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.