Yet another plea for cost benefit analysis on a project planned to give benefits in 10 to 20 or more years ?

Which economic genius is going to tell us what lies ahead in 10 years in the normal course of events, let alone in a future still shaky with GFC after-effects and climate change implications?

Which technological or economic genius can indicate with any certainty where internet-type applications are going to be in 5 years, let alone 10?

The transport analogy both ignores and highlights one huge hole in most of the thinking so far about the prospects of the NBN :
we won't need expensive roads and transport systems nearly so much if we have an NBN as planned PROVIDED THAT our workplaces acquire managerial nouse and wake up to the fact that just because you have people in expensive CBD offices from 9am to 5pm doesn't mean you're actually managing their productivity.

IBM's boss in Australia has pointed out we need to think what we're going to be doing with the cable... He assumes we need it. It so happens his company already does a lot of what most arthritically-minded Australian "enterprise" managers won't wake up to: IBM actually lets people work from home!

Less traffic, less pollution, less energy required, lower office rent costs, better family life and leisure time, and usually, much higher productivity from the home office! Also less capital expenditure on expansion of existing transport systems, a greater spread or averaging of housing costs, assistance in regional development, etc etc.

Now let's see you build that into a cost-benefit analysis. What would be the take-up rate, in what circumstances ? How many variations on that theme would you allow for over 2, 5, 10, 15, 20 years ?

Will that cost benefit analysis be finished in 2, 5, 10 years etc ?

(Meanwhile make sure you add on the cost side, the cost of retraining and changing the bloody-minded incompetence of most Australian managers who can't see past their way to the corner office with a harbour view.)

Like PeterGM, I think we'll need the internet more than we'll need roads in the future. How to determine cost-benefit is another matter. I've just been to a peak oil conference in Washington and the overriding message is that we face a liquid fuel crisis within five years. It is imperative therefore that we maintain the grid and the internet in order to avert economic collapse. The secondary message from this conference, however, was get out of debt, quickly. So how do we get the NBN show on the road without going into debt? Geoff is right: we don't need high speed internet everywhere if it is not going to be cost-effective. I'm personally on wireless broadband as I live in the country and it works well.

Just because your wireless works well is a very narrow minded view.
People are going to get out of the citys, One sureway of this happening is with a broadband structure in place.
Think of the longterm future. Someone said technology might change in a few years , it probably will, that is no reason to do nothing.
Satelite tech, has been there for years, but it will not be used because charges can not be seperated. There is no long or short distance.
Infastructure should never be compromized.

For a detailed debunking of the please for cost benefit analysis of the NBN, see http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2010/09/17/cost-benefit-delusions-of-the-nbn/comment-page-2/

Meanwhile, some perspectives:
1. Copper network is going to need replacement relatively soon anyway.
2. Wireless frequencies are limited, and like popnperish, I live in the country, but wireless internet is pretty hopeless. In any event, if you want to solve city problems, you have to give city communications to regional areas.
3. We currently spend about $14 billion per annum on road transport in this country. And it's rising.
4. $43 billion is disputable as a total cost to government of the NBN. Only about $24 billion comes from taxpayer funding. (ie, 2 years of roads expenditure, or 1 year of roads expenditure, plus the cost of replacing copper network (see below).
5. The equivalent in today's dollars of the cost of copper phone network is about $10 billion.
6. Hey, our government borrowings are minuscule and conventional compared with: a.) past history of deficits and b.) other countries.

And BTW, governments just aren't private business enterprises, nor do their finances or expenses or responsibilities or accounts even vaguely resemble those of private business or private households.
(Anyone printing their own money is in deep trouble, for a start...)

Sure it is nice to work from home. I did so since the early 1990's, using the newly-emerging internet and everything went most smoothly through E-mails, FTP and text-chats over a dial-up line.

The point is, you don't need a super-fast network to work from home, you don't need to see every freckle on your boss's face!

>The point is, you don't need a super-fast network to work from home, you don't need to see every freckle on your boss's face!

You do need it because speed means bandwidth and if everyone else is doing it rather than just a few users of the 1990s. For practical purposes, I could have done with lots more bandwidth when I was forced to use a satellite connection, and basic satellite bandwidth and speeds were huge.

Internet users increased by 150% between 2000 and 2010 in Australia. That trend isn't likely to slow, but even if the increase in the number of users eventually peaks out, the demand for different data and huge chunks of bandwidth isn't likely to slow at all.

I seem to recall. from a decade or two ago, PCs with 48k of RAM, expensive hard disks of 5 Mb and comms bandwiths to match. Today that's laughable. Expect more of the same. Don't allow for it and you welcome decrepitude. The faster the computers get, the more information they'll be asked to process, and the more information you'll be expected to upload and download to and from work. And the more businesses will be wanting constant cloud computing and deeper and deeper data analysis.

Meanwhile, you do need it if managers still hold onto a dream of seeing you at work, freckles and all (which many of them do) or if, having found out about instant communications, they start using them to the Nth degree, and want to share whiteboards all the time (entirely feasible now). And if all medical records move to clouds, including xrays and ultrasounds.... etc etc.

And if instead of a few billion bus trips per year, we get a few billion work connections, you'll need wide bandwidth Real Soon Now.

I just checked my download rates from my adsl connection. My "1500k" connection is currently getting me a peak of about 138kb/second, but mostly running in double figures. Tell me I don't need more.

It was only a matter of years ago when people were thrilled with their 52K dial-up Modems.

You may be satisfied with wireless now but when the number of users increases exponentially, what sort of speeds will you be left with then?

Back to the World-Wide-Wait I guess.

The number of internet-users is irrelevant to the issue of individual bandwidth: all it means is that the more users there are, the more and stronger exchanges are needed (same for wireless). Those exchanges may well use fibre-optic cable between them.

I was just checking: I'm now getting a bandwidth of 6144 kbps on my ADSL line, and according to my ISP, I could get much more if only I bothered to purchase a newer router. This is more than plenty for X-rays and ultrasounds, but perhaps not enough if you also want to watch 3 porn movies at the same time while your children play 3D games. It is even more than enough for seeing your boss's freckles, unless you must insist on High-Definition.

Or if you are into cloud computing, for "deeper and deeper analysis", then it is simple: you only need to import one screen-image and export your keyboard/mouse movements, as all computations can then be done on the remote cloud server (or cluster). A standard ADSL2 line can easily support that. Sharing a whiteboard is not a problem either with ADSL2.

"The faster the computers get, the more information they'll be asked to process"

- Only if the human behind them will request them to do so.

"and the more information you'll be expected to upload and download to and from work"

Wow, thank you... so you wish me to be owing others more and more expectations, endlessly.

I understand that your current connection is slow. If you live in the country, then indeed you deserve better, but there is no need to drag along the city-dwellers as well. People like you may never be satiated, but it does not mean that the rest of us need to punished for it.

The solution for commuting should rather be in smaller regional communities living a simpler lifestyle, requiring less material goods and depending less on capital cities.

The NBN is not about jobs, but all about ENTERTAINMENT, something we definitely need less of, not more!

Like everything else the Red/green/getup/labour/socialist Alliance does. This is at best a rort, designed to be bloated, so that they can try to buy back some of the votes they keep losing with all their other Un Australian, Anti Social policies. Or is another deliberate, premeditated, plan for failure to bankrupt our treasury, cause GFC2 & bring about a "1984" Big Sista, UN NWO.

' you only need to import one screen-image and export your keyboard/mouse movements, as all computations can then be done on the remote cloud server (or cluster). A standard ADSL2 line can easily support that. Sharing a whiteboard is not a problem either with ADSL2.'

Exactly!

"and the more information you'll be expected to upload and download to and from work"

Like what? See above! Have you ever heard of client-server even? Geez. You can work from home on a 256 connection no probs.

PeterGM really doesn't understand the technology.

Secondly, compression algorithms improve all the time.

I cant believe the pro NBN fans keep acting like the NBN is actually the invention of the internet. We have the internet. People aren't prevented from doing anything that is suggested the NBN will now suddenly allow. Except for HDTV and mass online gaming that is. We have fibre now... Where it's NEEDED! Not to grandpas home where he could read his email once a week.

Bosses will NEVER accept people working from home in large numbers. We have had the bandwidth for this for 20 years and nobody does it because bosses will NEVER trust workers.

The culture of the workplace is being seen in the office until 7PM to prove you're a dedicated soulless drone for the company. Bosses want proof you're not really at the beach. That's just human nature and how the world works. Call it the wage slave principle.

As for roads, think of all the transport for everyone's online shopping. It's increasing every year. I wish I'd bought a courier business when the internet started to take off.

But, having said that, do you think anyone in the IT field would reject a free 48billion toy? Imagine the great games and ENTERTAINMENT (Yes Yuyutsu that's what it's all about).

Gotta love a solution looking for a problem.

Yuyutsu,

When it comes to Wireless, individual bandwidth is variable and depends on demand versus available resources.

It can be likened to available water pressure - the more users at one time, the less pressure available for each.

Our roads were also able to cope with the number of cars many years ago but things have changed.

As the number of users in a cell increases, the speed reduces and so does the cell size, leading to increased bit errors and drop-outs. Due the their frequency range 3G mobile cells need to be about 1 kilometre apart to cope with varying demand and small Internet cells will be similar.

Likewise, the total number of possible users in each cell at any time is dependent on the capacity of the backhaul links/fibres back to the Node. Telephony works on the basis that not everybody will be using their phone at the same time but Internet traffic will always be running at high volumes, regardless of how much data is being transmitted. The current network may be adequate for now but needs to be future-proofed.

Wireless will be the same as the CDMA moble phone debacle. How many years did that network last before it was turned off?

Wobbles,

"Our roads were also able to cope with the number of cars many years ago but things have changed."

Exactly. Cars haven't changed that much; Quality of roads hasn't changed that much, but there are more cars.

Did it occur to you that generations over generations of our ancesstors survived and enjoyed their life without phones at all, and without the internet? they also had no cars, but horses were sufficient. This generation has more, but is not happier.

We cannot turn the clock now, it would be impossible, but did it occur to you why?

Simply, because there are more people. Technology is not for creating a better and happier life: technology is for catching up and coping with increased population. It is not a benefit - it is the price we pay for breeding our species irresponsibly.

While we cannot afford to discard technology, the way to happier life must include the decrease of both human population and their material demands per capita. The least we can do is to be content where we are and not ask for more.

This of course does not mean that disadvantaged sectors should not be helped, so if indeed wireless cannot provide the basics for remote-country people, then a different technical solution should be sought, something that will give them also around 10MB/s as in the cities - but that is no reason to tempt city-dwellers as well (93% according to NBN statistics) with even faster technology that will take people yet further into virtual-entertainment land and away from real life and their physical bodies.

Those few professionals and companies which genuinely require more bandwidth for their work, may already aggregate several copper-ADSL lines to obtain the necessary bandwidth, or they could use customized fibre-optic lines from the exchange, but please don't tempt ordinary families with more destructive distractions.

So you have lost control of your family, It won't be compolsory to connect , only the ones that want to..

"It won't be compolsory to connect"

http://www.comparebroadband.com.au/article_730_Conroy-we-will-use-federal-law-to-make-NBN-connections-compulsory.htm

Also, even if the government were not making it compulsory, employers may, or schools, and there is likely to be much pressure from class-mates as well.

