VDSL2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_high_speed_digital_subscriber_line_2)

Fibre to the node and VDSL2 connections to the residence. can get 250Mbs and could be put in place NOW for 1/4 the cost of the NBN.

so why are we paying so much when there are cheaper and BETTER alternatives around?

also read... http://www.adam.com.au/announcements/2010/11/0515/index.html

it may as well be in Chinese for me longy... but the point you make ..

it  is the Labor Way..they believe the hard way is the best way..

look at the Education Revolution.....what did we get.. a ballsup..

a building fiasco.. and a curriculum that no one agrees on

Health revolution... nothing.other than a big spend up.and nurses on strike, good one!!


and its taken 3 years..

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 29^th, 2010 at 9:27am:

VDSL2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_high_speed_digital_subscriber_line_2) Fibre to the node and VDSL2 connections to the residence. can get 250Mbs and could be put in place NOW for 1/4 the cost of the NBN. so why are we paying so much when there are cheaper and BETTER alternatives around? also read... http://www.adam.com.au/announcements/2010/11/0515/index.html

Hmmnnn...what proportion of Aussie residents are within 0.5 km of a node  - or within 1.6 km for that matter!?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_high_speed_digital_subscriber_line_2


Quote:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Very-high-speed digital subscriber line 2 (VDSL2) is an access technology that exploits the existing infrastructure of copper wires that were originally deployed for POTS. It can be deployed from central offices, from fibre-fed cabinets located near the customer premises, or within buildings. VDSL2 is the newest and most advanced standard of DSL broadband wireline communications. Designed to support the wide deployment of triple play services such as voice, video, data, high definition television (HDTV) and interactive gaming, VDSL2 is purported to enable operators and carriers to gradually, flexibly, and cost-efficiently upgrade existing xDSL infrastructure. The protocol was standardized as ITU G.993.2 on February 17, 2006. ITU-T G.993.2 (VDSL2) is an enhancement to G.993.1 (VDSL) that permits the transmission of asymmetric and symmetric aggregate data rates up to 200 Mbit/s downstream and upstream on twisted pairs using a bandwidth up to 30 MHz. VDSL2 deteriorates quickly from a theoretical maximum of 250 Mbit/s at source to 100 Mbit/s at 0.5 km (1,600 ft) and 50 Mbit/s at 1 km (3,300 ft), but degrades at a much slower rate from there, and still outperforms VDSL. Starting from 1.6 km (1 mi) its performance is equal to ADSL2+. ADSL-like long reach performance is one of the key advantages of VDSL2. LR-VDSL2 enabled systems are capable of supporting speeds of around 1–4 Mbit/s (downstream) over distances of 4–5 km (2.5–3 miles), gradually increasing the bit rate up to symmetric 100 Mbit/s as loop-length shortens. This means that VDSL2-based systems, unlike VDSL1 systems, are not limited to short local loops or MTU/MDUs only, but can also be used for medium range applications.

Seriously, Longy, your background is in IT - so I don't get why you seem so determined to back the concept of the nation upgrading to technology that has already been superseded...

So presumably it would run at 250 MB if the there was fibre between the node and the home, instead of copper.

Equitist wrote on Nov 29^th, 2010 at 9:58am:

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 29th, 2010 at 9:27am: VDSL2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_high_speed_digital_subscriber_line_2) Fibre to the node and VDSL2 connections to the residence. can get 250Mbs and could be put in place NOW for 1/4 the cost of the NBN. so why are we paying so much when there are cheaper and BETTER alternatives around? also read... http://www.adam.com.au/announcements/2010/11/0515/index.html Hmmnnn...what proportion of Aussie residents are within 0.5 km of a node  - or within 1.6 km for that matter!? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_high_speed_digital_subscriber_line_2 Quote: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Very-high-speed digital subscriber line 2 (VDSL2) is an access technology that exploits the existing infrastructure of copper wires that were originally deployed for POTS. It can be deployed from central offices, from fibre-fed cabinets located near the customer premises, or within buildings. VDSL2 is the newest and most advanced standard of DSL broadband wireline communications. Designed to support the wide deployment of triple play services such as voice, video, data, high definition television (HDTV) and interactive gaming, VDSL2 is purported to enable operators and carriers to gradually, flexibly, and cost-efficiently upgrade existing xDSL infrastructure. The protocol was standardized as ITU G.993.2 on February 17, 2006. ITU-T G.993.2 (VDSL2) is an enhancement to G.993.1 (VDSL) that permits the transmission of asymmetric and symmetric aggregate data rates up to 200 Mbit/s downstream and upstream on twisted pairs using a bandwidth up to 30 MHz. VDSL2 deteriorates quickly from a theoretical maximum of 250 Mbit/s at source to 100 Mbit/s at 0.5 km (1,600 ft) and 50 Mbit/s at 1 km (3,300 ft), but degrades at a much slower rate from there, and still outperforms VDSL. Starting from 1.6 km (1 mi) its performance is equal to ADSL2+. ADSL-like long reach performance is one of the key advantages of VDSL2. LR-VDSL2 enabled systems are capable of supporting speeds of around 1–4 Mbit/s (downstream) over distances of 4–5 km (2.5–3 miles), gradually increasing the bit rate up to symmetric 100 Mbit/s as loop-length shortens. This means that VDSL2-based systems, unlike VDSL1 systems, are not limited to short local loops or MTU/MDUs only, but can also be used for medium range applications. Seriously, Longy, your background is in IT - so I don't get why you seem so determined to back the concept of the nation upgrading to technology that has already been superseded...

The VAST MAJORITY of the population would be able to be within acceptabel range of VDSL2 and thats the point. Spend the money where it is actually needed. for the najority of australians, NBN will give them 12Mbs and a fixed line phone - something we already have.

And if you have been in IT for as long as I have (30 years) you have seen that the latest technology is not always the best and is often over priced underperforming and over-hyped. Fibre to the node with VDSL2 to the home would give us all 100Mbs AND MORE at 1/4 of the cost.

Please delete wrote on Nov 29^th, 2010 at 10:16am:

So presumably it would run at 250 MB if the there was fibre between the node and the home, instead of copper.

yes thats tru and it only changes the price from $9B to $40B. and as i ahve been saying time and time again. its not about the technology but about the PRICE. Do you all go out and go into massive debt to buy a lamborghini instead of a holden because it is a superior vehicle? NO. you figure it costs too much and when most of the time you are carrying kids or shopping it isnt any advantage at all. The same argument applies to the NBN.

Nothing inherently wrong with what you are saying longweekend.

One IT truism is that it is never the right time to buy - always something better around the corner.

I imagine they could adapt the plan, and use new technologies like this - in fact they'd be crazy if they didn't.

I am pleased that one of the benefits of the NBN is that the provisioning side of comms in Australia will be wrested off Telstra. They also seem pleased.

That's how it should have been done when Beazley first introduced OPTUS.

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 29^th, 2010 at 10:19am:

Please delete wrote on Nov 29th, 2010 at 10:16am: So presumably it would run at 250 MB if the there was fibre between the node and the home, instead of copper. yes thats tru and it only changes the price from $9B to $40B. and as i ahve been saying time and time again. its not about the technology but about the PRICE. Do you all go out and go into massive debt to buy a lamborghini instead of a holden because it is a superior vehicle? NO. you figure it costs too much and when most of the time you are carrying kids or shopping it isnt any advantage at all. The same argument applies to the NBN.

LOL...I seem to recall you bragging about your own wankmobile - and the fact that you had to modify your home driveway to accommodate the symbol of your mid-life crisis...

It seems that you don't practice what you preach...

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 29^th, 2010 at 10:17am:

The VAST MAJORITY of the population would be able to be within acceptabel range of VDSL2 and thats the point. Spend the money where it is actually needed. for the najority of australians, NBN will give them 12Mbs and a fixed line phone - something we already have. And if you have been in IT for as long as I have (30 years) you have seen that the latest technology is not always the best and is often over priced underperforming and over-hyped. Fibre to the node with VDSL2 to the home would give us all 100Mbs AND MORE at 1/4 of the cost.

How many more nodes would be required, over and above the number than we have today, to achieve 100Mbs for us all?

Either way, dare I suggest that 8 years is a very long time in technological terms - and that: based on past trends, the VDSDL to the home would most likely become inadequate within the 8 year window and therefore that it would be foolish to limit the national roll-out to VDSDL to the home!?

BTW, I'm not suggesting that there shouldn't be a staged roll-out - but that double-handling/installation is unnecessarily costly and counter-productive...

Have you used vdsl2 longy?
I have, and it was giving me about 20 to 30 Mbps, same as my ADSL2+, and same as my Cable.
Now the fact is that they still need to run Fibre to the node, and then Cat 5E to your house, and through your house, so where is the cost saving going to come?
Is it cheaper, or dearer to run Cat 5E than optical fibre?

To have a decent VDSL2 network you would need to run fibre to every street corner anyway, as it drops in speed dramatically if copper is longer than 1km, and that has to be GOOD copper, ie; NEW copper, so why the hell would you bother putting new copper in, instead of just doing it right now, and installing the far more durable, more reliable, Optical Fibre all the way?

mozzaok wrote on Nov 29^th, 2010 at 10:42am:

Have you used vdsl2 longy? I have, and it was giving me about 20 to 30 Mbps, same as my ADSL2+, and same as my Cable. Now the fact is that they still need to run Fibre to the node, and then Cat 5E to your house, and through your house, so where is the cost saving going to come? Is it cheaper, or dearer to run Cat 5E than optical fibre? To have a decent VDSL2 network you would need to run fibre to every street corner anyway, as it drops in speed dramatically if copper is longer than 1km, and that has to be GOOD copper, ie; NEW copper, so why the hell would you bother putting new copper in, instead of just doing it right now, and installing the far more durable, more reliable, Optical Fibre all the way?

Good questions - my guess is that labour costs are a significant component of what is necessarily a labour-intensive project...

In the two scenarios under discussion here, what proportions of the overall costs does the hardware represent - and has there been too much emphasis placed upon the materials costs v's the labour costs in order to misrepresent the overall comparative costs!?

Quote:

ADSL-like long reach performance is one of the key advantages of VDSL2. LR-VDSL2 enabled systems are capable of supporting speeds of around 1–4 Mbit/s (downstream) over distances of 4–5 km (2.5–3 miles), gradually increasing the bit rate up to symmetric 100 Mbit/s as loop-length shortens. This means that VDSL2-based systems, unlike VDSL1 systems, are not limited to short local loops or MTU/MDUs only, but can also be used for medium range applications.

So, at distances of 4–5 km the speed of LR-VDSL2 is a mere 1–4 Mbit/s!

So, again I ask: how many more nodes would be required in Oz, to get to that magic figure of 100 Mbit/s for us all!?

Equitist wrote on Nov 29^th, 2010 at 10:32am:

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 29th, 2010 at 10:19am: Please delete wrote on Nov 29th, 2010 at 10:16am: So presumably it would run at 250 MB if the there was fibre between the node and the home, instead of copper. yes thats tru and it only changes the price from $9B to $40B. and as i ahve been saying time and time again. its not about the technology but about the PRICE. Do you all go out and go into massive debt to buy a lamborghini instead of a holden because it is a superior vehicle? NO. you figure it costs too much and when most of the time you are carrying kids or shopping it isnt any advantage at all. The same argument applies to the NBN. LOL...I seem to recall you bragging about your own wankmobile - and the fact that you had to modify your home driveway to accommodate the symbol of your mid-life crisis... It seems that you don't practice what you preach...

