is suspicious.

The above possibly doesn't matter. We cant always expect every infrastructure project to be profitable. Remember providing a service? Some things need to be built and private industry only wants to build things for profit.

I'm not sure this needs to be built right now.
Posted by Houellebecq, Tuesday, 17 August 2010 3:16:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houllebecq

"I'm not sure this needs to be built right now."

I said something similar about starting a family, have no regrets now, having recently survived prostrate cancer, I made it... most of me made it.
Posted by Johnny Rotten, Tuesday, 17 August 2010 3:28:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
People were just as doubtful about early computers, flying machines, mobile phones, and even cars...but they were all embraced and became central to many of our lives. This will be the same.

And anyhow, if you wait until there is the demand, you end up rushing the job, cutting corners, and always playing catchup. That does not make sense. Get the job done.

The NBN is a good thing, and more should be invested in Australia's future in many different areas of society and technology.
Posted by Phil Matimein, Tuesday, 17 August 2010 4:01:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
On the note of country towns- if they get access, this would be a VERY good thing.
Imagine how much pressure it would take off the cities, or even most towns, when more people are able to work or manage tasks from their home computer, instead of having to cram in as close as possible to their office, and commute/drive between twice a day, just to do the exact same thing?

I'd say Labor is looking pretty attractive right now (and I never believed I would say those words).
Tony Abbot's plan is so ridiculous it would be better off discarded entirely.
Posted by King Hazza, Tuesday, 17 August 2010 4:05:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If Julia gets back in, & gets labors carbon trading scheme, & alternate power schemes in, we won't need any fast broadband.

Our wind powered computers will be so slow, when they have any power at all, we will be remembering, fondly, the good old days of dial up.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 17 August 2010 4:11:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is not an all or nothing debate.

This is about building layers of broad band capability,
1) Main back bone
2) fibre to street corners
3) Fibre to the houses.

The coalition is offering step 1 and 2
Labor is offering step 1, 2, and 3.

Step 3 is 86% of the cost, and delivers little to no benefit to the 90% of people who will not use more than 10Mbps in their lifetime.

Step 3 is also the step that can be implemented on an as needs basis, so the tech heads that need and can afford to pay can buy into a say 2 year plan as you do with mobile phones.

My biggest issue with the NBN is that while pretending to be fiscally responsible Labor is preparing to spend a huge fortune on the stage 3 of the project which even Mikk acknowledges only caters for technology that does not yet exist.

Stage 3 should be deferred until at least the budget is balanced or in surplus.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 17 August 2010 4:18:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Phil,

'more should be invested in Australia's future in many different areas of society and technology.'

Which is my point about whether we need it now. There are other priorities. Possibly solar farms for the AGW disciples. There's plenty of transport infrastructure in Sydney needed. Actually it's a bit like the recently dumped Metro in Sydney.

You act as if we have no broadband internet. Many people already have faster than 12MB.

Hazza,

'instead of having to cram in as close as possible to their office, and commute/drive between twice a day, just to do the exact same thing?'

That's possible now. But bosses are never too keen. They don't trust their workers as I said.

It's definitely not the technology that's preventing this happening now. You don't need much speed or bandwidth to remote desktop.

I think yours and Phil's arguments are symptomatic of the problems in the debate thus far. It's almost as if the NBN is inventing Broadband. Most of these great 'new' uses are possible now in cities, and the coalition policy is to make it so in the country.

SM,

You're a shameless and tireless coalition campaigner, but in this case I think you're right.
Posted by Houellebecq, Tuesday, 17 August 2010 5:23:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For those who ask for more "speed", the speed of the internet is nearly identical regardless of the medium - already close to the speed of light. Those values that we nick-name "speed" are in fact BANDWIDTH - how much data can pass in a given time-period (provided that the servers can supply the same).