Although the "only" compulsory part is installing the NTU box on the side of your home, the slippery-slope is there for Young-Master to want what his little "friends" have, to make demands and throw tantrums. Not all parents have the strength to resist - and even for those who can, why add that burden? why introduce this plague in the first place? also, not all parents have the understanding of the dangers, so as it says in the bible (Leviticus 19:14), "Thou shalt not place an obstacle in front a blind person".

Hmm. The same old arguments about country imposing on city dwellers.... as though communication was a one-way process, and only country callers benefit from city-country communications.

It's as though potatoes just pop up on the fringes of the city, and people don't have to call country areas to get supplies. And when city people outnumber the country people by a sizeable ratio, maybe there are grounds for believing there are actually more city people initiating comms on some "country" circuits than there are country people starting them? Last time I worked at the city markets, there were more calls going out than coming in.

Clearly I don't know anything about communication and computers, after about 30 years working in the area. Interesting that no one has noticed that operating systems which used to fit into 4k of memory (CP/M) and later 650k of memory (MSDOS) now take up megabytes because they do more complicated things and are compiled in more memory-expensive ways. Or that things like total capacities of updates for these systems get bigger as the systems get more complicated. Or that the application programs that run on them are actually thousands of times larger than their forebears. (And in binary data, which still doesn't compress all that brilliantly, last time I looked.)

Interesting to find that it's apparently irrelevant that the ADSL solution is asynchronous, so that acclaimed "satisfactory" speeds talked about seem to ignore once again that communication is a two-way street, and uploads don't work like downloads.

Wonder why there's a popular commercial market for terabyte storage capacities in hard disk while there's apparently no reason to believe real time data communications requirements might have to increase at about the same rate as the storage media?

Tried backing up a terabyte data disk to remote backup via ADSL? Nah.. you probably just ship the disk by courier. That'd make more sense.

'Interesting that no one has noticed that operating systems which used to fit into 4k of memory (CP/M) and later 650k of memory (MSDOS) now take up megabytes because they do more complicated things and are compiled in more memory-expensive ways. Or that things like total capacities of updates for these systems get bigger as the systems get more complicated. Or that the application programs that run on them are actually thousands of times larger than their forebears. (And in binary data, which still doesn't compress all that brilliantly, last time I looked.) '

Yep, grandpa on the farm needs all that doesn't he. As I said, those companies that need it already have the bandwidth necessary. Fibre doesn't have to go to the home.

'Tried backing up a terabyte data disk to remote backup via ADSL?'

Who would need to do that? Oh right, grandpa wants to back up his life time photo album off site.

Terrible systems design in the first place. Who creates a new terrabyte of data to be remotely backed up every day. Ever heard of incremental backups?

I noticed you side-stepped the cultural reasons rather than technical reasons nobody works from home. You're definitely no salesman. I'd love someone to come up with a convincing argument for us to have this new toy.

Hey maybe the governmnet could fund every family with a Terabyte portable had drive and save millions! Maybe even a fire proof safe for the garage!

> Yep, grandpa on the farm needs all that doesn't he. As I said, >those companies that need it already have the bandwidth necessary. >Fibre doesn't have to go to the home.

"Grandpa on the farm"? What kind of ignorant patronizing irrelevance is that?

People on farms and mining people in regional towns want to use computers more and more for weather, geographical and market data. Ever seen any geographical files or tried to download them via mobile or slow ADSL? Get real! There are enterprises all around the country that could make good and productive use of loads of data of these kinds if only they had the chance. They certainly don't have the bandwidth available. Get out of the city and open your eyes a bit, sonny.

(See? Patronizing's catching!)

Incremental backups ?

If for example, you had a land information office located in somewhere like Bathurst NSW, and someone there could work from home, I wouldn't be at all surprised if a single delta from some of that work ran to at least half a terabyte, and possibly more. Check on the size of the original files they are dealing with, daily.

That may be an extreme case. But there are similarly huge data requirements growing all the time.

BTW, last time I looked, there was a Land and Information centre in Bathurst, NSW.

Probably got some grandpas there, too.

Examples of huge data sources and rapidly expanding requirements are all around us.

A reasonable expectation of regional development is that companies and organizations can move to regional areas. So why aren't regional "grandpas" just as entitled to work from home without being sneered at ?

Nobody is entitled to work from home. As I've said repeatedly, bosses hate workers, and just don't trust them. Otherwise the traffic in Sydney would be no problem at all. My company could save thousands on rent as we get about 1 visitor to our office a month, and we have 1 meeting a week if that. The available bandwidth has zero to do with people not working from home.

Anyway besides the fact there is no trust in the majority of workplaces, when someone deals with a company, they want to go to an actual office and see the size of the company they're dealing with, proof that they have employees etc.

This working from home is pie in the sky stuff, like the paperless office.

I can rattle off about 50 people I know who don't need and will never need more than 1MB connection but they'll all have fibre to their homes. Waste of money. Like having a secretary who uses Word and Excel sometimes having a $20k server at her desk. These people have at least 30 years to live and half of them don't even own a computer and those that do barely have the ability to read the 2 emails they receive a week.

"Pie in the sky" may turn out to be a necessity if there's to be any sense made of CO2 emission controls, increased cost of road transport (about $14 billion per annum or more, currently -- about half the total cost of the NBN for government), increased costs of city development and housing, increased rents in CBDs.
Some bosses don't want it. Some bosses didn't want computers. Some bosses didn't want the 40 hour week. Some bosses didn't want limits on child labour. Some bosses wanted slaves.

Some governments eventually tell some bosses to get their acts together -- if shareholders don't do it to them beforehand.

Don't know who your friends are, or what they do. You don't seem to rate them highly as intelligent users. But the traffic figures for the internet take them in and eat them up.

Some Australian internet stats:

Sept 2006 to Dec 2008 -- download figures only :

36 148 "million MBs" => 81,352 "million MBs".

Then in the latest year, in TB, June 2009 to 2010

99,249 => 155,503

So it doesn't matter much what your friends are doing. Someone else is doing a lot more in their place. And again, that's only downloads.

Why is that increase going to stop in the next decade or so? So far, every time the capacity for processing and communication has increased, the willingness to use that capacity has increased with it (and beyond).

"99,249 => 155,503"

Yes, but how much of this volume represents real information? Instead, what people are getting are blown-up web-sites, with more ads, more gimmicks, more nonsense, where all we need is factual information that could be summarized in no more than 1KB of text.

It's all just a total waste. You can get all you need with 1/100th the capacity, including working from home... oops, there is just one exception - entertainment, living in virtual reality: wouldn't it be simpler and cheaper to legalise drugs?

Yuyustu:

Apart from a bit of an intellectual snob's attitude to entertainment, you appear to claim effectiveness for 1K of text over other means of communication.

These days, after working in what you might call "entertainment", (which last time I looked, was a legitimate industry with all kinds of benefits for productivity in other national industries) I work in technical communication, following a spell or two in education.

It so happens that the most effective way of training and communicating in many complex areas is clearly that which comes in an "entertaining" format, otherwise known as audio/visual and movie formats.

It beats the hell out of text for complex issues. And if you have a look at the often-despised YouTube, you'll now find hundreds of those apparently-awful "entertainments" actually provide handy and often if not always, effective ways of explaining complex issues or tasks. They allow a level of comprehension that beats the hell out of 1 Kb of text on many of the increasingly-complex issues. They're educational.

Check out the stuff loaded on CDs these days for education courses, and pause to wonder why it has pictures. Check out something like Scientific American and count the pictures and diagrams.

Or better still, just try beating an animated picture of some DNA strands with a string of words explaining basics of how DNA works.

Ideally, of course, if you can, you do both. But you'd be outright reckless and pretty thick-headed to insist you can always do it better with text. That's just the Luddite approach gone silly.

It's a bit too late for lovely watermelon "back to nature" approaches to society. Bits of the future are already here, and work.
We now need to keep them working for us -- and for things like better education, more effective communication, and better ways of working and living without burning up energy and pouring out CO2.

Pencils aren't going to be the answer anymore.

'So it doesn't matter much what your friends are doing. Someone else is doing a lot more in their place. '

So let them get a faster line connected and pay for it themselves.

'the willingness to use that capacity has increased with it (and beyond).'

The take-up rate of the NBN in Tasmania is abysmal. People are happy enough with ADSL let alone ADSL2. There is no willingness.

The majority of older people 60-90 WONT EVER use the internet let alone ADSL2 let alone fibre. Perhaps in 40 years time when these people have died, it would be worth putting it into EVERY home, but not at the moment. The capacity we have well exceeds what is needed for the residential market.

I cant believe you think granpa writing his 2 emails a week needs a fibre connection. There are at least a million households in the country that will never use the service even if it was free, and certainly millions more who will never pay for it. There's people still using dial up you know, perfectly happy. There's many many people who could have ADSL2 but they don't want to pay for it so they stay with ADSL.

Why do you think people who don't even want ADSL2 will want fibre?

"Apart from a bit of an intellectual snob's attitude to entertainment"

As the government does not place bread and butter on my table, does not fund our clothing and shelter, nor supplies free alcohol and heroin, why discriminate in favour of entertainment-consumers/addicts?

Armchair-Entertainment takes people away from being active in real life - perhaps the only life they will ever get, and instead live through others (including fictional others). It is sad. I wholly support the right of others to make bad choices, but why encourage it? at least if they have to pay for that with their own dollars, they may avoid the higher personal costs.

"an animated picture of some DNA strands"

That's picking up on sporadic cases where a picture helps, needles in a hay-stack. Even there, 30 frames/second do not make it more educational, 1-2 frames/second would suffice for the intended purpose. Obviously, these cases are easily handled by ADSL, in fact even dialup. Most of the time, pictures only distract and waste the time of the reader/student, which must scroll down to find the actual information. As for diagrams, if they are represented as lines/arcs/shapes instead of as an image, most of them would also fit in 1KB. I know because I've produced many diagrams on a graphic serial-terminal (VT340).

"more effective communication"

That comes by being concise and to-the-point.

"better ways of working and living without burning up energy and pouring out CO2"

Breeding less, consuming less, simplifying life, being content to spend time with oneself, one's family and one's local community.

"Pencils aren't going to be the answer anymore"

I mainly use ball-point pens, but erasable pencils are still useful to mark music-scores, as different conductors (or even the same conductor on different occassions) often give different instructions.

--
Houellebecq,

"Why do you think people who don't even want ADSL2 will want fibre?"

Because otherwise the thought-police would get them and send them to re-education camps.

"The majority of older people 60-90 WONT EVER use the internet...<snip> Perhaps in 40 years time when these people have died, it would be worth putting it into EVERY home, but not at the moment. The capacity we have well exceeds what is needed for the residential market."

On what possible basis can you claim that ? Will people turning 60 in 10 years suddenly stop and go away knitting? Really?

"I cant believe you think granpa writing his 2 emails a week needs a fibre connection."

Who says its about your condescending old idea of grandpa and the Internet As We Know It Today? Check the NBN publications: it's clear it's about services already being used in other countries in health and home security and aged care as well as allowing for VOIP growth etc.

We can't afford carers for the aged and need some fast alternatives. Remote monitoring can help, and is being used overseas. And it's cheaper than many alternatives.

We're short of GPs in country towns, and remote AV consultations become possible, and are also being used elsewhere.

We've got specialists who can't get out to regional areas but could possibly work on diagnosis through digital imagery etc without leaving the home office. Ditto.

Older people at home won't get any use out of +those+ systems ?
Please explain.

"There's people still using dial up you know, perfectly happy."

Perfectly? I think not. Market numbers say the opposite.

Household dial-up subscribers ISP stats for Australia
Sep 2006 -> June 2010
2,472,000 -> 623,000 -- A 74.5% decrease approx.

compared with the same period overall increase in all subscribers:

6,657,000 -> 9,569,000 ---- A 43.7% increase!

"Why do you think people who don't even want ADSL2 will want fibre?"

See above for a start, then go check all the other reasons listed in the NBN papers. And stop thinking that nothing changes, when damn near everything does: you're starting to make it plain where the old grandpa thinking is actually coming from!

Houellebecq,

Peter just summed it all up: "See above for a start", referreing to my previous post: "Why do you think people who don't even want ADSL2 will want fibre? Because otherwise the thought-police would get them and send them to re-education camps", then adding the hint: "stop thinking that nothing changes, when damn near everything does".

Therefore, in the face of violence there is no point to continue using words: Julia's got the army, the police, ASIO, etc. and she is determined to wipe us out.

The NBN's bandwidth is required for compulsory brain-implants that will constantly send us subliminial instructions for subservience and dullness. My only hope and comfort is that by then I will already be dead, and my body well-cremated, so they cannot even attempt to resurrect it with this implant. Or perhaps instead we should try to escape to remote outback areas where fibre technology is not yet available, that is, until they invent the next technology to get us even there.

Yuyutsu,
It's a bit sad to think that our generation is not at least as happy than previous ones, considering that the state happiness is essentially a matter of choice.

To romanticise the notion that life was somehow better years ago is to ignore other factors such as Polio, TB, kids working down mines and a much harder life generally with little leisure time.

There's nothing inherently wrong with technology - it's how it's used (or abused) that matters.

Many posters on these forums seem fixated on downloading movies and/or porn as if that's all NBN is good for. I don't know if that's where their experience lies or if they just can't see any other future possibilities.

To miss this opportunity for future generations means that it will cost even more to implement later on and we will continue to be left behind the rest of the world.

We can add it to those other things that we walked away from when we had the chance, like transistors and rocket science and continue to dream about being a nation that's "riding on the sheep's back".

This is really a dressed-up political argument more than a social one.

Yuyutsu:

Sorry, your suggestion that the DNA case is a "needle in a haystack", is just wrong. As is any suggestion that words can always convey comprehension effectively without being complemented by graphics, vector or otherwise.

This is an area I work in and discuss daily. I use words, but I know their limitations when it comes to achieving comprehension in complex areas. As our understanding of our natural world gets better, our need for education in complex things becomes more necessary. The "simple" world just isn't actually "simple" -- and never really was.

Don't try to tell me that you can use words to give a better guide to topography than Google Earth can give by delivering maps and pictures of our world. Or that you can substitute words for the masses of binary data used in scientific analysis of things like climate change or astronomy or business transactions.

When you claim you don't get food on your table from the government, I notice you don't say you don't get medical care from the government. And of course, you do -- along with a whole host of things, like education: services which -- wittingly or not -- you have delivered to you daily.

If the government can improve delivery of these services to coming generations am I to understand you plan to deny both the government and the next generation that opportunity? That might be seen as a bit mean spirited.

The "see above" quote you cited from me was actually a reference to how we need extra capacity as offered by the NBN for amongst other things, facilities to continue to provide community care and assistance to the frail and the ill. That includes medical care and live picture conferencing as a substitute for human contact where grandpa doesn't have to be a touch typist and regretfully, isn't going to have relatives to fill the gap. Maybe it shouldn't be so. But it is, and at least there's something we can do about it.

But not with asynchronous ADSL. Do the trend maths.

Dear Rache,

Happiness is the ratio of what we have over what we want.

When we get more, we seem to be happier, but that happiness will only be temporary unless we restrain the tendency to want even more.

Renouncing things that we already want (but not have) is very difficult, but fortunately there is a middle-ground that works:
Take stock of what you want to have in your life, perhaps even write it down, take the time, investigate, be exhaustive as you can, perhaps list some alternatives, then set out to achieve those. Later, if something else comes around, ask yourself: "I did my list and did not want it then - so why should I want it now?"

Being left behind the rest of the world as it rushes blindly over the cliff, is a healthy sign.

Yuyutsu,

"Happiness is the ratio of what we have over what we want"?
That seems to be very biassed toward material things.

So if you have more of something than you want or need - you must be happy - and I guess almost everybody in the 3rd world (at least) cannot ever be happy?

I prefer to think of it as how you respond to and interpret circumstances that are beyond your control. In that regard it's entirely your own choice.

You can be unhappy about the NBN but are powerless to do anything about it.

However, if you have more bandwidth speed than you need then by your definition - you should be happy.

PeterGM,

'On what possible basis can you claim that ?'

You cant teach an old dog new tricks. People who don't like or use the internet just aren't capable of using it ever, and don't even want to learn. That you somehow think they'll all somehow soon be maintaining a home network is laughable.

You want them to have remote monitoring and consultations when they can barely turn on a computer. Or do you want to spy on them ala 1984?

'Older people at home won't get any use out of +those+ systems ?
Please explain. '
'Those' systems you keep mentioning don't require a hookup to a residential address at grandpas house. Anyway they are a litigation minefield that doctors would most likely avoid.

You might like to build things and then find a purpose for them later, but there are more pressing needs for the community.

'623,000'

Thank you! So half a million households are happy with dialup, seeing as how broadband has been here for so long, and everyone who wanted to would have already changed over in that time. That doesn't even count houses not connected. ADSL obviously exceeds their needs, so why do they need fibre? To read emails? Maybe they'll discover porn.

I don't argue it would be a wonderful toy, but there are more pressing needs. Tell you what, why don't we build a highway, 8 lanes to the centre of Australia. One day people will need it, and we can work out all sorts of uses for it in the meantime. Our children's children in 200 years time will be thrilled we had the foresight!

BTW: 'health and home security' was something made up to justify the NBN after the fact. No actual need prompted the decision for this network, it was prompted by a dummy spit at Telstra. That's the real thinking that's gone into it.

Put fibre down the streets, fine, but let people pay to connect it to their house if they need to and you'll find out how many people really need this.

Dear Rache,

I should have been more explicit: having more of something than we want is just like having things that we don't want at all (disease for example), it does not count towards happiness.

Having more bandwidth than you need, is bad: soon web-sites will know/assume that you have that bandwidth and increase the size of their web-pages, adding more nonsense, more ads. This will not only force you to wait longer (or pay more for the extra bandwidth), but also make it more difficult for you to find the information you were looking for. As you search the page for your information, you are also more likely to be side-tracked, forgetting what you wanted in the first place. Having a higher bandwidth will also make your computer download more when you click on a wrong/unintended link, and before you know it you will be paying more to your ISP (and spending more time slaving in the office to get that money).

3rd-world people are happier than we think, at least happier than how we would be in their place, but yes, it is very hard to renounce wants that come from the body itself, such as to satiate hunger and be healthy and pain-free. It seems easy to make 3rd-world people happier, but in fact, without some discipline, once they have the basics, they start wanting other things (such as the internet) and never be happier, so discipline must be given along with the food.

"You can be unhappy about the NBN but are powerless to do anything about it."

Not exactly: in the next elections, I can still vote for party(s) that will legislate against the removal of the copper network - I can then offer more money for whoever will be keeping my existing service; I can refuse to be connected to the NBN, I can stand with my body blocking the installers. I can destroy their equipment (and perhaps be taken to jail for that); I may rely just on satellite phone for emergencies and give up the internet; I can move to another country.

I notice they're wanting to rip up the copper wire because they know it cant compete with what we have for price. I've seen this before with the lane cove tunnel.

It's not build it and they will come. It's build it and then force them to use it and pay through the nose, and if it fails they'll pay anyway through their taxes. Hahahahaha!

If you have to force people to use such a wonderful new toy there is something wrong. 10% takeup in Tasmania. Sounds promising.

Next step is to close down all the existing telecoms infrastructure, and charge each ISP $100 per month regardless if their customers only want a phone. The customer can foot the bill for the new IP phone that wont work in a blackout, oh, then you can sell them a UPS! Great idea this!

rache,

'left behind the rest of the world.'

Yep, gotta keep up with the Joneses!

Houellebecq,

Very well written, but I see no point in continuing to argue with Peter: he will always keep finding hypothetical needles in the hay-stack; his determination is just like the one happy to pull down their house in order to recover a 20c piece that fell into a slot in the basement, or hit their wife with a hammer in order to kill a fly sitting on her.

I can understand that Labor's socialist blood boils at the insult of a private company holding a monopoly over basic infrastructure. I can understand how they would do EVERYTHING to destroy telstra, but in their blinding rage they care not who else they will be destroying on the way.

I actually agree with Labor's position that privatising Telecom was probably a mistake, especially given telstra's poor quality of service (and a medal for the worst web-site ever!) - I just don't think that a responsible way to deal with it would be to drop nuclear bombs on the telstra offices in every city...

NBN is likely to be a monumental waste of money. No matter how fast the internet, it can't put food on the table, it can't get you from A to B and it can't put a roof over your head. All the great expectations of the internet faded in the great dot com bust of the late 90's.

Houellebecq

Teaching an old dog new tricks:

"People who don't like or use the internet just aren't capable of using it ever, and don't even want to learn. That you somehow think they'll all somehow soon be maintaining a home network is laughable."

Juvenile prejudice oozes out of that, along with illogicality.

If people who don't use the internet aren't capable of using it ever, where does the usage increase come from ? Another bloody dimension ?

Your clichéd view of what it's like to be a bit older is crap.

I'm 70. I took up working with PCs at the age of about 40 and then started to take it seriously. At about age 50, in between doing other things, I taught myself assembly language programming. I switched careers. I installed Linux. I set up to work through BBSs I've since set up LANs, documented programs and networks and encryption systems, and I'm still doing it. I've taught IT, with the bulk of my best students being people over 40 who wanted to learn new stuff, including use of the internet.

So I don't see why I should bother much further with an idiot who thinks anyone over the age of 30 is decrepit.

I note that you show all the empathy of a rock for people who need aged care. No-one's suggesting non-consensual installation of internet devices in the home. Nor are they saying that you have to teach people to use a computer to let them talk to a GP remotely. All they do is sit in front of a monitor with a camera built in. That's so hard and impractical ? Get real !

First you say people are people are "perfectly happy" with dial-up, but then when the stats show they're leaving it in droves, you take this as proof that the remainder are "happy".

Someone should employ you in retail work, where, when you lose three quarters of your customers, you can tell the boss it's ok because well, the customers you have left must be happy.

And good luck with that, Sonny Jim.

If the size of pages remained the same as it was back then, then dialup would suffice, but with all the nonsense now imbeded in them, no wonder it does not. If work-places did not demand using more and more Hi-Tech for ordinary jobs, just to remain in the "work-force" and be able to fill one's stomach, then there would be more time to do the real part of the job, rather than playing around with electronics, serving them, feeding them and mis-believing that something useful was achieved (but then they excuse the time taken to serve the machines as "teething problems", and of course systems will remain "teething" forever because no one dares to stop anywhere). This is how the devil works, employing the slippery-slope to remove people from real life, making food expensive and electronics cheap.

Next, it will become widely acceptable that old people do not need a human touch, because a monitor with a camera can do the job instead. Why should grumpy old grandad be unhappy when his family and the community deserted him, as they are too busily absorbed in their High-Definition, 5-dimensional 7-sense entertainment to care? after all, he got his high-bandwidth devices too and they take care of keeping his body alive (whether he wants it or not), and if that's not enough, he will be implanted with all kinds of body/brain-enhancing chips to allow him to function with no one around. Any concern for grandpa's spirit or soul will be considered a snobbish luxury.

Someone working in retail should be proud to have the courage to tell 3/4 of his/her customers: "There is nothing here you really need, go home and be happy", to tell them the truth no matter what the boss says. This is true bravery, as opposed to the Cowardly New World that the NBN promises - the works of the devil!

Yuyutsu:

You miss the point on several counts:

Of course human contact is preferable (I suggested that earlier, if you check back). But it just isn't happening in so many cases, to the point where there are more and more cases of deaths of lonely people being discovered because of the smell of the corpse. Nasty, but that's what's happening. If monitoring can do something to stop that while we wait for your social attitude change solution, I'm in favour of it. Unlike you, however, I'm not in favour of doing nothing... which is basically what you propose.

Note, however, that all this net connection stuff is voluntary. Also, that I was referring more to the medical consultation process being made easier, when at present, many regions simply don't have doctors or don't have enough of them. Older patients can't do the traveling. At least with two-way communications they can be given some care, compared with a Big Fat Zilch at present. This kind of thing is actually already happening -- starting for example, from the provision of easier second opinions etc, so try not to pretend it can't happen -- unless you want to insist it can only be attempted on bandwidth-limited networks. Google a bit and get educated on it.

Or do you prefer people remain totally untreated, as a "natural" process of some kind ?

On the dial-up statistics issue, you miss the plot completely.

You entertain a fancy of a retail boss being proud to have an employee telling customers to go away because they had nothing to sell them. Lovely idea in Wonderland, doesn't cut the ice in the real world.

Unfortunately there's a bigger problem. You fail to note that the reason the customers are going away from dial up is that they are taking up offers of more bandwidth in ADSL and cable. They're not opting out, they're finding they need more than dial up offers!

As dial up decreased by three-quarters, overall customer counts increased by 45%. Not much doubt where the dial-up guys went.

'where does the usage increase come from ? Another bloody dimension ? '

Old people dying and young people moving out of home and getting the internet in their new premises.

'a bit older'
You just changed my 60yo into a 40 yo. Well done.

'I took up working with PCs at the age of about 40'
So how many other 70yo also did. Did it ever occur to you that the majority of 70Yos haven't had a career in IT?

'anyone over the age of 30'
OK now down to 30!

'Your clichéd view of what it's like to be a bit older is crap. '

How many 20-40 year olds have to continually and painfully explain to their parents the most basic computer skills.

My ex Boss asked me to teach his wife, I had to start at explaining what a mouse is. There is assumed knowledge built on a lifetime of using computers that older people just don't have. My grandmother, an otherwise smart woman, could never do anything but press play on her VCR.

Even most of my friends my age have no idea how to configure a router, how do you expect a 70 year old to do it when he cant even work a mobile phone. Anyway, regardless of the ability or the lack of an upbringing with technology, so many old people are scared of technology and don't want a bar of it.

'That's so hard and impractical ? Get real !'
It's a privacy issue. Old people dont want to have people putting cameras in their home. Sure you can swindle some but they have a right to proper care and privacy.

'you take this as proof that the remainder are "happy". '
Yes. They are happy with the speed for that price point. They could have more speed for more money, yet they have decided what they have is adequate for their needs. Not everyone needs the latest model of everything just because it's new and shiny, some people even have cars with no GPS and read a street directory.

User increases come from :

'Old people dying and young people moving out of home and getting the internet in their new premises.'

I don't think numbers are your strong point.

Explain how people that you say don't and can't use the internet actually manage to increase the numbers of people using the internet by simply dying. If they're not using the internet, and then they die, they're still not using the internet (as we know it -- unless you know something.).

Meanwhile, all users of the internet have to start some time. So the grand statement: "if you're not using the internet you won't use it in future" is missing a bit of logic. The unborn are doomed, for a start.

Try to get your logic straight as well as your maths.

"How many 20-40 year olds have to continually and painfully explain to their parents the most basic computer skills."

Indeed and how many 70 year olds have to explain to 20-40 year olds that daily occurrences now were impossible 10 years ago?

Or that just because you need to know about routers today doesn't mean you need to know about them tomorrow? That's what technology has been about: making it easier.

You don't have to wind the handle on the side of your phone anymore, or ask the operator to connect you to long distance. You wouldn't ask a 70 year old a while back to move a cat's whisker over a crystal to hear radio etc. So what ? So we can do things better for everyone.

"Anyway, regardless of the ability or the lack of an upbringing with technology, so many old people are scared of technology and don't want a bar of it."

Quite true. So we don't ask them to configure routers. Nor do we have to. We gave them buttons to push on their phones, and light switches instead of kerosene lamps. And just because it's been so hard for you doesn't mean it has to be hard for everyone forever. We make it easier, and get more usage for everyone. Simple.

'Explain how people that you say don't and can't use the internet actually manage to increase the numbers of people using the internet by simply dying. '

Well gramps, they vacate their premises, and the kids go from using their parents connection to installing a new connection at their new home.

Previously:

2 households. 1 single old person - no internet + 1 family of 4 - 1 dial-up connection

Old person dies:

2 Households. 1 young person, with ADSL2 + 1 family of 3 - 1 dial-up connection and 1 wireless connection because little Johnny wants to watch porn in private like his brother and his parents will still only pay for dialup no matter how much he's been trying to sell them ADSL.

So 1 dial-up connection turns into 1 ADSL, 1 Wireless and 1 dial-up.

'The unborn are doomed, for a start.'
That's just dumb, I said only people 60+ will never bother to use the internet. If you get past your emotional chip on your shoulder about your age and actually listened you could save yourself some time.

'Or that just because you need to know about routers today doesn't mean you need to know about them tomorrow? '
Yeah you do, if you cant afford for someone to wire up your home. They don't want to pay for ADSL at $50 a month because THEY DONT NEED THE BANDWIDTH. Now you think they're gonna pay hundreds for someone to hook their house up and pay $60 a month? Dreamin!

It's a simple fact: It is wasteful to give people a service for free that they wont even use. It is wasteful to dig up copper wire that works perfectly fine for the requirements of grandpa reading emails and force upon him a $60 a month charge for a porn machine he's not interested in. Maybe they should give a free couple of viagra with each NBN plan. Make proper use of the investment.

"deaths of lonely people being discovered because of the smell of the corpse... If monitoring can do something to stop that"

Indeed, to avoid the smell, perhaps even save on carpet cleaning, maybe even get a few more weeks of rent out of the house.

Do you know how much network-volume that takes? ONE BIT!
An alarm, a red light: if the problem-detection logic is placed at the elderly's home. This also implies a higher level of privacy, because as long as everything's alright, nobody can spy on the elderly.

"Note, however, that all this net connection stuff is voluntary"

Right now, the government is still considering its options. In any case, it intends to take away the copper-based home-phone connection, so if one is happy to remain without a phone, then PERHAPS it will be allowed.

"I was referring more to the medical consultation process being made easier, when at present, many regions simply don't have doctors or don't have enough of them. Older patients can't do the traveling."

Then give those people a suitable network. IF indeed copper/ADSL is insufficient, then give them something else (NBN does not plan to provide fibre-optic in remote areas anyway). The regional problem should be fixed, but why should the 93% in the cities who already have ADSL (or ADSL2) suffer as well?

Re Dial-up: People are forced to upgrade to ADSL because the web-pages have grown in size due to various embedded nonsense that is unrelated to the information they seek. Had ADSL not been around, then the same web-pages would have remained small and dial-up was sufficient. Fibre-optic will cause web-pages to grow even further, so simple people who only want a bit of text information will either wait longer for it or be forced to purchase a high-bandwidth service to get the same.

"You entertain a fancy of a retail boss being proud to have an employee telling customers to go away because they had nothing to sell them"

Wrong: I described a courageous retail-employee that is willing to pay with his/her head for telling the truth to customers.

Houellebecq:

You do not appear to understand the importance of checking your facts before you espouse grand arguments.

It's simply a silly and prejudice-based myth that older people don't and can't use the internet.

You propagate this myth, and when I challenge your assumptions, you accuse me of having a chip on my shoulder? It's a pot-and-kettle defense.

If you bothered to check, you could and should have found out by now that we know that a significant proportion of 60+ year olds already have internet connections and use them, albeit at lower rates than some age groups. Why can I find this information when you can't?

We know that in Australia as long ago as 2007:

+ 42% of those aged 65 to 75 had internet connections,
+ 22% of those aged over 75 had connections, and
+ 64% of the age group 55-64 were connected.

We also know that 78% of 45-54 year olds had a connection 3 years ago, many of whom will be in the 60+ bracket within 2 to 3 years.

Are these people taking up knitting as as a net substitute as soon as they hit 60?

Try applying those old connection figures to your increase by death scenario. I'll help you: there are currently 120,000 deaths per annum for 60+. Tell us how well they these figures line up with a 360,000 annual increase in the last year's household connections.

Do allow for things like:
+ partners who don't die at the same time
+ children who don't want the internet
+ children who already have the internet
+ people who don't have children

as well as older householders who have a connection already available.

And try to add things up properly this time, without getting total figures confused with proportions, and prejudice confused with known facts.

58% of those aged 65 to 75 don't have an internet connection
78% of those aged over 75 don't have an internet connection
36% of the age group 55-64 don't have an internet connection

Why would I bother to look all this up when you keep doing it for me to prove my point.

The National Broadband Network went from $12 billion to $43 billion in the space of a plane ride Rudd shared with Communications Minister Stephen Conroy. The only thought that went into it was a waah waah dummy spit at telstra for not playing ball in the bid process for the 12 billion dollar plan that was identical to the now liberal policy. That's what they went to the 2007 election with.

All this pie in the sky stuff about online doctors was a fabrication made after the fact. A fig leaf justification for an ENTERTAINMENT network. The vast majority of bandwidth we use today is for P2P movie and music downloads and porn. The bandwidth is sufficient for the next 30 years.

Just what have you got against putting fibre down the street and residences connecting to it if and when they need to and leaving the copper infrastructure in place as competition. Ready-built redundancy.

That's the biggest red flag, the pulling up of copper to FORCE people onto it. Just like closing other roads to force people to use toll roads. What a waste of money. It shows it hasn't been thought through, and they aren't confident people actually want or need it if they're so scared of the existing copper.

>58% of those aged 65 to 75 don't have an internet connection
>78% of those aged over 75 don't have an internet connection
>36% of the age group 55-64 don't have an internet connection

Do get it right and read properly.

Not "don't" -- didn't in 2007, three years ago. Trend indicators at the time when the 2007 figures were compiled indicated these groups had the highest rate of increase in new connections. And in that time, there was an overall increase of somewhere under about 40% in all new connections. (Except your beloved dial-ups.)

And prithee, why couldn't you just give us a rundown on the crossover figures from aged deaths to increases in connections?

Forgotten, have you, that you said these groups don't won't and can't ever use the internet ?

Suddenly the glass that was empty is now sort of empty or was sort of empty 3 years ago, even if it's a deal fuller now. Which of course, means the same thing. Sure.

The rest of your posting indicates your political agenda. And yet, amazingly you want to ignore the market realities at the same time.

Not worth discussing any further. You just want to push a barrow and ignore facts others can provide while you pontificate in ignorance and absence of any facts.