IM not asking the taxpayer or anyone else besides me to pay for it.

So the simple question obviously is WHY would it be cheaper?
Secondly, HOW would it be better?
The second I already know, it absolutely would not be better, it is clearly inferior to FTTH, and asserting otherwise is as close to a blatant lie one could give, if one were truly as tech savvy as longy claims to be, but the cheaper bit I am interested in hearing, because I want to know what assumptions are being made, because obviously they are making the claim comparing apples to avocados.

Equitist wrote on Nov 29^th, 2010 at 10:38am:

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 29th, 2010 at 10:17am: The VAST MAJORITY of the population would be able to be within acceptabel range of VDSL2 and thats the point. Spend the money where it is actually needed. for the najority of australians, NBN will give them 12Mbs and a fixed line phone - something we already have. And if you have been in IT for as long as I have (30 years) you have seen that the latest technology is not always the best and is often over priced underperforming and over-hyped. Fibre to the node with VDSL2 to the home would give us all 100Mbs AND MORE at 1/4 of the cost. How many more nodes would be required, over and above the number than we have today, to achieve 100Mbs for us all? Either way, dare I suggest that 8 years is a very long time in technological terms - and that: based on past trends, the VDSDL to the home would most likely become inadequate within the 8 year window and therefore that it would be foolish to limit the national roll-out to VDSDL to the home!? BTW, I'm not suggesting that there shouldn't be a staged roll-out - but that double-handling/installation is unnecessarily costly and counter-productive...

Your technical credibility is crap. After all, you thought wireless operated at the speed of sound. So excuse me for saying that your opinion on technical matters is totally worthless.

mozzaok wrote on Nov 29^th, 2010 at 10:42am:

Have you used vdsl2 longy? I have, and it was giving me about 20 to 30 Mbps, same as my ADSL2+, and same as my Cable. Now the fact is that they still need to run Fibre to the node, and then Cat 5E to your house, and through your house, so where is the cost saving going to come? Is it cheaper, or dearer to run Cat 5E than optical fibre? To have a decent VDSL2 network you would need to run fibre to every street corner anyway, as it drops in speed dramatically if copper is longer than 1km, and that has to be GOOD copper, ie; NEW copper, so why the hell would you bother putting new copper in, instead of just doing it right now, and installing the far more durable, more reliable, Optical Fibre all the way?

you certainly didnt get 30Mbps over adsl2+ since the max is 24 and u have to be next door to the exchange. VDLS2 also operates over the copper network not ethernet.

and why use it instead of fibre to the home?  THIRTY BILLION DOLLARS (minimum). thats a lot of money to give you absolutely nothing more that VDSL (or ADSL2+) currently gives!

mozzaok wrote on Nov 29^th, 2010 at 11:33am:

So the simple question obviously is WHY would it be cheaper? Secondly, HOW would it be better? The second I already know, it absolutely would not be better, it is clearly inferior to FTTH, and asserting otherwise is as close to a blatant lie one could give, if one were truly as tech savvy as longy claims to be, but the cheaper bit I am interested in hearing, because I want to know what assumptions are being made, because obviously they are making the claim comparing apples to avocados.

do you even remember the original tender which was for fibre to the node? $9B.

as for the technically superior lets put it in terms thew average person would understand. for the vast majority of curretn homes they get 12Mbps internet and scarecely use it at its max. the NBN will provide 12Mbps as well. but we are going to spend $50B on it. oh but we also get a fixed phone line. heres news for all of you. we've had those for 100 years and they are quickly going out of fashion anyhow. Yes, the NBN will offer residences 100Mbs but I question the USE that wil be put to and how many would actually want it or pay for it. and competing and vastly cheaper systems can provided that same speed.

You love to talk all techo at times but clearly you have no idea at all. You knowledge is limited to your own experience and you have not the slightest interest in the cost...

I want a lamboroghini. Do you think Conroy will stump for one for everyone in the country because it is the best fastest and most desirable technology? Thats essentially your argument.

Yes I love to talk all techo Longy, especially to you, when you make so many false claims.
I love your answer, is that your way of saying, "I know what I said was untrue, but I hoped nobody would notice"?

mozzaok wrote on Nov 29^th, 2010 at 11:55am:

Yes I love to talk all techo Longy, especially to you, when you make so many false claims. I love your answer, is that your way of saying, "I know what I said was untrue, but I hoped nobody would notice"?

wow... integrity isnt your strong point. i believe it was YOU who claimed to have a 30Mbps ADLS2 connection... (impossible)

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 29^th, 2010 at 9:27am:

VDSL2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_high_speed_digital_subscriber_line_2) Fibre to the node and VDSL2 connections to the residence. can get 250Mbs and could be put in place NOW for 1/4 the cost of the NBN. so why are we paying so much when there are cheaper and BETTER alternatives around? also read... http://www.adam.com.au/announcements/2010/11/0515/index.html

The Australian public are not meant to know about this for 7 years and that's a minimum.

According to some posters here fibre optic will never be superseded.
And fibre optic will be the cream de la cream for at least the next 20 years.

Please cover up and suppress your information longy, we are not meant to know.

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 29^th, 2010 at 10:19am:

yes thats tru and it only changes the price from $9B to $40B. and as i ahve been saying time and time again. its not about the technology but about the PRICE. Do you all go out and go into massive debt to buy a lamborghini instead of a holden because it is a superior vehicle? NO. you figure it costs too much and when most of the time you are carrying kids or shopping it isnt any advantage at all. The same argument applies to the NBN.

That puts it into perspective Longy, which is not usually allowed here.
Thank you

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 29^th, 2010 at 11:47am:

as for the technically superior lets put it in terms thew average person would understand. for the vast majority of curretn homes they get 12Mbps internet and scarecely use it at its max. the NBN will provide 12Mbps as well. but we are going to spend $50B on it. oh but we also get a fixed phone line. heres news for all of you. we've had those for 100 years and they are quickly going out of fashion anyhow. Yes, the NBN will offer residences 100Mbs but I question the USE that wil be put to and how many would actually want it or pay for it. and competing and vastly cheaper systems can provided that same speed.

I doubt if anyone would notice whether the internet highway connection speed was at super-nano seconds or just nano-seconds.

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 29^th, 2010 at 11:58am:

mozzaok wrote on Nov 29th, 2010 at 11:55am: Yes I love to talk all techo Longy, especially to you, when you make so many false claims. I love your answer, is that your way of saying, "I know what I said was untrue, but I hoped nobody would notice"? wow... integrity isnt your strong point. i believe it was YOU who claimed to have a 30Mbps ADLS2 connection... (impossible)

Is that called misdirection Longy?
Perhaps you are ashamed of yourself, and seek to attack instead of apologising for your utter politically motivated line of BS?

As far as 30Mbps, you are being a goose, so adsl2 usually tops out at 24 or 25Mbps, it was sold with the theoretical 30Mbps topout point.
That was the product I was using, and I  have actually used the technology you are lying about, and it was pretty much the same as the other options currently available, Cable, and ADSL2.
Because I have always been a "Power User", the Telco terminology, not mine, I have actually been involved in test studies, so actually used the technology of VDSL2, so you cannot lay your line of BS and assume nobody knows about it, and will therefore accept the lie that it is either better, or cheaper, because you say so, when it most clearly is not.

mozzaok wrote on Nov 29^th, 2010 at 12:32pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 29th, 2010 at 11:58am: mozzaok wrote on Nov 29th, 2010 at 11:55am: Yes I love to talk all techo Longy, especially to you, when you make so many false claims. I love your answer, is that your way of saying, "I know what I said was untrue, but I hoped nobody would notice"? wow... integrity isnt your strong point. i believe it was YOU who claimed to have a 30Mbps ADLS2 connection... (impossible) Is that called misdirection Longy? Perhaps you are ashamed of yourself, and seek to attack instead of apologising for your utter politically motivated line of BS? As far as 30Mbps, you are being a goose, so adsl2 usually tops out at 24 or 25Mbps, it was sold with the theoretical 30Mbps topout point. That was the product I was using, and I  have actually used the technology you are lying about, and it was pretty much the same as the other options currently available, Cable, and ADSL2. Because I have always been a "Power User", the Telco terminology, not mine, I have actually been involved in test studies, so actually used the technology of VDSL2, so you cannot lay your line of BS and assume nobody knows about it, and will therefore accept the lie that it is either better, or cheaper, because you say so, when it most clearly is not.

you love to talk the techo stuiff but there is stil NO EXCUSE for claiming you have a 30Mbps ADLS 2+ connection because its maximum is 24Mbps. and if u used VDLS2 then you also know that it works. But the argument is COST and as usual your totally avoid it.

It is also interesting to note that there are only TWO ISPS in australia offering VDSL2. how convenient that you are one of them.

I would characterise this not as an alternative to the NBN, but an inrteresting technology that may fit within the NBN.

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 29^th, 2010 at 12:42pm:

mozzaok wrote on Nov 29th, 2010 at 12:32pm: longweekend58 wrote on Nov 29th, 2010 at 11:58am: mozzaok wrote on Nov 29th, 2010 at 11:55am: Yes I love to talk all techo Longy, especially to you, when you make so many false claims. I love your answer, is that your way of saying, "I know what I said was untrue, but I hoped nobody would notice"? wow... integrity isnt your strong point. i believe it was YOU who claimed to have a 30Mbps ADLS2 connection... (impossible) Is that called misdirection Longy? Perhaps you are ashamed of yourself, and seek to attack instead of apologising for your utter politically motivated line of BS? As far as 30Mbps, you are being a goose, so adsl2 usually tops out at 24 or 25Mbps, it was sold with the theoretical 30Mbps topout point. That was the product I was using, and I  have actually used the technology you are lying about, and it was pretty much the same as the other options currently available, Cable, and ADSL2. Because I have always been a "Power User", the Telco terminology, not mine, I have actually been involved in test studies, so actually used the technology of VDSL2, so you cannot lay your line of BS and assume nobody knows about it, and will therefore accept the lie that it is either better, or cheaper, because you say so, when it most clearly is not. you love to talk the techo stuiff but there is stil NO EXCUSE for claiming you have a 30Mbps ADLS 2+ connection because its maximum is 24Mbps. and if u used VDLS2 then you also know that it works. But the argument is COST and as usual your totally avoid it. It is also interesting to note that there are only TWO ISPS in australia offering VDSL2. how convenient that you are one of them.

Wrong again, it is YOU avoiding it, I asked you to show where the savings are, and while you have not apologised for the lie that VDSL2 is a better alternative, you have neither displayed why, or HOW, it would be a cheaper alternative.