The simplest way to increase bandwidth, is to use several lines in parallel. Using 2 lines doubles the bandwidth, using 3 lines triples it, etc. As it stands, every house is allocated 2 copper lines. Of course, if everyone needed more than 2 lines there wouldn't be enough for all, but most homes use only one (or none), so those few businesses that really need a higher bandwidth and are willing to pay for it, can use those spare lines. They probably do so already.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 17 August 2010 5:49:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Did I mention that, under a public system, the actual cost of a 43 billion dollar piece of infrastructure breaks down to each Australian paying a single dollar a day for six years to pay it off completely (with a bit left over for maintenance/management)?

Anyway, so long as its not flogged off after completion- worst of all to Telstra, we could actually be having quite a good thing on our hands. As said- time to build a bridge over Telstra- and pick up where we left off and start this new communication medium with them OUT of the picture.

Anyway
Houellebecq, partly correct- as employers of most businesses insist on traditional forms of attendance, while basic html and email tend to be reasonably fast on the lesser settings.

However, it is mainly cities that have the best access to broadband, and thus better disposed to frequently consult and update customer databases, teleconference or some other real-time communication over the web, or need to transfer larger packets of data between computers (most notably, the actual business software and updates that the computer user would need- and this IS something more and more businesses actually require as standard practice.

Not to mention something like real-time stock exchange viewing while simultaneously maintaining an open communication link between all members of your company along with all major updates, would most DEFINITELY require such a proposal.
Posted by King Hazza, Tuesday, 17 August 2010 7:03:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
King Hazza,

As this money is borrowed, the dollar a day per adult just covers the interest with a little over (at the treasury rate)
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 17 August 2010 7:08:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
1000Mbps is sexy, it’s cool, but is it worth $43bn?
Nope !
Posted by individual, Tuesday, 17 August 2010 8:12:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Since when has any major infrastructure come in at the original proposed price. lets start thinking 100 billion
Posted by Rufflun, Tuesday, 17 August 2010 9:21:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow- That's only if the government is dumb enough to actually allow itself to be negotiated into paying such interest (yeah, I know, they are indeed- but hear me out).

I'm sure many suppliers and engineers combined would be (very happy indeed) to agree to do this work (especially for the government- who for better or worse aren't as likely to drop their side of the bargain for something they publicized so much) in exchange for dividing approximately 7 billion between themselves each year for about 6 years without feeling the need to ask for more (which, as far as taxpayers are concerned, is a dollar a day for only 6 years to refund the project).

I'm not remotely impressed by Labor's incredibly irresponsible spending and negotiating history (especially not recent), but I still agree with the proposal to directly fund the installation of the broadband infrastructure.
Posted by King Hazza, Tuesday, 17 August 2010 9:38:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It would be a good thing and could possibly bring about a whole raft of new business opportunities for Australians. But I have a feeling it's too late already, most of the modern world have had the throughput for ages and are already establishing themselves on the world stage. Means we come in ten years too late and have to try and claw back market share. Think indy media, voip/video conferencing, cloud and a myriad of other techs that already exist that just can't operate in Australia because of a government controlled duopoly screwing us on data charges. 50 gig a month for a 100 bucks is a scam compared to the modern world and nothing will change in this country with fiber, I'll bet! They'd be too scared of the present media and Telco companies loosing out. Our Poly-ticks just can't help themselves, they'll sell it at the first chance to the highest bidder to pay for their gross incompetence!
Posted by RawMustard, Tuesday, 17 August 2010 10:16:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
King Hazza

"I'm not remotely impressed by Labor's incredibly irresponsible spending and negotiating history (especially not recent), but I still agree with the proposal to directly fund the installation of the broadband infrastructure."

Exactly.

Also note that this will bring in a huge range of jobs from engineers through to administrative staff. This is what is called a stimulus package, like the Snowy River scheme, like the electrical grid, like what we used to have by way of rail transport.
Posted by Johnny Rotten, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 9:41:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Are we getting to the state where we are happy just to 'create jobs' regardless of the merits of the project?