They had to tun new Cat5E into my house to use it, so I will ask again, where are the savings?

mozzaok wrote on Nov 29^th, 2010 at 12:51pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 29th, 2010 at 12:42pm: mozzaok wrote on Nov 29th, 2010 at 12:32pm: longweekend58 wrote on Nov 29th, 2010 at 11:58am: mozzaok wrote on Nov 29th, 2010 at 11:55am: Yes I love to talk all techo Longy, especially to you, when you make so many false claims. I love your answer, is that your way of saying, "I know what I said was untrue, but I hoped nobody would notice"? wow... integrity isnt your strong point. i believe it was YOU who claimed to have a 30Mbps ADLS2 connection... (impossible) Is that called misdirection Longy? Perhaps you are ashamed of yourself, and seek to attack instead of apologising for your utter politically motivated line of BS? As far as 30Mbps, you are being a goose, so adsl2 usually tops out at 24 or 25Mbps, it was sold with the theoretical 30Mbps topout point. That was the product I was using, and I  have actually used the technology you are lying about, and it was pretty much the same as the other options currently available, Cable, and ADSL2. Because I have always been a "Power User", the Telco terminology, not mine, I have actually been involved in test studies, so actually used the technology of VDSL2, so you cannot lay your line of BS and assume nobody knows about it, and will therefore accept the lie that it is either better, or cheaper, because you say so, when it most clearly is not. you love to talk the techo stuiff but there is stil NO EXCUSE for claiming you have a 30Mbps ADLS 2+ connection because its maximum is 24Mbps. and if u used VDLS2 then you also know that it works. But the argument is COST and as usual your totally avoid it. It is also interesting to note that there are only TWO ISPS in australia offering VDSL2. how convenient that you are one of them. Wrong again, it is YOU avoiding it, I asked you to show where the savings are, and while you have not apologised for the lie that VDSL2 is a better alternative, you have neither displayed why, or HOW, it would be a cheaper alternative. They had to tun new Cat5E into my house to use it, so I will ask again, where are the savings?

Your ability to read and comprehend seems severly compromised. your single eye obviously cannot focus on the ENTIRE issue. The people who spent a combined $35M on the FTTN tenders can tell u why it is cheaper then the NBN so why dont you ask them?

You are the one that has been running the idiotic Liberal Party line that the NBN is all a huge waste, and we can just keep sticky taping copper wires together forever and still have a cracker jack world class broadband service for all aussies.


YOU started this thread.
YOU named it "CHEAPER and BETTER etc"
You have been asked to explain how you could draw either conclusion, Cheaper, or Better?
YOU have failed to offer any explanation for either claim so far, but seek to misdirect, and misinform, as is poor Malcolm's brief, which is obviously Abbott's punishment doled his direction for not being a loony extremist.

So are you content to spread falsehoods and misinformation without even attempting to justify yourself when called on the fact?

If not, then please expand.
WHY is it better?
HOW is it cheaper?

If you can manage to do that, I think Abbott has some water he'd like turned into wine as well.

well as Gillard is going to give away a free lamborghini to everyone, can I have a red one.

Nintendo have jumped on the band wagon as well releasing a Red Wii

As everyone knows red ones go fastest, so the NBN has to be red.

mozzaok wrote on Nov 29^th, 2010 at 4:19pm:

You are the one that has been running the idiotic Liberal Party line that the NBN is all a huge waste, and we can just keep sticky taping copper wires together forever and still have a cracker jack world class broadband service for all aussies. YOU started this thread. YOU named it "CHEAPER and BETTER etc" You have been asked to explain how you could draw either conclusion, Cheaper, or Better? YOU have failed to offer any explanation for either claim so far, but seek to misdirect, and misinform, as is poor Malcolm's brief, which is obviously Abbott's punishment doled his direction for not being a loony extremist. So are you content to spread falsehoods and misinformation without even attempting to justify yourself when called on the fact? If not, then please expand. WHY is it better? HOW is it cheaper? If you can manage to do that, I think Abbott has some water he'd like turned into wine as well.

why would i bother repeated and re-explaining that which you are patently unable to hear. You want an NBN and youd support it if the cost were $200B. faster porn and illegal software and movies must be really important to you. as for 80% of the rest of the county we wil lahev the exact same service we currently have but with a $50B billl to pay for it.

Id ask you to demonstrate the LEGITIMATE purposes for a high capacity residential but weve done that route once before and you came up with 'smart grids'. all that indicates is that you dont know what a smart grid is (low bandwidth application) and are just regurgitating the propaganda that you are fed.

So, another Thread on the same subject!  So here, cop what I posted on another Thread on the same subject:


Quote:

I really wonder why people flog what is now a dead horse.  I mean what is the point?  The NBN is going to happen, right or wrong, so live with it, get over it and move the bugger on ferfuxsake! You bore the crap out of me with all your pseudo knowledge.  bugger me, as if any of you buggers would really know.  If you did, you would not be wasting your time here on a horse that has either been flogged to death, or has bolted. Why don't you waste some more time and argue about whether the Sydney Harbour Bridge or the Snowy Mountains Scheme were worthwhile Australian visionary projects?

And just to keep things nice and tidy, here is the reply on that other Thread on the same subject:


Quote:

There are few posters stupider and more arrogant than you. But not many.

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 29^th, 2010 at 6:50pm:

mozzaok wrote on Nov 29th, 2010 at 4:19pm: You are the one that has been running the idiotic Liberal Party line that the NBN is all a huge waste, and we can just keep sticky taping copper wires together forever and still have a cracker jack world class broadband service for all aussies. YOU started this thread. YOU named it "CHEAPER and BETTER etc" You have been asked to explain how you could draw either conclusion, Cheaper, or Better? YOU have failed to offer any explanation for either claim so far, but seek to misdirect, and misinform, as is poor Malcolm's brief, which is obviously Abbott's punishment doled his direction for not being a loony extremist. So are you content to spread falsehoods and misinformation without even attempting to justify yourself when called on the fact? If not, then please expand. WHY is it better? HOW is it cheaper? If you can manage to do that, I think Abbott has some water he'd like turned into wine as well. why would i bother repeated and re-explaining that which you are patently unable to hear. You want an NBN and youd support it if the cost were $200B. faster porn and illegal software and movies must be really important to you. as for 80% of the rest of the county we wil lahev the exact same service we currently have but with a $50B billl to pay for it. Id ask you to demonstrate the LEGITIMATE purposes for a high capacity residential but weve done that route once before and you came up with 'smart grids'. all that indicates is that you dont know what a smart grid is (low bandwidth application) and are just regurgitating the propaganda that you are fed.

More untruths longy, find anywhere that I have ever used the term, or referred to "Smart Grids".

Good luck, it isn't there, because I never have used the term here.

Of course it is just bluster and obfuscation from you because you have been caught out promoting baltant falsehoods, and have been called on it, but are too weak to even attempt to justify your deceitful, snivelling claims.
My challenge stands, justify your remarks, or admit they are false.

longy I had a long exhausting exchange with nem not long ago.. on her thoughts of what IDs miss anne had used on the boards.. totally irrelevant to anything or even the topic..[which i have forgotton].. but it was quite obsessive.. but at the end of the day It didnt matter what missy or anyone else said.. nem didnt believe it anyway.no amount of discussion would make her believe she was right and everyone else wrong.. of course the usual came out in support of nem we are all from the right one the same person..lol

but just reading the last few posts makes me think you are barking up a tree mate... waste of time

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Nov 29^th, 2010 at 12:02pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 29th, 2010 at 10:19am: yes thats tru and it only changes the price from $9B to $40B. and as i ahve been saying time and time again. its not about the technology but about the PRICE. Do you all go out and go into massive debt to buy a lamborghini instead of a holden because it is a superior vehicle? NO. you figure it costs too much and when most of the time you are carrying kids or shopping it isnt any advantage at all. The same argument applies to the NBN. That puts it into perspective Longy, which is not usually allowed here. Thank you

longy that makes sense even to me...lol..a complete computer twit..

to me its also all about money.. for... WHAT!! I have been asking that for years... what?????..milliseconds.


I always ask why buy the Porche when it can only get you from A to B on the same highways and byways as the datsun..

and speed cameras dont care what the brand is.

in grid locked Sydney a bike is faster.. and soon walking will be even better..

yet we find the NBN to be the most important thing of the century

Weren't one of the conditions of the Telstra sale that they would provide services to the bush? We were promised faithfully that this was a priority to the division and sale.

The Coalition made these promises - and if they had followed through with them and insisted Telstra provide a decent internet and phone service - we wouldn't be going through this costly exercise today.

THE INDEPENDENTS WOULD HAVE SIDED WITH THE COALITION - BECAUSE ALL THEY WANTED WAS FOR THE BUSH TO HAVE THE SAME ADVANTAGES AS THE PEOPLE IN THE CITY. WE WOULD HAVE ENDED UP WITH A COALITION GOVERNMENT IF THEY HAD TOLD THE TRUTH OCCASIONALLY.

Stop blaming the current government for this scheme. It wouldn't have even been created if the Coalition hadn't been ripping the country off with their mates Trujillo and Co.

Don't forget - Mum and Dad investors were ripped off by the Coalition paying up to $8 per share. What are the shares worth today - $2. Telstra shareholders won't forget the Coalition in a hurry.

mantra wrote on Nov 30^th, 2010 at 9:46am:

Weren't one of the conditions of the Telstra sale that they would provide services to the bush? We were promised faithfully that this was a priority to the division and sale. The Coalition made these promises - and if they had followed through with them and insisted Telstra provide a decent internet and phone service - we wouldn't be going through this costly exercise today. THE INDEPENDENTS WOULD HAVE SIDED WITH THE COALITION - BECAUSE ALL THEY WANTED WAS FOR THE BUSH TO HAVE THE SAME ADVANTAGES AS THE PEOPLE IN THE CITY. WE WOULD HAVE ENDED UP WITH A COALITION GOVERNMENT IF THEY HAD TOLD THE TRUTH OCCASIONALLY. Stop blaming the current government for this scheme. It wouldn't have even been created if the Coalition hadn't been ripping the country off with their mates Trujillo and Co. Don't forget - Mum and Dad investors were ripped off by the Coalition paying up to $8 per share. What are the shares worth today - $2. Telstra shareholders won't forget the Coalition in a hurry.

did the telstra shareholders actually blame the govt for their drop in price????..yet when the arse fell out of all shares during 2008.. no one would hear a word about rudd being responsible...

like bank rates.. its only the Libs that seem responsible for either.

gosh you have been ripped off a lot..you must have bought a heap of shares then!


talking of ripping off how much will the carbon Tax cost the consumers??

or will that be the same as the price for the NBN.. we will tell you after its a done deal..lol

codswal wrote on Nov 30^th, 2010 at 9:25am:

longy I had a long exhausting exchange with nem not long ago.. on her thoughts of what IDs miss anne had used on the boards.. totally irrelevant to anything or even the topic..[which i have forgotton].. but it was quite obsessive.. but at the end of the day It didnt matter what missy or anyone else said.. nem didnt believe it anyway.no amount of discussion would make her believe she was right and everyone else wrong.. of course the usual came out in support of nem we are all from the right one the same person..lol but just reading the last few posts makes me think you are barking up a tree mate... waste of time

Codswal, it seems that some get obsessed with me because I don't play their childish games or submit or react to their harping and badgering.
If they want to badger then they should run off to the weasel family - I'm sure that they'll accept them as one of their own.
In the meantime they should go find some mushrooms!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIyixC9NsLI

It seems 69% of Australians think the NBN is a good idea, hows it feel to be in the 31% of earth is flat brigade? Meeeeeelie?

Still no attempt from Longy to justify the false and misleading statement of this thread's title.
I wonder if that is Longy conceding that it was just a deliberate attempt to promote the sort of BS that poor Malcolm Turnbull has been assigned to try and foist upon the Australian public, to create dissent from the popular policy of developing a world class optical fibre broadband network that almost all Australians will be able to access, rather than the Liberal's plan to maintain the multi tiered system that we currently have?
At the moment people outside of the high density areas of our major Capitol Cities usually have the option of inferior, or grossly inferior broadband service, and the Liberals seem to believe that we should leave it that way, while the Coalition of Labor, Green, and Independent Conservative MPs, are supporting the plan that will deliver first class services to almost all, including those that the Liberals want to exclude, because they do not fit into their "Business Plan".

Quote:

Still no attempt from Longy to justify the false and misleading statement of this thread's title

Yea good luck with that. I'm still waiting for him to post the proof of his assertion that the GREENS have called the VIC election a "DISASTER" for the party, but he wont, I'm not surprised though, there is no proof, he made it up, he must have, if they had said that he would have started a whole thread on it and be chomping at the bit.

I also note, all the NBN knockers have gone to ground after yesterdays poll which showed 69% of all Australians support the NBN in its current form, the knockers must be feeling very silly and lonely today.

Yes, they are not shy about making these broad, unfounded claims, but they become positively meek, when challenged to provide any sort of factual analysis to backup the false assertions.
I suppose they are not really attempting to make a serious point, and they certainly do not want their false assertions seriously analysed, they just seem content to put this sort of guff out there, so as to create the appearance of real controversy, on technical issues related to the subject, where little or no controversy actually exists.

It is the same tactic that those who disbelieve the scientific consensus on climate change employ.
Ignore any real scientific opinion, and try and create the illusion of scientific dissent, where it does not exist.

The figure of 69% of Aussies that support the NBN, is across the whole population.

The percentage of people with any technical understanding of the technologies capable of delivering a National Broadband Network that would agree with the false claims made in this threads title would be approaching zero.

While people may have valid concerns about costs, and even the basic ability of any government department to deliver major infrastructure initiatives, no reasonable person questions the fact that optical fibre is the best available option, and will be a solid and reliable system that will develop a future proof network, capable of servicing the country's broadband needs for decades to come.

So we should stick to debating the way we think that can best be delivered, and leave out deliberately false claims about "competing" technology, that only seek to confuse those who are not familiar with the facts.

skipabraincell and biasedmozz - the majority of the populaton are idiots.

most people are poor. the rich smart experts business people say it is a loser

but the leftards clump together like faeces in a processing plant, believing that a faster 'net will help backward  abbos living in humpys or their inbred "kissing cousins" in outer whoop whoop.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 1^st, 2010 at 2:28pm:

skipabraincell and biasedmozz - the majority of the populaton are idiots. most people are poor. the rich smart experts business people say it is a loser but the leftards clump together like faeces in a processing plant, believing that a faster 'net will help backward  abbos living in humpys or their inbred "kissing cousins" in outer whoop whoop.

Well said sprint

Quote:

but the leftards clump together like faeces in a processing plant, believing that a faster 'net will help backward  abbos living in humpys or their inbred "kissing cousins" in outer whoop whoop.

LMAO

I'm sure dey'll get da edumbucation they need with the fast download times brah

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 1^st, 2010 at 4:41pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 2:28pm: skipabraincell and biasedmozz - the majority of the populaton are idiots. most people are poor. the rich smart experts business people say it is a loser but the leftards clump together like faeces in a processing plant, believing that a faster 'net will help backward  abbos living in humpys or their inbred "kissing cousins" in outer whoop whoop. Well said sprint

Well said?

Unfortunately it has been so long since sprint said anything well, that he is in danger of losing the ability to ever be able to do so again.
Costant obsessive negativity is what we expect from Miss, but those of us who have been here for a long time, remember when sprint was a much fairer, and more balanced poster, and those of us who liked him, still hold out hope that he will get this petulant whining out of his system, and get back to being the guy that so many of is liked and respected.

Using racist language, and taking pride in it, would have been to classless, and unchristian for the old sprint to engage in, I really miss the old sprint, he was my friend.

mozzaok wrote on Dec 1^st, 2010 at 10:19pm:

Using racist language, and taking pride in it, would have been too classless, and unchristian for the old sprint to engage in, I really miss the old sprint, he was my friend.

That's a bit passive-aggressive for a big bloke like you, no?

I was under the impression that he was always like this. I wouldn't have him any other way. And let's face it, he has a point about the NBN probably being a big waste of money being rolled out to those sh!thouse communities in the middle of nowhere. I don't want to help pay for that. Choosing to live in rural communities entails a less comprehensive access to services as does choosing to live in urban areas.

What??? Why should they be satisfied with just a lousy cable? WHy not an airport for every community while we are at it? Why should only the big cities have airports? Not fair!!!

In this age of global communication, only rightards could possibly oppose such a basic human right as having access to one's own community international airport. Every AUstralian has the right to take the Paris option without being held back by elitist (quite possibly also racists) aviation policies inherited from Howard.

Soren wrote on Dec 1^st, 2010 at 10:49pm:

What??? Why should they be satisfied with just a lousy cable? WHy not an airport for every community while we are at it? Why should only the big cities have airports? Not fair!!! In this age of global communication, only rightards could possibly oppose such a basic human right as having access to one's own community international airport. Every AUstralian has the right to take the Paris option without being held back by elitist (quite possibly also racists) aviation policies inherited from Howard.

that is a good point of course.. however how about a referendum for the bushies, some might prefer a hospital.. or a University.. or even a police station.sealed roads... alsorts of things come to mind.we all pay taxes fair such of the sav.

Some suburbs don't even have a pub!

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2010 at 6:45am:

Some suburbs don't even have a pub!

or a brothel Sydney has cornered the market... equality for all..lol

codswal wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2010 at 7:01am:

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 2nd, 2010 at 6:45am: Some suburbs don't even have a pub! or a brothel Sydney has cornered the market... equality for all..lol

Brothel or a wedding chapel- they are the same in some circles.

Quote:

skipabraincell and biasedmozz - the majority of the populaton are idiots.

Wow, that's pretty offensive coming from a person of NZ heritage sprinty,skipabraincell, I'm shattered. I'm with Mozz, I want the old charming well mannered sheep flirting sprinty back. :-*

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 29^th, 2010 at 9:27am:

VDSL2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_high_speed_digital_subscriber_line_2) Fibre to the node and VDSL2 connections to the residence. can get 250Mbs and could be put in place NOW for 1/4 the cost of the NBN. so why are we paying so much when there are cheaper and BETTER alternatives around? also read... http://www.adam.com.au/announcements/2010/11/0515/index.html

Dodgy!

Oh, LOL: How Dodgy can one get and still demand that the masses listen to them!??!

Answer.... not THAT dodgy!

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2010 at 6:45am:

Some suburbs don't even have a pub!

And?????????????????????????????????????????????????????

O.K , Lets USE the' Harbour Bridge analogy'.

When the Bridge opened in 1932 there were barely enough cars in Sydney to justify a dual carriage way let alone 8 car lanes. There was certainly no detailed CBA carried out (as demanded by Turnbull)and no Productivity Commission Review. It was built with a vision to the future in mind.

I like the analogy used of buying a lamborghini at todays prices but you dont get delivery for 7 years
Meanwhile during that 7 years the lamborghini has been superseded and is better and cheaper and surprise surprise even faster!!!!!!!!




bwaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

lol, that would be a good analogy tickfen, if you were taalking about something with many viable alternatives, and competing products which could quickly supersede it, but we aren't, Optical Fibre stands alone, as the Broadband technology that will provide decades of fast reliable service for our country, nothing else comes close.
When I challenged Longy about the false claims he made about vdsl2, he did not even have the guts to qualify if the misinformation he provided was through ignorance of the facts, or if it was willful deception inspired by an ideological desire to support the opposition's inferior policies.

Quote:

if it was willful deception inspired by an ideological desire to support the opposition's inferior policies.

That would be it.
He likes willful deception, I'm still waiting for his proof that the GREENS said the VIC election was a "disaster" for them, still no proof, but lots of willful deception.

mozzaok wrote on Dec 6^th, 2010 at 10:55am:

lol, that would be a good analogy tickfen, if you were taalking about something with many viable alternatives, and competing products which could quickly supersede it, but we aren't, Optical Fibre stands alone, as the Broadband technology that will provide decades of fast reliable service for our country, nothing else comes close. When I challenged Longy about the false claims he made about vdsl2, he did not even have the guts to qualify if the misinformation he provided was through ignorance of the facts, or if it was willful deception inspired by an ideological desire to support the opposition's inferior policies.

I know that being a Greenie implies lower intelligence and even less ability to respond rationally bbut let me try again to see if it is possible for you to finally GET IT.

Its not about technological superiority. It is about cost and specifically COST BENEFIT. The cost is huge and the benefits pretty slight for people in cities (well actually almost no benefit at all).

I have asked before what people in their homes expect to do with the NBN but the best i can get is internet TV. so we are paying all this money so we can watch TV???

1/4 the money can get you 95% of the functionality of the NBN. in commercial business it would be a no brainer to choose the cheaper option. But unfortunately, the NO BRAINERS are running the govt and supported by their non-thinking partisan supporters on here.

If this were Abbotts policy, you'd be screaming for blood.

Quote:

If this were Abbotts policy, you'd be screaming for blood.

And YOU'D be backing it - 110%

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 6^th, 2010 at 6:07pm:

Quote: If this were Abbotts policy, you'd be screaming for blood. And YOU'D be backing it - 110%

Buzz the fact you are slating Baillieu's state Government before day 1, and defending anything Labor shows how biased you are.

Why don't you actually try and look at things objectively?

Why do you feel the need to criticise everything Liberal and defend Labor all the time?

Quote:

Buzz the fact you are slating Baillieu's state Government before day 1

Only when he started his wholesale back-flip on Liberal Party election policy "before day 1"




Baillieu: "We Can Do Better" (or maybe not ?)



http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1291167686/all

You know what worries me most about the NBN.

Well, when I started my career 11 years ago everything was moved via disk (the old 1.44mb ones), dial up was a whole 5kb per second at best and our office linked via the old coaxle cable (which was great, I learnt how to do TV antenna installations as a result).

We bought a digital camera that was 4.2megapixles with a 2x opitcal zoom for a $1000 and analogue mobile phones I think were just disconnected.

Now I have a wireless connection giving me about 250kb per second, usb drives with gigabytes of storage, mobile storage of terabytes and the 12 megapixle camera we bought the father inlaw for his birthday cost $120 for the one with the lithium battery.

Our network is fast and our servers have 300 fold the storage space.

All of that in 11 short years.

Its for this reason investing $43billion in an industry that has evolved as quickly as breeding rabbits worries me.

IT moves at such a speed that is $43billion to much to spend.  Im likening it to buying the new computer for $2k only to see it on sale the next week for $1,400 since its now out of date.

And NBN workers are demanding a 15% pay rise already.


Something Wendy would not have budgetted for.

"Well, when I started my career 11 years ago everything was moved via disk"

11 years ago we had fibre, and 11 years from now we'll be using fibre, and for a long time after that.

Please delete wrote on Dec 7^th, 2010 at 7:32am:

"Well, when I started my career 11 years ago everything was moved via disk" 11 years ago we had fibre, and 11 years from now we'll be using fibre, and for a long time after that.

The motor car will never replace the horse and cart, and ships can`t sail without sails.

Quote:

..........The hype began on the NBN's day one, when Kevin Rudd said information and communications technology "drives 78 per cent of productivity gains in services businesses and 85 per cent in manufacturing".............. ............Now Gillard quotes the United Nations Broadband Commission's suggestion in September that "for every 10 per cent increase in broadband penetration we can expect an average of 1.3 per cent additional growth in national GDP". This claim traces back to a World Bank study of all communications technology stretching back to 1980, well before broadband. And a moment's thought suggests the claimed growth stimulus is implausibly large. In the past decade, Australia's broadband penetration has increased from zero to about 25 per cent, which on these estimates should be accounting for just about all our economic growth by now. Yet this decade of broadband rollout has coincided with an alarming fall in productivity growth............. .............Yet Productivity Commission chairman Gary Banks, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the Business Council and now Reserve Bank Governor Glenn Stevens all urge putting the NBN through proper cost-benefit scrutiny. Hilmer doesn't even think we should have got to the point of arguing for a cost-benefit analysis of a government network monopoly............. ....................While possibly delivering less, this next upgrade will cost much more. Previous upgrades required modest investments at both ends of the existing copper network. This one involves rushing out a new fibre network into every home and premises in the land. Conroy says the NBN will "transform service delivery in key areas such as health and education and energy efficiency applications". Yet tele-medicine is mainly about connecting hospitals and doctors, not patients' homes. Existing broadband videophone technology already can partly take the place of nurse home visits. The abysmal returns on trying to replace manual medical record with e-health suggest the costs are bigger than the technologists assume. Broadbanding our schools doesn't require putting fibre into every home. Lectures already can be downloaded by students over existing broadband. And, for the young, broadband is more about social networking than education, which in turn is more about good teachers. Smart electricity grids don't need very fast broadband and have already been rolled out in Italy without it. The critique has pinched a nerve among NBN proponents. IT consultant Paul Budde agrees that a fibre-to-the-home network for smart electricity grids is ridiculous. And international experience does not back the superfast broadband hype..................

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/imagine-if-labors-broadband-payoff-is-just-hype/story-e6frg9p6-1225966636977

"The motor car will never replace the horse and cart, and ships can`t sail without sails. "

I seem to recall that we had carts and sails for millenia, before they were replaced by the next technology.

Fibre will be the backbone of communications for the next 50 years, at least.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 7^th, 2010 at 8:22am:

Quote: ..........The hype began on the NBN's day one, when Kevin Rudd said information and communications technology "drives 78 per cent of productivity gains in services businesses and 85 per cent in manufacturing".............. ............Now Gillard quotes the United Nations Broadband Commission's suggestion in September that "for every 10 per cent increase in broadband penetration we can expect an average of 1.3 per cent additional growth in national GDP". This claim traces back to a World Bank study of all communications technology stretching back to 1980, well before broadband. And a moment's thought suggests the claimed growth stimulus is implausibly large. In the past decade, Australia's broadband penetration has increased from zero to about 25 per cent, which on these estimates should be accounting for just about all our economic growth by now. Yet this decade of broadband rollout has coincided with an alarming fall in productivity growth............. .............Yet Productivity Commission chairman Gary Banks, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the Business Council and now Reserve Bank Governor Glenn Stevens all urge putting the NBN through proper cost-benefit scrutiny. Hilmer doesn't even think we should have got to the point of arguing for a cost-benefit analysis of a government network monopoly............. ....................While possibly delivering less, this next upgrade will cost much more. Previous upgrades required modest investments at both ends of the existing copper network. This one involves rushing out a new fibre network into every home and premises in the land. Conroy says the NBN will "transform service delivery in key areas such as health and education and energy efficiency applications". Yet tele-medicine is mainly about connecting hospitals and doctors, not patients' homes. Existing broadband videophone technology already can partly take the place of nurse home visits. The abysmal returns on trying to replace manual medical record with e-health suggest the costs are bigger than the technologists assume. Broadbanding our schools doesn't require putting fibre into every home. Lectures already can be downloaded by students over existing broadband. And, for the young, broadband is more about social networking than education, which in turn is more about good teachers. Smart electricity grids don't need very fast broadband and have already been rolled out in Italy without it. The critique has pinched a nerve among NBN proponents. IT consultant Paul Budde agrees that a fibre-to-the-home network for smart electricity grids is ridiculous. And international experience does not back the superfast broadband hype.................. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/imagine-if-labors-broadband-payoff-is-just-hype/story-e6frg9p6-1225966636977

You forgot to highlight the bits that you think prove your point sprunty.
I suppose the fact the article is from the UNAUSTRALIAN is enough. I know it is for me, as soon as I see the UNAUSTRALIAN links, I just dont bother reading it, I'll bet it doesn't say the NBN will be a success though, am I right?

"The motor car will never replace the horse and cart, and ships can`t sail without sails. "

And under Tony Abbott we'd still be using horses and carts, and there's no point talking about sails, because ships would drop off the end of the world, where there be demons.

sorry skippy


Quote:

........Yet Productivity Commission chairman Gary Banks, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the Business Council and now Reserve Bank Governor Glenn Stevens all urge putting the NBN through proper cost-benefit scrutiny. Hilmer doesn't even think we should have got to the point of arguing for a cost-benefit analysis of a government network monopoly..........

there there


Quote:

In the past decade, Australia's broadband penetration has increased from zero to about 25 per cent, which on these estimates should be accounting for just about all our economic growth by now. Yet this decade of broadband rollout has coincided with an alarming fall in productivity growth.............

and here here


Quote:

Yet tele-medicine is mainly about connecting hospitals and doctors, not patients' homes. Existing broadband videophone technology already can partly take the place of nurse home visits

all better now ?


Quote:

Broadbanding our schools doesn't require putting fibre into every home. Lectures already can be downloaded by students over existing broadband. And, for the young, broadband is more about social networking than education, which in turn is more about good teachers

Deregulating Telstra and regulating the NBN.
SO just how is this in the National interest?

http://au.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0S0zvjc8v1MJyAAgtwW5gt./SIG=12b37kb84/EXP=1291739996/**http%3a//www.cnet.com.au/story_media/339305177/abbott.jpg

Which is one step in front of Julia's NBN.

Still not in any blue print, or costing.

Anyone have a blank cheque that they can sign for me?

And then there's the rebates, already in excess of $20 million in WA, and only launced a few months ago.

Will the costs of Gillard's NBN ever be finalised?

The level of ignorance coming from those opposing the NBN is quite staggering.
Verge uses the rapid change in technology as his argument, finishing with, the computer you buy for 2k you see for $1400 a few months later.
As a stand alone point that is fair enough, but how does it relate to the NBN?
Obviously, it doesn't, his analogy would be like you buy a new car, then see it cheaper when the new model comes out, but unless you have a decent highway system to drive it on, it doesn't matter much if you have this years model, or last years, you still cannot get very far.

The NBN is a national highway system for information, and like any good National system, it services as much of the Nation as possible.
Currently we have a system with good highways in the capitols, crumbling highways and gravel roads in the regional areas, and dirt tracks or nothing, in the bush.

Longy asks for a cost benefit analysis, which means that in true right wing style, if it is not profitable, you cannot do it.
Currently even right wingers make some exceptions from this rule of theirs, like schools, and hospitals, and a great many Aussies believe that access to the internet should also be included as something we are prepared to subsidise to help those outside capital cities.
We always have subsidised the bush with roads, and communications, and the communications network that will supply our internet access should also be accepted as a worthwhile longterm investment for the bush.

Optical Fibre is also far more durable than copper, and we will actually see cost benefits in the maintenance area because of that.

The government is investing in this project because of the fact that they want to make it as National as possible, but it is not just a handout, there will be returns, and even if the 15 year payback is optimistic, I don't care, because eventually it will be paid back, and in the meantime we will be seeing a world class system that most aussies can access, wherever they live, with the advances in medical care, education delivery, and media and entertainment provision, that this new access will provide.

That is a win for progress, a win for fairness, and a win for the coming generations of aussie kids that will rightly take for granted that their country would provide them with one of the best systems the world can offer.

Are there really that many sheep in Australia?

Quote:

The government is investing in this project because of the fact that they want to make it as National as possible, but it is not just a handout, there will be returns, and even if the 15 year payback is optimistic, I don't care, because eventually it will be paid back, and in the meantime we will be seeing a world class system that most aussies can access, wherever they live, with the advances in medical care, education delivery, and media and entertainment provision, that this new access will provide.

Entertainment and media probably for granted (though one must wonder what the societal value is of making it easier for introverted nerds to play World of Warcraft and download pirated movies all dayy), but what are these amazing educational and health benefits you speak of? What can't already be done at this present moment with the current broadband system with regards to these things?

I don't doubt that you're right that there will be more applications for the internet coming in the future that will only be able to be effectively run on a higher speed internet network thanwhat is already available, but what applications are available right now ? Doesn't it make more sense to wait for these new developments to emerge before we contemplate whether they're worth spending $43 billion on?

I'm never going to be using the NBN.

mozzaok wrote on Dec 7^th, 2010 at 7:22pm:

The level of ignorance coming from those opposing the NBN is quite staggering. Verge uses the rapid change in technology as his argument, finishing with, the computer you buy for 2k you see for $1400 a few months later. As a stand alone point that is fair enough, but how does it relate to the NBN? Obviously, it doesn't, his analogy would be like you buy a new car, then see it cheaper when the new model comes out, but unless you have a decent highway system to drive it on, it doesn't matter much if you have this years model, or last years, you still cannot get very far. The NBN is a national highway system for information, and like any good National system, it services as much of the Nation as possible. Currently we have a system with good highways in the capitols, crumbling highways and gravel roads in the regional areas, and dirt tracks or nothing, in the bush. Longy asks for a cost benefit analysis, which means that in true right wing style, if it is not profitable, you cannot do it. Currently even right wingers make some exceptions from this rule of theirs, like schools, and hospitals, and a great many Aussies believe that access to the internet should also be included as something we are prepared to subsidise to help those outside capital cities. We always have subsidised the bush with roads, and communications, and the communications network that will supply our internet access should also be accepted as a worthwhile longterm investment for the bush. Optical Fibre is also far more durable than copper, and we will actually see cost benefits in the maintenance area because of that. The government is investing in this project because of the fact that they want to make it as National as possible, but it is not just a handout, there will be returns, and even if the 15 year payback is optimistic, I don't care, because eventually it will be paid back, and in the meantime we will be seeing a world class system that most aussies can access, wherever they live, with the advances in medical care, education delivery, and media and entertainment provision, that this new access will provide. That is a win for progress, a win for fairness, and a win for the coming generations of aussie kids that will rightly take for granted that their country would provide them with one of the best systems the world can offer.

I dont oppose it as such, I just want a cost benefit analysis done on it.

If it comes back as a worthwhile investment, then I will back it.

Until then, Im concerned that such a big investment could become outdated and superseeded before its even down.

I get worried full stop when governments want to roll out massive projects knowing how bad of project managers they are.  If the ALP were so confident in the NBN, let the cost benefits analysis happen.

As Earnie said earlier, fibre has been around a while, its not going anywhere.

Quote:

I don't doubt that you're right that there will be more applications for the internet coming in the future that will only be able to be effectively run on a higher speed internet network thanwhat is already available, but what applications are available right now ? Doesn't it make more sense to wait for these new developments to emerge before we contemplate whether they're worth spending $43 billion on?

IMP, I read this analogy the other day, I think it was someone here who wrote it, read it and have a think about it.

" If those who built the Sydney Harbour bridge had built it for the time in which it was built it would have had ONE LANE NOT EIGHT."

dear spazzmo leftwads - what is the more EXPENSIVE alternative to your white elephant NBN ????????????

Quote:

1)   Fibre optic  cable has a maximum theoretical  lifespan of 25 years when installed in conduit.    Over time,  the glass actually degrades (long story), and eventually it can’t do it`s  bouncing of light thing any more. But when you install fibre  outside on overhead wiring (as will be done for much of Australia’s houses,  except newer suburbs with underground wiring), then the fibre degrades much  quicker due to wind, temperature variation and solar/cosmic  radiation. The glass in this case will last no more than 15  years.    So after 15 years, you will have to replace  it.  Whereas the old copper network will still last for many  decades to come.    Fibre is not the best technology for the  last mile.  That`s why no other country has done this. 2)    You  cannot give every house 100Mbps.    If you give several million households 100Mbps bandwidth, then you have  exceeded the entire bandwidth of the whole internet.    In  reality, there is a thing called contention.    Today, every ADSL service with 20Mbps has a contention ratio of around 20:1  (or more for some carriers).   That means, you share that 20Mbps  with 20 other people.    It`s a long story why, but there will  NEVER be the case of people getting 100Mbps of actual  bandwidth.     Not for several decades at the current  carrier equipment rates of evolution.    The “Core” cannot and  will not be able to handle that sort of bandwidth.    The  100Mbps or 1Gbps is only the speed from your house to the  exchange.    From there to the Internet, you  will get the same speeds you get now.  The  “Core” of Australia’s network is already fibre (many times over).     And even so, we still have high contention ratios.     Providing fibre to the home just means those contention ratios go up.   You will not get better download speeds. 3)   New DSL  technologies will emerge.  15 years  ago we had 56k dial-up.  Then 12 years ago we got 256k ADSL, then 8 years  ago 1.5Mbps ADSL2, then 5 years ago 20Mbps ADSL2+.      There are already new DSL technologies being experimented on that will deliver  over 50Mbps on the same copper we have now.     $zero cost  to the tax payer. 4)   4G  Wireless is being standardised  now.  The current 3G wireless was developed for voice and not for  data, and even so it can deliver up to 21Mbps in  Australia.    There are problems with it, but remember that it  was developed for voice.    The 4G standard is specifically  being developed for data, and will deliver 100Mbps bandwidth with much higher  reliability (yes, the same contention issues apply mentioned earlier).   $zero cost to the tax payer. 5)   Our proposed “NBN” will be one  of the largest single networks ever built on  earth.  There are only a few companies who  could do it – Japan’s Nippon NTT, BT, AT&T;, Deutsche Telekom  etc.    Even Telstra would struggle to built something on this  scale.  Yet we are led to believe that the same people who cant build  school halls or install insulation without being ripped off are going to to do  it ???    People at Telstra will be laughing their heads  off !!    Because when it all comes crumbling down, after they  have spent $60+billion and the network is no more than 1/2 complete, it will  be up to Telstra to pick up the pieces  ! Share and Enjoy:

http://www.hinterlandvoice.com.au/fibre-optic-cable-is-not-the-way-to-go-leonce-kealy

for those that question where the life limit of cable comes from


Quote:

..........The final lay is the white plastic insulation that protects the cable. Telstra claims the cables have a 25 year lifespan..............

http://m.zdnet.com.au/photos-telstra-s-undersea-fibre-optic-cable-339288061.htm

this is undersea, where temp will be stable, no UV rays, no movement. Ideal conditions.
imagine being strung from gum tree to gumtree, swinging in the wind, temps 40 degrees at day, freezing at night, being assaulted by the UV rays.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 8^th, 2010 at 8:54am:

Quote: 1)   Fibre optic  cable has a maximum theoretical  lifespan of 25 years when installed in conduit.    Over time,  the glass actually degrades (long story), and eventually it can’t do it`s  bouncing of light thing any more. But when you install fibre  outside on overhead wiring (as will be done for much of Australia’s houses,  except newer suburbs with underground wiring), then the fibre degrades much  quicker due to wind, temperature variation and solar/cosmic  radiation. The glass in this case will last no more than 15  years.    So after 15 years, you will have to replace  it.  Whereas the old copper network will still last for many  decades to come.    Fibre is not the best technology for the  last mile.  That`s why no other country has done this. 2)    You  cannot give every house 100Mbps.    If you give several million households 100Mbps bandwidth, then you have  exceeded the entire bandwidth of the whole internet.    In  reality, there is a thing called contention.    Today, every ADSL service with 20Mbps has a contention ratio of around 20:1  (or more for some carriers).   That means, you share that 20Mbps  with 20 other people.    It`s a long story why, but there will  NEVER be the case of people getting 100Mbps of actual  bandwidth.     Not for several decades at the current  carrier equipment rates of evolution.    The “Core” cannot and  will not be able to handle that sort of bandwidth.    The  100Mbps or 1Gbps is only the speed from your house to the  exchange.    From there to the Internet, you  will get the same speeds you get now.  The  “Core” of Australia’s network is already fibre (many times over).     And even so, we still have high contention ratios.     Providing fibre to the home just means those contention ratios go up.   You will not get better download speeds. 3)   New DSL  technologies will emerge.  15 years  ago we had 56k dial-up.  Then 12 years ago we got 256k ADSL, then 8 years  ago 1.5Mbps ADSL2, then 5 years ago 20Mbps ADSL2+.      There are already new DSL technologies being experimented on that will deliver  over 50Mbps on the same copper we have now.     $zero cost  to the tax payer. 4)   4G  Wireless is being standardised  now.  The current 3G wireless was developed for voice and not for  data, and even so it can deliver up to 21Mbps in  Australia.    There are problems with it, but remember that it  was developed for voice.    The 4G standard is specifically  being developed for data, and will deliver 100Mbps bandwidth with much higher  reliability (yes, the same contention issues apply mentioned earlier).   $zero cost to the tax payer. 5)   Our proposed “NBN” will be one  of the largest single networks ever built on  earth.  There are only a few companies who  could do it – Japan’s Nippon NTT, BT, AT&T;, Deutsche Telekom  etc.    Even Telstra would struggle to built something on this  scale.  Yet we are led to believe that the same people who cant build  school halls or install insulation without being ripped off are going to to do  it ???    People at Telstra will be laughing their heads  off !!    Because when it all comes crumbling down, after they  have spent $60+billion and the network is no more than 1/2 complete, it will  be up to Telstra to pick up the pieces  ! Share and Enjoy: http://www.hinterlandvoice.com.au/fibre-optic-cable-is-not-the-way-to-go-leonce-kealy

Quote:

I received this email from a colleague today. It is doing the rounds in the corporate world apparently... I've never read such a pile of misinformation on the NBN. If this is real, then we have some idiotic engineers at Telstra, otherwise it's just a silly prank. What are your thoughts? Sorry for the length of the message...I've posted it in its entirety... I am a network architect for one of Australia ’s largest Telco’s – so I speak with some authority on this issue.

Continued .....

http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1515125

Thanks buzz

Classic RW FUD.

for those that question where the life limit of cable comes from

Quote:
..........The final lay is the white plastic insulation that protects the cable. Telstra claims the cables have a 25 year lifespan..............

http://m.zdnet.com.au/photos-telstra-s-undersea-fibre-optic-cable-339288061.htm

this is undersea, where temp will be stable, no UV rays, no movement. Ideal conditions.
imagine being strung from gum tree to gumtree, swinging in the wind, temps 40 degrees at day, freezing at night, being assaulted by the UV rays.

suck it and see ernie

http://www.sterlitetechnologies.com/pdf/KnowledgeCenter/AN0001%20-%20Optical%20Fiber%20Lifetime.pdf

Anywhere from 9 years upwards.
there is NO consideration given to UV effects, movement, temperature changes or it being eaten by animals.

sterlite is a company promoting their products.

I'll set up a thread for you leftys to apologise in :-)

Can you remind me what your point is, sprint?

"Typical dynamic fatigue value of STERLITE® optical fiber products is 21, which is equivalent to 60 years lifetime."

60 years under ideal lab conditions directed by the manufacturer.

under the real world ......... 9+

And this compares to copper how?

"equivalent to 60 years lifetime."

Everyone disagrees with you, sprint - read the link that buzz posted, read the specs of the product.

Given the "newness" of fibre, it might last 1000 years, in ideal conditions.

But undoubtedly, some will fail within weeks (like anything, including copper) and some will last 100 years.

post the lifetime of copper

as I said, fibre has 60 years in a lab, maybe 9 outdoors.
read, learn, apologise

found this for you

Quote:

........COPPER: Copper piping has been used residentially since about 1950 and almost exclusively since the mid 1950’s. The life expectancy of copper piping is indefinite unless unusual water conditions or manufacturing defects are present. ..

http://www.allbay.com/plumbingmaintenance.htm

"indefinite" is normally quite a long time.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 8^th, 2010 at 10:39am:

http://www.sterlitetechnologies.com/pdf/KnowledgeCenter/AN0001%20-%20Optical%20Fiber%20Lifetime.pdf Anywhere from 9 years upwards. there is NO consideration given to UV effects, movement, temperature changes or it being eaten by animals. sterlite is a company promoting their products. I'll set up a thread for you leftys to apologise in :-)

It should be a very popular thread then.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 8^th, 2010 at 8:50am:

dear spazzmo leftwads - what is the more EXPENSIVE alternative to your white elephant NBN ????????????

They don't care, a slong as they get their lamborghini delivered past its use by date then they're happy.
A white elephant looks good on the nature strip in front of the house.

You're citing copper PIPE now, sprint? From a plumbing company?

How's this

"SkyWrap has a design life of 30 years and recent checks on some of the oldest installations have shown it to have suffered no measurable deterioration after more than 20 years in service. The oldest known SkyWrap installation still in service was installed in 1987."

how's about a link ernie ?

or just happy to make it all up yourself ?

I thought you knew how to search lol.

http://www.afltele.com/contacts/faqs/faqs_fiber_cable_skywrap.html

When you can cite the life expectancy of copper WIRING, rather than water pipe, and tell us who wrote that piece of garbage you are defending, THEN you can be sarcastic at my expense.

"One of the most serious disadvantages of copper wire is its susceptibility to corrosion, that is, oxidation. It has a shorter life expectancy than fiber optic cable as a result of this. Therefore, the problem of copper storage is related to its penchant to be oxidized at relatively normal temperatures."

http://www.ehow.com/list_5973732_disadvantages-copper-wire.html

skywrap give their own product 30 years, sterlite say 9+.

coppers been around for a long time in aussie.
Sure it's old hat. it still works.
you have NOT shown me a life limit for copper, there might not be one .................

You're the one defending copper, and to defend it in data applications you cite plumbers, FFS.

Sterlite say 60 years, you're the one misquoting them at 9+.

"Typical dynamic fatigue value of STERLITE® optical fiber products is 21, which is equivalent to 60 years lifetime."

their chart says 9+

there is NO citable limits on coppers lifetime.

Well, you'll have to go back to the plumbers, won't you.

One of the most serious disadvantages of copper wire is its susceptibility to corrosion, that is, oxidation. It has a shorter life expectancy than fiber optic cable as a result of this. Therefore, the problem of copper storage is related to its penchant to be oxidized at relatively normal temperatures.

http://www.ehow.com/list_5973732_disadvantages-copper-wire.html

What is the life expectancy of traditional OSP copper cables?

Outside plant (OSP) copper cables are designed based on a life expectancy of 30 years.  Raw materials and finished cables are tested using life-cycle test procedures.  OSP cable designs are available with many shielding options to accommodate a variety of installation environments.  Choosing the appropriate shielding system for your environment will provide the greatest chance for 30+ years of trouble free service.

http://www.superioressex.com/communicationscable.aspx?id=1888#3

Sprint, finally (becasue I have better things to do) - a question.

Can you show me ONE Telco or computer company/professional that thinks copper is better than fibre?

ernie - no. Nor do I.
I also think a Bentley is the best car, but I would not force the cost of that upon everyone.
I strongly object to the govt spending MY money on a white elephant though.

In the main, leave it to private enterprise to sort it out.
if they get it wrong, it costs me $0.
If they get it right, they pay taxes.

OK, in that I can agree with you (somewhat).

But I don't think that's what you have been arguing for the last few hours.

Be well.

You too

The original spiel that Sprint posted, was taken from an Email sent to Andrew Bolt's blog, and as Buzz already told you, it was dismissed as a Liberal troll spreading disinformation about the NBN, in the runup to the recent Federal Election.

The real telco engineers, and technical folk over at the Whirlpool site, dismissed it as lies and drivel, and it has as much credibility as Longy's recent thread claiming VDSL2 as a "BETTER and CHEAPER" alternative, than optical fibre, which was also absolutely false.

I understand why people would be concerned about the size, and cost, of this project, but they really have only one argument to make, and that is that anyone who lives outside of a Capital City can never expect to be connected to a decent Broadband Network.

The people who make those judgements seem to accept that we, as a Nation, can subsidise roads, and education, and healthcare, for communities outside of the Capitals, but they choose to exclude a decent communications network from the list of things worthy of subsidising.

If they just made that argument, I could at least respect that, even if I strongly disagree, but to keep promoting false information about the technical aspects of Fibre Networking is going way too far.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 8^th, 2010 at 8:54am:

Quote: 1)   Fibre optic  cable has a maximum theoretical  lifespan of 25 years when installed in conduit.    Over time,  the glass actually degrades (long story), and eventually it can’t do it`s  bouncing of light thing any more. But when you install fibre  outside on overhead wiring (as will be done for much of Australia’s houses,  except newer suburbs with underground wiring), then the fibre degrades much  quicker due to wind, temperature variation and solar/cosmic  radiation. The glass in this case will last no more than 15  years.    So after 15 years, you will have to replace  it.  Whereas the old copper network will still last for many  decades to come.    Fibre is not the best technology for the  last mile.  That`s why no other country has done this. 2)    You  cannot give every house 100Mbps.    If you give several million households 100Mbps bandwidth, then you have  exceeded the entire bandwidth of the whole internet.    In  reality, there is a thing called contention.    Today, every ADSL service with 20Mbps has a contention ratio of around 20:1  (or more for some carriers).   That means, you share that 20Mbps  with 20 other people.    It`s a long story why, but there will  NEVER be the case of people getting 100Mbps of actual  bandwidth.     Not for several decades at the current  carrier equipment rates of evolution.    The “Core” cannot and  will not be able to handle that sort of bandwidth.    The  100Mbps or 1Gbps is only the speed from your house to the  exchange.    From there to the Internet, you  will get the same speeds you get now.  The  “Core” of Australia’s network is already fibre (many times over).     And even so, we still have high contention ratios.     Providing fibre to the home just means those contention ratios go up.   You will not get better download speeds. 3)   New DSL  technologies will emerge.  15 years  ago we had 56k dial-up.  Then 12 years ago we got 256k ADSL, then 8 years  ago 1.5Mbps ADSL2, then 5 years ago 20Mbps ADSL2+.      There are already new DSL technologies being experimented on that will deliver  over 50Mbps on the same copper we have now.     $zero cost  to the tax payer. 4)   4G  Wireless is being standardised  now.  The current 3G wireless was developed for voice and not for  data, and even so it can deliver up to 21Mbps in  Australia.    There are problems with it, but remember that it  was developed for voice.    The 4G standard is specifically  being developed for data, and will deliver 100Mbps bandwidth with much higher  reliability (yes, the same contention issues apply mentioned earlier).   $zero cost to the tax payer. 5)   Our proposed “NBN” will be one  of the largest single networks ever built on  earth.  There are only a few companies who  could do it – Japan’s Nippon NTT, BT, AT&T;, Deutsche Telekom  etc.    Even Telstra would struggle to built something on this  scale.  Yet we are led to believe that the same people who cant build  school halls or install insulation without being ripped off are going to to do  it ???    People at Telstra will be laughing their heads  off !!    Because when it all comes crumbling down, after they  have spent $60+billion and the network is no more than 1/2 complete, it will  be up to Telstra to pick up the pieces  ! Share and Enjoy: http://www.hinterlandvoice.com.au/fibre-optic-cable-is-not-the-way-to-go-leonce-kealy

Great article there sprint

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 8^th, 2010 at 8:39pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 8:54am: Quote: 1)   Fibre optic  cable has a maximum theoretical  lifespan of 25 years when installed in conduit.    Over time,  the glass actually degrades (long story), and eventually it can’t do it`s  bouncing of light thing any more. But when you install fibre  outside on overhead wiring (as will be done for much of Australia’s houses,  except newer suburbs with underground wiring), then the fibre degrades much  quicker due to wind, temperature variation and solar/cosmic  radiation. The glass in this case will last no more than 15  years.    So after 15 years, you will have to replace  it.  Whereas the old copper network will still last for many  decades to come.    Fibre is not the best technology for the  last mile.  That`s why no other country has done this. 2)    You  cannot give every house 100Mbps.    If you give several million households 100Mbps bandwidth, then you have  exceeded the entire bandwidth of the whole internet.    In  reality, there is a thing called contention.    Today, every ADSL service with 20Mbps has a contention ratio of around 20:1  (or more for some carriers).   That means, you share that 20Mbps  with 20 other people.    It`s a long story why, but there will  NEVER be the case of people getting 100Mbps of actual  bandwidth.     Not for several decades at the current  carrier equipment rates of evolution.    The “Core” cannot and  will not be able to handle that sort of bandwidth.    The  100Mbps or 1Gbps is only the speed from your house to the  exchange.    From there to the Internet, you  will get the same speeds you get now.  The  “Core” of Australia’s network is already fibre (many times over).     And even so, we still have high contention ratios.     Providing fibre to the home just means those contention ratios go up.   You will not get better download speeds. 3)   New DSL  technologies will emerge.  15 years  ago we had 56k dial-up.  Then 12 years ago we got 256k ADSL, then 8 years  ago 1.5Mbps ADSL2, then 5 years ago 20Mbps ADSL2+.      There are already new DSL technologies being experimented on that will deliver  over 50Mbps on the same copper we have now.     $zero cost  to the tax payer. 4)   4G  Wireless is being standardised  now.  The current 3G wireless was developed for voice and not for  data, and even so it can deliver up to 21Mbps in  Australia.    There are problems with it, but remember that it  was developed for voice.    The 4G standard is specifically  being developed for data, and will deliver 100Mbps bandwidth with much higher  reliability (yes, the same contention issues apply mentioned earlier).   $zero cost to the tax payer. 5)   Our proposed “NBN” will be one  of the largest single networks ever built on  earth.  There are only a few companies who  could do it – Japan’s Nippon NTT, BT, AT&T;, Deutsche Telekom  etc.    Even Telstra would struggle to built something on this  scale.  Yet we are led to believe that the same people who cant build  school halls or install insulation without being ripped off are going to to do  it ???    People at Telstra will be laughing their heads  off !!    Because when it all comes crumbling down, after they  have spent $60+billion and the network is no more than 1/2 complete, it will  be up to Telstra to pick up the pieces  ! Share and Enjoy: http://www.hinterlandvoice.com.au/fibre-optic-cable-is-not-the-way-to-go-leonce-kealy Great article there sprint

LOL

Read the PREVIOUS post

The article has been found to be as authentic as a Malcolm Turnbull "UteGate" email

skippy. wrote on Dec 8^th, 2010 at 8:33am:

Quote: I don't doubt that you're right that there will be more applications for the internet coming in the future that will only be able to be effectively run on a higher speed internet network thanwhat is already available, but what applications are available right now ? Doesn't it make more sense to wait for these new developments to emerge before we contemplate whether they're worth spending $43 billion on? IMP, I read this analogy the other day, I think it was someone here who wrote it, read it and have a think about it. " If those who built the Sydney Harbour bridge had built it for the time in which it was built it would have had ONE LANE NOT EIGHT."

But the bridge is already there. You are proposing we add on another fifty lanes to a bridge that only requires, and has, two or three for the current traffic flow under the proposition that the traffic may increase some day.

I'm not really opposed to the NBN by the way. I don't really care about it.

latest nbn FAILURE


Quote:

A PROPOSAL for every new home built after January 1 to be connected with fibre cable for the National Broadband Network has been abandoned. This came after the Gillard government admitted the magnitude of the task meant the plan would have to be phased in. Federal Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said yesterday new houses in developments of fewer than 100 premises - common in cities and towns - would be connected to Telstra's copper network or wireless services with slower internet speeds, and only later would be hooked up to the NBN. The government wants the NBN Co to prioritise the delivery of the super-fast fibre in larger property projects. An estimated 1.9 million new premises will be constructed while the $36 billion NBN is being rolled out.............. ..........Industry sources said greenfield fibre network builders had started reducing staff, because they were expecting NBN Co's entry into new estates would destroy competition. "This is a disgrace," said one industry source who asked to remain anonymous. "You have no idea how many people will be out of a job because of this. "The telecommunications industry is collapsing around us . . . The government is just creating another Telstra monster that will crowd out competition."............

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/cabling-for-nbn-rollout-cut-back/story-fn59niix-1225968560255

Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 9^th, 2010 at 11:59pm:

latest nbn FAILURE Quote: A PROPOSAL for every new home built after January 1 to be connected with fibre cable for the National Broadband Network has been abandoned. This came after the Gillard government admitted the magnitude of the task meant the plan would have to be phased in. Federal Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said yesterday new houses in developments of fewer than 100 premises - common in cities and towns - would be connected to Telstra's copper network or wireless services with slower internet speeds, and only later would be hooked up to the NBN. The government wants the NBN Co to prioritise the delivery of the super-fast fibre in larger property projects. An estimated 1.9 million new premises will be constructed while the $36 billion NBN is being rolled out.............. ..........Industry sources said greenfield fibre network builders had started reducing staff, because they were expecting NBN Co's entry into new estates would destroy competition. "This is a disgrace," said one industry source who asked to remain anonymous. "You have no idea how many people will be out of a job because of this. "The telecommunications industry is collapsing around us . . . The government is just creating another Telstra monster that will crowd out competition."............ http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/cabling-for-nbn-rollout-cut-back/story-fn59niix-1225968560255

Switching from one form of regulation to another - and that impresses those lefties who like bright coloured paper for Christmas.
The usual ALP mismanagement.
And still no Cost Benefit Analysis.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 9^th, 2010 at 11:59pm:

latest nbn FAILURE Quote: A PROPOSAL for every new home built after January 1 to be connected with fibre cable for the National Broadband Network has been abandoned. This came after the Gillard government admitted the magnitude of the task meant the plan would have to be phased in. Federal Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said yesterday new houses in developments of fewer than 100 premises - common in cities and towns - would be connected to Telstra's copper network or wireless services with slower internet speeds, and only later would be hooked up to the NBN. The government wants the NBN Co to prioritise the delivery of the super-fast fibre in larger property projects. An estimated 1.9 million new premises will be constructed while the $36 billion NBN is being rolled out.............. ..........Industry sources said greenfield fibre network builders had started reducing staff, because they were expecting NBN Co's entry into new estates would destroy competition. "This is a disgrace," said one industry source who asked to remain anonymous. "You have no idea how many people will be out of a job because of this. "The telecommunications industry is collapsing around us . . . The government is just creating another Telstra monster that will crowd out competition."............ http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/cabling-for-nbn-rollout-cut-back/story-fn59niix-1225968560255

Switching from one form of regulation to another - and that impresses those lefties who like bright shiney coloured paper for Christmas.
The usual ALP mismanagement.
And still no Cost Benefit Analysis.

What is really perplexing about Julia Gillards enforcement of an NBN is that with energy we leave it to the market itself to determine generation investment and infrastructure as private enterprise seeks to make profits. And with competition it forces the private enterprise to seek the most efficient means.
Whereas Julia Gillard has thrown out the market driven forces and insists on this white elephant, with an unlimited budget, no cost benefit analysis and above all selling this concept that having the fastest speed imaginable now will still be the fastest in years to come when it may get implemented.
And why is it necessary to have the fastest, as long as whatever system is reliable and delivers then that is what counts. Does it matter if it delivers at 100,000 bytes a second or 50,000 or 25,000 bytes a second. Could anyone really tell the difference?

Julia Gillard needs to listen to the market rather than her inflating ego!

Shades of the narcissistic Kevin Rudd.

http://www.tonyabbottisright.com/DisplayFile.aspx?img=/Posters/Tony_376_02465.jpg&w=270

Julia Gillard is starting to retract her NBN.
Gillard has abandoned the notion of connecting all homes to the NBN.

Only fools would have rushed to support an uncosted NBN.

http://www.economist.com/node/17647517?story_id=17647517&fsrc=rss
Bigger and better than Wi-Fi
Wireless networking: The spectrum released by TV’s switch to digital broadcasting will soon be put to good use
THOSE old enough to remember television before the age of cable and satellite TV may have wondered why half the channels on old-style analogue TV sets seemed to be missing. Apart from channel two, the rest of the original VHF channels on the dial were usually just the odd numbers from three to 13. Why? In over-the-air VHF broadcasting, the channel between two analogue stations had to be left unused so that it would not interfere with adjacent ones. When UHF broadcasting came along, empty “guard bands” were added to each channel for the same reason. In some places, this “white space” of unused frequencies separating working channels amounted to as much as 70% of the total bandwidth available for television broadcasting.
Mobile-phone operators and other would-be users of wireless spectrum have long lusted after television’s empty airwaves. In America, after two years of wrangling, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in Washington, DC, has finally given the go-ahead for white-space frequencies to be put to use.
In 2008 the FCC voted to reallocate the various segments of white space and unused channels between 54MHz and 806MHz (channels two to 69), which would no longer be needed when the last of the country’s analogue television transmitters switched to digital broadcasting in June 2009. Unlike analogue transmissions, digital signals do not “bleed” into one another and can therefore be packed closer together. As a consequence, television broadcasters now need little more than half the spectrum they hogged before switching to digital. That has not stopped them fighting tooth and claw to hang on to their unused white space. Most had grand plans for using such frequencies to sell information services to the public.
It was not to be. Instead, the FCC has used the switch to digital as an opportunity to liberate huge swathes of bandwidth for others to use. The most valuable frequencies of all, those in the 700MHz band (channels 52-69), have been auctioned off to mobile-phone operators. Between them, Verizon, AT&T and others paid nearly $20 billion to clinch this prime spectrum. The reason these channels are so valuable—and why they were chosen for terrestrial television in the first place—is that their signals travel for miles, can carry a lot of information, are unaffected by weather and foliage, and go through walls to penetrate all the nooks and crannies within the bowels of buildings.
The white space freed up below 700MHz is to be made available for unlicensed use by the public. By doing this, the FCC hopes to trigger another wireless revolution—one potentially bigger than the wave of innovation unleashed a decade or so ago when Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and other wireless technologies embraced the unlicensed 2.4GHz band previously reserved for microwave ovens, baby alarms and remote openers for garage doors.
The difference this time is that the frequencies being released will allow much higher data rates. The latest version of Wi-Fi, called 802.11n, shuttles data at 160-300 megabits a second (Mbps). White-space devices are expected to be able to zip data along at 400-800Mbps. And whereas Wi-Fi signals peter out after 100 metres or so, their white-space equivalents could have ranges of several kilometres.
From hotspots to hotzones
Enthusiasts talk about white-space devices offering a “third pipe” for access to the internet, to rival cable and telephone broadband. Others see them providing an alternative to mobile phones. When wireless zones cover entire university campuses rather than mere coffee shops, anyone with a smartphone running Skype or something similar would be free of usage charges and operators’ restrictions.
Before any of that can happen, though, a lot of technical problems will have to be licked. For one thing, white-space transmitters have to avoid interfering with both local television stations and the wireless microphones used in conference halls, sports arenas, theatres and churches. As a white-space gizmo moves around a city, the channels it can use will change, depending on how close it gets to various transmitters. The central access tower it communicates with may then have to hop from one channel to another—checking with all the other client devices using it to see if they can follow suit. If a newcomer joins the network (client devices will be joining and leaving continuously) and happens to be near a transmitter, the tower and its various clients will have to scramble to find yet another channel they can all use without causing interference. The computational problem is not exactly insignificant.
The prototype white-space devices used in trials had little trouble sensing occupied TV channels, typically picking them up at signal strengths less than a thousandth of that needed to display an image on a TV screen. In other words, they could hop off an occupied channel and onto a vacant one before causing so much as a blip on television sets in the area. Even so, the equipment-makers argue that, though doable, all this sensing palaver makes white-space devic networking has the potential to change the way people live, work and play. All it needs now is a snappier name.

Everytime the Rudd/Gillard government try and RUSH policies through parliament uncosted or without any Cost Beneit Analysis they invariably get delayed, and that's good.
Let Julia Gillard jump up and down screaming that this 'policy' must be prioritised with utmost urgency.
Because every time Rudd or Gillard has done that they have invariably been proved to be wrong.
As is the case with the NBN.

Julia Gillard's NBN is a white elephant, there is no need for it at all.

Spinners in $250,000 pitch


Quote:

THE government will spend more than $250,000 to hire a public relations firm to help promote its $36 billion National Broadband Network. Last week the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy heard pitches from five firms -- understood to include Hill & Knowlton, Ogilvy Public Relations, Weber Shandwick, PricewaterhouseCoopers and Royce -- with a brief to demonstrate how they would "sell the NBN" to the public. It is understood each firm was allowed only one delegate to deliver a 20-minute pitch. It is expected the government will appoint one of the agencies soon. A spokeswoman for Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said the department ran the select tender using agencies listed on the commonwealth communications multi-use list..................

$250,000 of YOUR taxes !!!!!!!!!!

Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 9:15am:

Spinners in $250,000 pitch Quote: THE government will spend more than $250,000 to hire a public relations firm to help promote its $36 billion National Broadband Network. Last week the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy heard pitches from five firms -- understood to include Hill & Knowlton, Ogilvy Public Relations, Weber Shandwick, PricewaterhouseCoopers and Royce -- with a brief to demonstrate how they would "sell the NBN" to the public. It is understood each firm was allowed only one delegate to deliver a 20-minute pitch. It is expected the government will appoint one of the agencies soon. A spokeswoman for Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said the department ran the select tender using agencies listed on the commonwealth communications multi-use list.................. $250,000 of YOUR taxes !!!!!!!!!!

Wouldn't it be cheaper for Julia Gillard to import a white elephant?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 9:15am:

Spinners in $250,000 pitch Quote: THE government will spend more than $250,000 to hire a public relations firm to help promote its $36 billion National Broadband Network. Last week the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy heard pitches from five firms -- understood to include Hill & Knowlton, Ogilvy Public Relations, Weber Shandwick, PricewaterhouseCoopers and Royce -- with a brief to demonstrate how they would "sell the NBN" to the public. It is understood each firm was allowed only one delegate to deliver a 20-minute pitch. It is expected the government will appoint one of the agencies soon. A spokeswoman for Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said the department ran the select tender using agencies listed on the commonwealth communications multi-use list.................. $250,000 of YOUR taxes !!!!!!!!!!

So what's THAT ?

Around 1 thirtieth of 1% of budget - to inform the public of its capacity, applications, use and potential

I'd be appalled if their WASN'T such an infornation budget

Well it is perfectly understandable when maroons like Miss, Sprint, and similarly vacuous fans of of all things ignorant, extreme and tasteless, wholeheartedly accept any and all lies and misinformation about the NBN.
When they obtain take there "facts" from people like Longy, who started this ridiculously stupid argument that VDSL is cheaper and better than Fibre, which is so patently false, and stupid that he has not had the guts to even try and justify the false claims made on the matter, when challenged.

So in light of how much utter balls is spoken about the NBN, I think getting some better info out into the public domain, can only be a good thing.

It's called "SPIN"

the only thing leftards run on.


One quarter a million dollars of spin.
By the alps standards, small.

mozzaok wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 1:58pm:

Well it is perfectly understandable when maroons like Miss, Sprint, and similarly vacuous fans of of all things ignorant, extreme and tasteless, wholeheartedly accept any and all lies and misinformation about the NBN. When they obtain take there "facts" from people like Longy, who started this ridiculously stupid argument that VDSL is cheaper and better than Fibre, which is so patently false, and stupid that he has not had the guts to even try and justify the false claims made on the matter, when challenged. So in light of how much utter balls is spoken about the NBN, I think getting some better info out into the public domain, can only be a good thing.

Well you are the expert in morons and stupidity. Must be all that self indulgence and self reflection.
No one comes within a whisker of your "talents" in that field.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 2:51pm:

It's called "SPIN" the only thing leftards run on. One quarter a million dollars of spin. By the alps standards, small.

And that's all it will be.
No facts, no Cost Benefit Analysis, no alternatives, and all amendments so that eventually even the stupid moron expert will be crying that it is a waste.

Julia Gillard's NBN is a white elephant, but just like the BER, the pink batts and boat people the leftie need to lose money first before they even notice.

It remains unchanged that at the end of the day, the NBN will deliver to my house and 80%+ of the nation exactly nothing. The NBN proposes to give us all a land line and a broadband internet of 12Mbs. Ive already got those - as does almost everyone in cities. those who really benefit are the <20% who currently dont have reliable broadband (and who already have a phone line). So why not just fix up those that already dont have it?

The comparison with road infrastructure is ludicrous. The NBN is the equivalent of building a 6 lane highway between every city, town and station in the country and building new raods over the top of existing ones in every city. What's the point? at the end of the day we have... roads, just as we have now.

There is actually a reason why other countries arent doing this besides a few that have population densities measured in the million per sq km.

This wasnt a thought out proposal. This was Kevin Rudd deciding he needed a new idea. I bet no more than 90mins was spent on this before bing announced.

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 18^th, 2010 at 4:07pm:

It remains unchanged that at the end of the day, the NBN will deliver to my house and 80%+ of the nation exactly nothing. The NBN proposes to give us all a land line and a broadband internet of 12Mbs. Ive already got those - as does almost everyone in cities. those who really benefit are the <20% who currently dont have reliable broadband (and who already have a phone line). So why not just fix up those that already dont have it? The comparison with road infrastructure is ludicrous. The NBN is the equivalent of building a 6 lane highway between every city, town and station in the country and building new raods over the top of existing ones in every city. What's the point? at the end of the day we have... roads, just as we have now. There is actually a reason why other countries arent doing this besides a few that have population densities measured in the million per sq km. This wasnt a thought out proposal. This was Kevin Rudd deciding he needed a new idea. I bet no more than 90mins was spent on this before bing announced.

Well it is the ALP. Have they ever thought out any proposal before going gung ho throwing money into anything without any monitors or checks alongthe way? No.
And Kevin Rudd only proposed this as something to fool those who are easily swayed and lack the knowledge of realising that it is all a  waste of money. Spend spend spend on any whiz bang gadget depsite whethe ror not it will last, despite whether or not it is worth it, despite whether or not it will be superceded in a few years. Not much point to that then is it. And it is much like telling the kiddies that Santa will bring them all their wish list toys of 2010 and deliver them in 2015!
What child would want that!