Lets just remember how all this started...

The government went to the last election with a broadband policy costed at about 5 billion. I think it was similar to the coalitions current policy.

It all changed when Rudd and Conroy wanted to shaft Telstra after the arrogant Sol decided to put in a 13 page tender.

The governmnet is now just creating a new Telstra. They have said their plan is to sell the NBN off.

So, this isn't anything to do with a 'vision' or the future, it's a tantrum come policy.

I suppose the governmnet has made up one great idea out of all this; instead of researching the technology and working through the options and costs, it just put a project up for tender, and then used all the hard work and intellectual property of all those companies in the bid process to just build it's own.

Hazza,

'who for better or worse aren't as likely to drop their side of the bargain for something they publicized so much'
Sydney Metro anyone? State Labor haven't been too generous in their compensation.
Posted by Houellebecq, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 10:38:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Frankly this article is more Luddite than accurate.
I am old enough to remember the first calculators it was basic and cost me the equivalent of $250 in today's money.

When mini mainframes first come out they were the size of two large refrigerators and sold for $4-8000000they had 128 k of ram and were driven by multiple low end 80386. Functionally they were extremely limited. In fact one office unit had separate boxes for different functions. WP, accounts, etc.

Few in those days would recognized the potential of both today.Those who did ranted and raved drawing up spreadsheets of costs(another discrete box). of how computer were going to be the doom of economies.
I even remember the same tired rhetoric being trotted out about the net. Guess what today better calcs are given away; today's lap tops are orders of magnitudes more powerful than those minis.

Add to that many of our competitors already have this technology NOW.

The point is you supply the bandwidth (and entrepreneurs WILL fill it with uses people will want.

Oh yes, and technology will get cheaper.

It is clear that SM and others are more concerned with proselytizing their party dogma than discussing the issue objectively.

BTW I am limited by my speed because I am subject to a commercial monopoly ....I can't get enough bandwidth to run functions/services that exist Now. Frankly the objections to the NBN and the inadequate alternative are a crock.
Posted by examinator, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 12:58:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Examinator,

The difference between the coalition plan and the NBN is the last fibre cable from the street corner to the home. If an entrepreneur wants the 100Mbps broadband, all he needs to is to get the short length of cable installed. Any businesses or CBDs will get it installed anyway. The only people getting an increase to 12 Mbps instead of 100Mbps will be families, 99% of which don't need any where near 12Mbps.

FYI, the new codec H264 being rolled out enables full HD live streaming that uses 8Mbps, or 4Mbps for interlaced. This means with 12Mbps you could watch 3 HD channels at once. This of course requires more powerful computers to decode, but standard dual core PCs are perfectly capable.

A decade or so ago 12Mbps could just give you live streaming of just one ordinary TV channel. So new technology does not simply require more everything. Sometimes it enables you to do more with less.

Labor's field of dreams philosophy (build it and they will come) displays ignorance, arrogance, and hubris.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 1:51:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Examinator,

"It is clear that SM and others are more concerned with proselytizing their party dogma than discussing the issue objectively."

Please don't count me among those "others". There are many things I dislike about the Liberals, but one of the main reasons that I give them my preference over Labor this time, is this NBN. If it goes ahead, then in a few years I will be left without a phone at home. No thanks!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 2:03:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SM,
You have adroitly avoided my points
- technology will come with the band width not the other way around.

- I can't get or won't be given the option of ADSL2 other than through telstra's ridiculously high rates. They have a *monopoly* and under your system that monopoly would remain. There is no competition.

- Technologies will get cheaper as there is more up take. When I went on line I was paying 10C per minute for the internet at 1200BPS!
Now I pay $42 for 30 gigs.

- There will be technologies that we don't know about by the time it's implemented.

- Competitors of ours have the faster tech now.

- You are arguing politically myopic arguments to win this election for the Libs not the topic.

Yuyutsu,

By the time telephone go out we'll have screen phones or the like. Your fears are unsustainable.
Posted by examinator, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 2:49:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
At the moment the market is deciding which technology will be the winner for a given situation/requirement and demand/cost.

The governmnet has decreed that the winner is fibre to the home, for all, and forever more, and at whatever cost and regardless of demand/requirements. In fact it is so confident, it has done no cost-benefit analysis at all.

As Sir Humphrey would say, that's a very brave policy.

PS: 'Policy' is being generous. As I said, it's actually a tantrum at Telstra, a discarded PM's thought bubble.
Posted by Houellebecq, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 2:55:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey Examinator,

"By the time telephone go out we'll have screen phones or the like"

But I don't want a screen phone (I am nude at home most of the time and don't need my Mom to ask me why I haven't cleaned my ears), never wanted, never will. I am just extremely happy with what I've got: 3 telephones conveniently placed in 3 different rooms, plus a small caller-ID device, all connected to the same copper wire-pair.

I conscientiously oppose to mobiles, and so far, what the experts on OLO told me is that with the advent of NBN, I will not be allowed to keep my little peaceful hide-out. I don't want to be disconnected from friends, family and essential services - so are you, or Labor for that matter, able to promise me otherwise?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 3:16:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hmmm, you make some very good points and observations Houellebecq, I can't really argue with your reply at all.
Posted by King Hazza, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 8:24:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
examinator,

once again you offer your opinions as fact without even a shred of evidence.

You obviously have no clue, but are prepared to support the Labor spendathon simply based on spin. If you look at the prices that they want to charge, 90% of people will pay more. On top of this you will then have a state monopoly again. Has Telstra covered itself with glory?

Please feel free to suggest a technology that will be used by at least a s substantial portion of the population by 2017. Some emerging technology that will require people to up their bandwidth consumption by a factor of 100.

otherwise you are just hot air.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 10:32:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is confirmed by our fealess minister that he intends to sell the NBN to the highest bidder.
When pressed by his interviewer about the most likely buyer being China, he responded with an indignant 'Why not!'.
Well, minister, the PRC have a minor problem with Human Rights. They also have an image problem with being the most feared purveyors of Electronic and Internet warfare in the world.
They invented and run the Great Firewall of China.
And like Conroy, they too believe in Internet censorship.
They are building a massive fleet of nuclear powered and armed super carriers, cruisers, attack and missile submarines with the sole purpose of owning the Pacific.
And, our own Labor Party is intending to hand the keys to our telecommunications system to them?
It gets worse:
One of the key Chinese players for the NBN, has been the subject of an ASIO investigation and is run by a General of the PLA, and with that company having other shadowy PLA links.
Remember, my fellow lefties, they bulldozed those dangerous folks at Tiannenmen Square... They got what they deserved! Right?
So, there you have it.
We have a bunch of clowns moving ownership and control of the guts of our telecoms from Australian Shareholders (Telstra) to a hostile entity with a hostile military, economic and cultural intent.
Whether you get a quicker download of movies is really small beer compared to that...
Posted by Beau Maurice, Monday, 23 August 2010 5:56:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think Beau Maurice raises a key point - the prospect of Chinese ownership of the NBN platform - has been overlooked in the press debate. Alexander Downer's lobbying firm Bespoke Approach has been employed by China to press its case. China is not the Netherlands or Switzerland - we know they have aspirations to achieve hegemony in the South China Sea (now defined as a "core interest" by China in March), and that China uses public enterprises to promote its foreign policy goals. It is rapidly building a military to project power well into the Pacific and Indian Ocean. I'm all for engagement with China but we need to be pragmatic and understand who we are dealing with here. In time, the NBN will represent the key channel for personal, commercial and military communications. What appears to be a generous offer from China will come with strings attached, even if these strings are not yet evident. In the national interest, bar Chinese investment in this important project.
Posted by pounder, Tuesday, 24 August 2010 11:58:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy