http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/2168/725863foxtel.jpg


Quote:

It seems a day doesn’t go by where articles are being posted to News Limited (Murdoch) websites with nothing but negative spin for the NBN. Most, if not all, are founded on poorly constructed arguments that ignore technology & the reality. They all seem to point to one solution: anything the Coalition are saying they’ll deploy. While this does reek of patent bias amongst Murdoch’s Australian arm, I feel this goes a little deeper than just wanting a Coalition government, but a fear of becoming obsolete in the age of IPTV (Internet Protocol Television). While FTTN (Fibre to the Node) can offer basic IPTV, it cannot offer multi-set full HD broadcasting as FTTH/P (Fibre to the Home/Premises) can. With this in mind, it doesn’t take long before it’s apparent the likes of Comcast & Time-Warner in the US, are bleeding subscribers or seeing a slowdown in subscriber uptake due to internet streaming services such as Netflix or Amazon’s Prime service. While we haven’t seen a drop in subscribers here in Australia, there has been a slowdown in subscriber uptake that is sending a message direct to News Limited/Fox: kill off any advancements in broadband speeds before it kills off your business model. WHAT MAKES FTTN BETTER FOR PAY TV PROVIDERS One thing to remember is that the main differences between FTTN & FTTH are, speed, service area, & reliability, with FTTN failing on all three. These differences can mean someone can happily use an IPTV service, or you are relegated to stuttering pixelated video. The one (& only so far) pure IPTV example I can give in Australia is FetchTV, with others like Quickflix not quite making their mark due to limited outdated content. FTTN, which a large portion of Australia already relies upon, can be of many flavours, but the generally accepted limit is VDSL2+ up to 1km, VDSL2 up to 2km, & ADSL2(+)/ADSL1 after that. Looking at these numbers, even if VDSL2+ is used, a large portion of Australia will not be able to stream more than one channel to one TV comfortably in HD. Some will not be able to receive HD video at all, having to opt for 1.5Mbps “lite” services offered by IPTV providers.

http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/6974/sdtvvshdtvvs4kuhdtvgrap.jpg

Quote:

With this in mind, we can see that opting for slower, less reliable, with a smaller service area for higher speeds, broadband benefits satellite & cable TV (pay TV) providers by limiting customers’ ability to utilise lower cost IPTV services. Don’t get me wrong, Foxtel are dabbling with IPTV with massively crippled plans that are far more expensive in dollars-per-channel than their set-top-box contract locked services. Essentially FTTN offers a moderate speed boost to allow for slightly faster speeds, but not so fast as to make pay TV obsolete. This benefits pay TV providers, but not customers or content producers, leaving a monopoly in place to reap the rewards of archaic infrastructure that’s way past its used by date. STUDIOS ARE GAME It’s clear that content producers aren’t fazed by IPTV service providers, with Netflix in the US signing up many studios/channels to their service, & FetchTV offering a number of non-Fox channels for a fraction of the cost of Foxtel on Xbox/Smart TV (Foxtels pure IPTV service). So where does that leave the likes of Foxtel in such an open market? Well, on the pointy end of a large stick. Murdoch & his ilk aren’t prepared for digital TV distribution, much like they weren’t prepared for digital news distribution & digital music distribution. Instead of being agile enough to deal with new technologies, pay TV providers have gone for the “entrench the customer” model that has not only failed for other mediums in the past, but turned customers away from their offerings. With so many content producers embracing smaller start ups (or as the pay TV providers see them, up starts), what leverage do the big names in pay TV have left? The answer is simple: little to none. With pay TV you are limited to watching what providers broadcast & a small amount of on-demand content accessible via your internet connection. With IPTV services, multicast is offered for a small amount of content, but a majority of the content is on-demand, allowing customers to pick & choose what they watch. This has a two fold benefit for content producers: being paid for what is watched, not what is broadcast, & being able to accurately measure what customers watch the most.

continue

Quote:

WHY ARE PAY TV PROVIDERS SO AFRAID OF IPTV The biggest fear for pay TV is advertising dollars being sent elsewhere as online services offer more affordable advertising rates than pay TV or free-to-air TV can offer. Instead of forking out thousands of dollars on a contract designed to benefit media conglomerates, advertisers can produce & deliver an ad, while getting immediate feedback on its effectiveness. They can even tailor an advertising to suit a user. You’re interested in sport & cars? You will see mainly sport & car ads. You’re a geek/gamer like me? Tech devices & game ads will fill my screen. This is something that pay TV can’t do, even with an internet connection. They have invested millions setting up control rooms designed around the multicast (one source, many users) ideology, rather than unicast systems like Netflix which require little more than a web interface & a decent server farm to deliver content to millions of users.

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/5306/futureofiptv706.jpg
Future Generation of TV – Multicast, IPTV

Quote:

FINAL WORDS FOR A DYING BEAST The fear of obsolescence is palpable with both major & minor studios signing deals with IPTV providers, & IPTV providers expanding into markets traditionally dominated by cable & satellite providers. The only option left for a beast that’s dying is to lash out at younger, more agile companies making use of technology. The only way they can do this is by tainting the journalistic integrity of the newspapers & news broadcasts they own, removing all doubt that the likes of News Limited are existing on borrowed time. In my experience, companies closest to death are noisiest, & boy are these old boys of the media landscape getting noisy about the biggest infrastructure project Australia has ever seen. Their newspaper revenue is down, subscribers are being turned off lock-in contracts, & their attempts to subvert social media (remember Myspace?) all point toward desperate people with nothing else left but to sabotage attempts to benefit citizens by feeding them fear, uncertainty, & doubt. From laughable articles stating wireless is better than fibre (how do you transmit the data from the wireless towers guys?) to smear campaigns designed to bring those knowledgeable on technology into disrepute, this campaign against fibre optics will not stop until these media organisations die out like the dinosaurs they are.

http://australiansforhonestpolitics.wordpress.com/2013/02/27/why-are-pay-tv-providers-and-news-limited-so-afraid-of-the-nbn-final-words-for-a-dying-beast/

.

The slowdown in new subscribers in other countries could also be that ppl are waking up to them and their corruption thanks to questions being asked and leveson enquiry and questions being asked. No such thing is happening here and questions are actively discouraged. the sheep must not be allowed to wake up.

SOB

Why does the Liberal party let one man dictate policy to them.

Murdoch is not even Australian and he doesn't vote here.

mot quite sure what Murdoch has done this time round..but if its to do with advertising.. I hate adverts on the computer and dont think I could tell you one of them..so faster louder brighter wont make a scrap of difference to me..

I always thought the main issue with the NBN is the cost of it... not the power it will have over the mindless

John S wrote on Feb 28^th, 2013 at 5:01am:

Why does the Liberal party let one man dictate policy to them. Murdoch is not even Australian and he doesn't vote here.

he does provide many jobs for aussies though..guess that doesnt matter

John S wrote on Feb 28^th, 2013 at 5:01am:

Why does the Liberal party let one man dictate policy to them. Murdoch is not even Australian and he doesn't vote here.

The more worrying aspect wiseone is that you are Australian and you do vote here.

KJT1981 wrote on Feb 28^th, 2013 at 6:21am:

John S wrote on Feb 28th, 2013 at 5:01am: Why does the Liberal party let one man dictate policy to them. Murdoch is not even Australian and he doesn't vote here. The more worrying aspect wiseone is that you are Australian and you do vote here.

hilarious.. ;) ;)

cods wrote on Feb 28^th, 2013 at 6:29am:

KJT1981 wrote on Feb 28th, 2013 at 6:21am: John S wrote on Feb 28th, 2013 at 5:01am: Why does the Liberal party let one man dictate policy to them. Murdoch is not even Australian and he doesn't vote here. The more worrying aspect wiseone is that you are Australian and you do vote here. hilarious.. ;) ;)

If advertisers think they are receiving value for money online they are nuts.

I receive no adds on here and few on other sites, plus I have a pop up stopper program. Works well.

Anyone that puts themselves through adds on the internet is a nut, right wiseone?

I didnt know you could stop them... they drive me nuts twinking and spinning I hate them

News Ltd are unfit to operate anywhere IMO......the phone tapping and blatant abuse of power shown by the Murdoch empire shows these people are not concerned with decency and honesty.....Anyone who has been unfortunate enough to watch Fox News know how bias and unreliable there news coverage is.....Tapping the phones of dead people to get a scoop is very low and part of News Ltd SOP.....Rupert Murdoch does not care about anything but himself and those who do his dirty work for him!!!


>:( >:( >:(

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 28^th, 2013 at 7:23am:

News Ltd are unfit to operate anywhere IMO......the phone tapping and blatant abuse of power shown by the Murdoch empire shows these people are not concerned with decency and honesty.....Anyone who has been unfortunate enough to watch Fox News know how bias and unreliable there news coverage is.....Tapping the phones of dead people to get a scoop is very low and part of News Ltd SOP....sp@mpert Murdoch does not care about anything but himself and those who do his dirty work for him!!! >:( >:( >:(

there's plenty of room and time for you 'ethical operators' to startup your own competition networks. of course you'd all just put left-wing spin on it and then pretend you are being even-balanced.

and BTW, the vast majority of australia is right-wing and therefore a right-wing media is quite appropriate.

Ive been saying for ages that News Ltds opposition to the NBN is based on self interest via it being a threat to foxtels monopoly.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 28^th, 2013 at 8:57am:

Ive been saying for ages that News Ltds opposition to the NBN is based on self interest via it being a threat to foxtels monopoly.

so can Murdoch change the world?? I dont think so.. we are not that easily brainwashed..I dont have pay TV so wouldnt have a clue yet I do have an opinion and I do vote..

you are so obsessed with the power  you claim Murdoch has he must be very impressed....I know I would be..sleaze around the NOTW who would have guessed it.. there was always sleaze around it since day one...it liked digging in the dirt so it stands to reason they would stoop to dirty things...the fact is it involved a few celebrities.. OMG...otherwise I bet it wouldnt have made headlines..they went over the top..

it didnt change my life one iota..

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 28^th, 2013 at 8:57am:

Ive been saying for ages that News Ltds opposition to the NBN is based on self interest via it being a threat to foxtels monopoly.

perhaps a lot of people are objecting to a $50B network for the provision of tv services

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 28^th, 2013 at 9:18am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 28th, 2013 at 8:57am: Ive been saying for ages that News Ltds opposition to the NBN is based on self interest via it being a threat to foxtels monopoly. perhaps a lot of people are objecting to a $50B network for the provision of tv services

The only people I hear objecting to the NBN are vested interests & those here who want a Liberal government.

Everyone I talk to in R/L is bitching that they have to wait.

cods wrote on Feb 28^th, 2013 at 9:04am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 28th, 2013 at 8:57am: Ive been saying for ages that News Ltds opposition to the NBN is based on self interest via it being a threat to foxtels monopoly. so can Murdoch change the world?? I dont think so.. we are not that easily brainwashed..I dont have pay TV so wouldnt have a clue .

I know you dont have a clue.   But the NBN does two things that are desperately needed in telecommunications in this country:
1) It allows competition in the PayTV market. Currently we have a private monopoly which is a very bad thing for consumers.
2) It finally divides wholesale and retail telecommunications, removing the blockage Telstra (doing both) has caused to slow innovation and investment in the sector.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 28^th, 2013 at 9:25am:

cods wrote on Feb 28th, 2013 at 9:04am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 28th, 2013 at 8:57am: Ive been saying for ages that News Ltds opposition to the NBN is based on self interest via it being a threat to foxtels monopoly. so can Murdoch change the world?? I dont think so.. we are not that easily brainwashed..I dont have pay TV so wouldnt have a clue . I know you dont have a clue.   But the NBN does two things that are desperately needed in telecommunications in this country: 1) It allows competition in the PayTV market. Currently we have a private monopoly which is a very bad thing for consumers. 2) It finally divides wholesale and retail telecommunications, removing the blockage Telstra (doing both) has caused to slow innovation and investment in the sector.

and it only costs $50BILLION to get more payTV???  marvellous. no wonder you support labor. you obviously cannot concieve of just how much that is.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 28^th, 2013 at 9:30am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 28th, 2013 at 9:25am: cods wrote on Feb 28th, 2013 at 9:04am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 28th, 2013 at 8:57am: Ive been saying for ages that News Ltds opposition to the NBN is based on self interest via it being a threat to foxtels monopoly. so can Murdoch change the world?? I dont think so.. we are not that easily brainwashed..I dont have pay TV so wouldnt have a clue . I know you dont have a clue.   But the NBN does two things that are desperately needed in telecommunications in this country: 1) It allows competition in the PayTV market. Currently we have a private monopoly which is a very bad thing for consumers. 2) It finally divides wholesale and retail telecommunications, removing the blockage Telstra (doing both) has caused to slow innovation and investment in the sector. and it only costs $50BILLION to get more payTV???  marvellous. no wonder you support labor. you obviously cannot concieve of just how much that is.

don't forget the faster porn

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 28^th, 2013 at 9:30am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 28th, 2013 at 9:25am: cods wrote on Feb 28th, 2013 at 9:04am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 28th, 2013 at 8:57am: Ive been saying for ages that News Ltds opposition to the NBN is based on self interest via it being a threat to foxtels monopoly. so can Murdoch change the world?? I dont think so.. we are not that easily brainwashed..I dont have pay TV so wouldnt have a clue . I know you dont have a clue.   But the NBN does two things that are desperately needed in telecommunications in this country: 1) It allows competition in the PayTV market. Currently we have a private monopoly which is a very bad thing for consumers. 2) It finally divides wholesale and retail telecommunications, removing the blockage Telstra (doing both) has caused to slow innovation and investment in the sector. and it only costs $50BILLION to get more payTV???  marvellous. no wonder you support labor. you obviously cannot concieve of just how much that is.

Obviously  you are trolling, but the NBN is a lot more than pay TV. 

NBN is the only high speed telecommunications proposal that actually treats rural people the same as city people. Im constantly suprised that the nationals are against it.... or are they ?

PayTV providers (more than one in this new wholesale market) will be paying the NBN to use its infrastructure, rather than being shut out of the foxtel infrastructure.   Phone carriers, internet providers will be PAYING to use the NBN.  New interactive services in education, health and sciences will be PAYING to use the NBN. 

This is how the NBN will generate money, generate money to pay for itself and be a lucrative asset, so, in the due course of time a future liberal government can sell it off as a private monopoly which can again screw its customers (like airports), while patting themselves on the back that they produced a surplus.... and so the cycle will begin again.  ;D


One thing you can rely on is a liberal government to take something that was free and cheap and make it exclusive and expensive.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 28^th, 2013 at 9:52am:

Obviously  you are trolling, but the NBN is a lot more than pay TV.  NBN is the only high speed telecommunications proposal that actually treats rural people the same as city people. Im constantly suprised that the nationals are against it.... or are they ?

Are the rural people getting FTTN?

Maqqa wrote on Feb 28^th, 2013 at 9:55am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 28th, 2013 at 9:52am: Obviously  you are trolling, but the NBN is a lot more than pay TV.  NBN is the only high speed telecommunications proposal that actually treats rural people the same as city people. Im constantly suprised that the nationals are against it.... or are they ? Are the rural people getting FTTN?

Stupid question, by the party hack.

Leaving party hacks aside, as a political issue the NBN is simple.   If you believe in creating and supporting private monopolies (and Howard created a few) then you are against the NBN.

If however, you believe that an open telecommunications industry will be part of our services economy long after the last mine has poluted the last river, then you are in favour of NBN like infrastructure.

http://epress.anu.edu.au/apps/bookworm/view/JULIA+2010%3A+The+caretaker+election/8291/Images/fig3%201_opt.png

If you want a programme to pay for itself, you roll it out where it makes the most economic sense.

Rolling it out first to people who live in the middle of fking nowhere makes no sense whatsoever.

You should have a 2 tier system with the capital cities receiving the most expensive, fastest network and then the countryside receiving it later on down the track when the additional capital can afford to do it.

Rolling it out to the hillbillies who live about 5 miles from each neighbour makes no economic sense whatsoever.

Honestly, I don't think public servants ever have the first clue as to how to run something within budget.

I wouldn't say private is much better at running things in budget - cost over runs happen every day on infrastructure projects/the nbn is on budget.

As for murdoch v the nbn - I have no doubt that if they could (and they probably will) cancel it, bring it on budget and then blame the alp for all that's wrong in the world.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 28^th, 2013 at 10:28am:

If you want a programme to pay for itself, you roll it out where it makes the most economic sense. Rolling it out first to people who live in the middle of fking nowhere makes no sense whatsoever. You should have a 2 tier system with the capital cities receiving the most expensive, fastest network and then the countryside receiving it later on down the track when the additional capital can afford to do it. Rolling it out to the hillbillies who live about 5 miles from each neighbour makes no economic sense whatsoever. Honestly, I don't think public servants ever have the first clue as to how to run something within budget.

Stupid statement again by the one whose short term horizon doesnt extend past 6 months.

In Australia, most city resident have access to "broadband" (I use the term loosely), so it makes sense if you are rolling out an AUSTRALIA-WIDE scheme, you target those who do not have broadband at all (rural) first.  Biggest impact first.

Anyway, the NBN Co doesnt seem to be playing politics at all. City vs Country vs labor vs liberal seats seem to be given equal weighting in the rollout.

Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Feb 28^th, 2013 at 10:35am:

I wouldn't say private is much better at running things in budget - cost over runs happen every day on infrastructure projects/the nbn is on budget. As for murdoch v the nbn - I have no doubt that if they could (and they probably will) cancel it, bring it on budget and then blame the alp for all that's wrong in the world.

Labor's NBN promise - $4.7B

now it'll cost some $50B

that's not a cost over run!!

It's like planning to build a house for $470,000 and ending up paying $5M for it

Maqqa wrote on Feb 28^th, 2013 at 10:37am:

Labor's NBN promise - $4.7B now it'll cost some $50B that's not a cost over run!! It's like planning to build a house for $470,000 and ending up paying $5M for it

Even Christopher Pyne wouldnt say something that stupid, party hack.

The deliverable of NBN has changed a lot since the first figure (which wasnt a promise).  In fact anyone with a brain would say they were two seperate things.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 28^th, 2013 at 10:36am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 28th, 2013 at 10:28am: If you want a programme to pay for itself, you roll it out where it makes the most economic sense. Rolling it out first to people who live in the middle of fking nowhere makes no sense whatsoever. You should have a 2 tier system with the capital cities receiving the most expensive, fastest network and then the countryside receiving it later on down the track when the additional capital can afford to do it. Rolling it out to the hillbillies who live about 5 miles from each neighbour makes no economic sense whatsoever. Honestly, I don't think public servants ever have the first clue as to how to run something within budget. Stupid statement again by the one whose short term horizon doesnt extend past 6 months. In Australia, most city resident have access to "broadband" (I use the term loosely), so it makes sense if you are rolling out an AUSTRALIA-WIDE scheme, you target those who do not have broadband at all (rural) first.  Biggest impact first. Anyway, the NBN Co doesnt seem to be playing politics at all. City vs Country vs labor vs liberal seats seem to be given equal weighting in the rollout.

A densely populated area will have the most take-up.
I know some of you seem completely foreign to running a budget - but if you want a programme to have the shortest net pay-back time you roll it out where you will get the most take-up.

You will not get that in the middle of fking nowhere.

They should not have it first because it will carry a loss for longer than is necessary.

Think $$$$$.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 28^th, 2013 at 10:44am:

A densely populated area will have the most take-up. I know some of you seem completely foreign to running a budget - but if you want a programme to have the shortest net pay-back time you roll it out where you will get the most take-up. You will not get that in the middle of fking nowhere. They should not have it first because it will carry a loss for longer than is necessary. Think $$$$$.

Broadband will never reach rural areas with such a policy, which is clearly demonstrated by our pre-NBN days.

This is a case where government must make neccessary infrastructure investments where private ($$$ based) wont happen.

A very similar analogy as roads. Country roads are not economically as useful as city roads, yet we still build them.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 28^th, 2013 at 9:52am:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 28th, 2013 at 9:30am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 28th, 2013 at 9:25am: cods wrote on Feb 28th, 2013 at 9:04am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 28th, 2013 at 8:57am: Ive been saying for ages that News Ltds opposition to the NBN is based on self interest via it being a threat to foxtels monopoly. so can Murdoch change the world?? I dont think so.. we are not that easily brainwashed..I dont have pay TV so wouldnt have a clue . I know you dont have a clue.   But the NBN does two things that are desperately needed in telecommunications in this country: 1) It allows competition in the PayTV market. Currently we have a private monopoly which is a very bad thing for consumers. 2) It finally divides wholesale and retail telecommunications, removing the blockage Telstra (doing both) has caused to slow innovation and investment in the sector. and it only costs $50BILLION to get more payTV???  marvellous. no wonder you support labor. you obviously cannot concieve of just how much that is. Obviously  you are trolling, but the NBN is a lot more than pay TV.  NBN is the only high speed telecommunications proposal that actually treats rural people the same as city people. Im constantly suprised that the nationals are against it.... or are they ? PayTV providers (more than one in this new wholesale market) will be paying the NBN to use its infrastructure, rather than being shut out of the foxtel infrastructure.   Phone carriers, internet providers will be PAYING to use the NBN.  New interactive services in education, health and sciences will be PAYING to use the NBN.  This is how the NBN will generate money, generate money to pay for itself and be a lucrative asset, so, in the due course of time a future liberal government can sell it off as a private monopoly which can again screw its customers (like airports), while patting themselves on the back that they produced a surplus.... and so the cycle will begin again.  ;D One thing you can rely on is a liberal government to take something that was free and cheap and make it exclusive and expensive.

not a single analysts beleives your naivete about the NBN being lucractive. Event he NBNs own optimistic figures make them barely able to cover costs.

and the previous plane for nationwide ADLS2+ treated the rural areas the same as the city and ironically the completion date for that project was 2011... !!!  if not for Rudd, a national broadband network would already be in place and paid for.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 28^th, 2013 at 11:45am:

and the previous plane for nationwide ADLS2+ treated the rural areas the same as the city and ironically the completion date for that project was 2011... !!!  if not for Rudd, a national broadband network would already be in place and paid for.

ADSL2 is not suitable for two reasons:
1) Is low bandwidth compared to NBN
2) Suffers from severe degredation in performance when distance from exchange to house exceed 1 or 2 km (so not suited to rural)


ADSL2 also uses copper, not fibre, thereby only a stopgap measure at best.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 28^th, 2013 at 12:06pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 28th, 2013 at 11:45am: and the previous plane for nationwide ADLS2+ treated the rural areas the same as the city and ironically the completion date for that project was 2011... !!!  if not for Rudd, a national broadband network would already be in place and paid for. ADSL2 is not suitable for two reasons: 1) Is low bandwidth compared to NBN 2) Suffers from severe degredation in performance when distance from exchange to house exceed 1 or 2 km (so not suited to rural) ADSL2 also uses copper, not fibre, thereby only a stopgap measure at best.

ADSL 2+ bandwidth is identical to the NBNs standard offering.
the rural upgrades included a lot of fibre to nodes that then proived a decent ADSL speed

and it was at a cost of 20% of the NBN and would be finished 2 years ago.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 28^th, 2013 at 12:06pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 28th, 2013 at 11:45am: and the previous plane for nationwide ADLS2+ treated the rural areas the same as the city and ironically the completion date for that project was 2011... !!!  if not for Rudd, a national broadband network would already be in place and paid for. ADSL2 is not suitable for two reasons: 1) Is low bandwidth compared to NBN 2) Suffers from severe degredation in performance when distance from exchange to house exceed 1 or 2 km (so not suited to rural) ADSL2 also uses copper, not fibre, thereby only a stopgap measure at best.

I used to have Optus cable. I now have Telstra ADSL2. I can't tell the difference between them despite the former being mathematically superior. There are two reasons for this;

1) 99% of my Internet usage is using google, email, youtube, online banking, social media, etc, as well as the background updates that happen such as by Windows, antivirus downloads. In other words, I am never pushing my net connection to the limit. Even if my Internet connection dropped to half speed I would still surf the net without noticing the drop off. ADSL2 is very fast for normal every day Internet usages.
2) 90%+ of my Internet usage these days is done on the laptop or iPad. The Internet speed to my house could increase by a million, it ain't getting to my device any faster than the wifi will let it. I'm willing to bet that an ever growing percentage of people are using the net from wifi devices these days, making out right net speed irrelevant.

How many people in Australia actually need anything faster than ADSL2 or the cable connection they already have?

I want to be clear that this isn't an aggressive negative post bashing the NBN. It is just after all these months of hearing how fast the NBN is I am still failing to see how it will be of any advantage to the greater percentage of the population. Internet speed much like CPU speed was all the rage at the turn of the millenium. These days I don't think most people care as they don't even use what they have to the max anymore.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 28^th, 2013 at 12:26pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 28th, 2013 at 12:06pm: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 28th, 2013 at 11:45am: and the previous plane for nationwide ADLS2+ treated the rural areas the same as the city and ironically the completion date for that project was 2011... !!!  if not for Rudd, a national broadband network would already be in place and paid for. ADSL2 is not suitable for two reasons: 1) Is low bandwidth compared to NBN 2) Suffers from severe degredation in performance when distance from exchange to house exceed 1 or 2 km (so not suited to rural) ADSL2 also uses copper, not fibre, thereby only a stopgap measure at best. ADSL 2+ bandwidth is identical to the NBNs standard offering. the rural upgrades included a lot of fibre to nodes that then proived a decent ADSL speed and it was at a cost of 20% of the NBN and would be finished 2 years ago.

Ring Telstra & ask a technician how far from a exchange ADSL2 works, not a sales person but a technician.
I live 5.1KLM from exchange & cannot get ADSL2 & I live in the largest non capital city in the country not some outback town.
4KLM is as far as ADSL2 will function on the current network, where as fibre will allow the internet providers to actually provide what they advertise to 100% of customers not just those lucky enough to live within 4 k radius of exchange.

Is it part of the coalitions plan to build an exchange every 4 klm?

Quantum wrote on Feb 28^th, 2013 at 12:47pm:

How many people in Australia actually need anything faster than ADSL2 or the cable connection they already have? I want to be clear that this isn't an aggressive negative post bashing the NBN. It is just after all these months of hearing how fast the NBN is I am still failing to see how it will be of any advantage to the greater percentage of the population. Internet speed much like CPU speed was all the rage at the turn of the millenium. These days I don't think most people care as they don't even use what they have to the max anymore.

I think  you'll find that CPU speed is still ramping along very quickly.  Even phones are coming with quad-core processors these days.

ADSL2 (if you are lucky enough to be near an exchange) is good for most surfing activities now, but as you know the data consumed by users increases every year.  What is good now, will not be good enough in 5 to 10 years. In fact, hopelessly outdated by then.
Even now, on cable or ADSL2, watching standard video is still hit and miss. And we have HD video, and 3-D video almost locked out of the IP space due to home connection speeds.

That, really is the tip of the iceburg.

Anyway, back on topic, is there anyone here who does not think Murdochs opposition to the NBN is largely driven by its impact on his PayTV monopoly ?

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 28^th, 2013 at 12:55pm:

Quantum wrote on Feb 28th, 2013 at 12:47pm: How many people in Australia actually need anything faster than ADSL2 or the cable connection they already have? I want to be clear that this isn't an aggressive negative post bashing the NBN. It is just after all these months of hearing how fast the NBN is I am still failing to see how it will be of any advantage to the greater percentage of the population. Internet speed much like CPU speed was all the rage at the turn of the millenium. These days I don't think most people care as they don't even use what they have to the max anymore. I think  you'll find that CPU speed is still ramping along very quickly.  Even phones are coming with quad-core processors these days.

No doubt. But most people don't care. Even an old core 2 will still run windows 8 and the latest office without any problem. There isn't the need to upgrade anymore to use normal everyday software. There isn't the need to update every couple of years like there was in the late 90's. Most people just keep using the old computer as the advantages of new hardware is diminishing for everyday use. Most 5 year old quad cores don't get used to a fraction of their full potential if one is just using it for office work.


Quote:

ADSL2 (if you are lucky enough to be near an exchange) is good for most surfing activities now, but as you know the data consumed by users increases every year.  What is good now, will not be good enough in 5 to 10 years. In fact, hopelessly outdated by then. Even now, on cable or ADSL2, watching standard video is still hit and miss. And we have HD video, and 3-D video almost locked out of the IP space due to home connection speeds. That, really is the tip of the iceburg.

Future proofing seems fair enough. But just like how Optus went around Sydney putting up fiber optic cable everywhere in the mid-nineties, would not something similar happen in the future? If the demand is there someone will supply it. Probably not to rural areas, so I can see the need for the NBN (or something like it) there, but the whole country?

Quantum wrote on Feb 28^th, 2013 at 1:16pm:

Future proofing seems fair enough. But just like how Optus went around Sydney putting up fiber optic cable everywhere in the mid-nineties, would not something similar happen in the future? If the demand is there someone will supply it. Probably not to rural areas, so I can see the need for the NBN (or something like it) there, but the whole country?

Thats the case for the NBN as a government owned independent wholesaler of capacity.   

The problem of Optus in the mid 90's was that it had to duplicate infrastructure because Telstra blocked it out.  Imagine if Vodafone and others had to do the same thing. We'd end up with hundreds of competing lines, maybe even abandoned when obsolete.

NBN, by providing one almost limitless bandwidth solution enables optus/telstra/foxtel/others to concentrate on content and pricing.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 28^th, 2013 at 12:51pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 28th, 2013 at 12:26pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 28th, 2013 at 12:06pm: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 28th, 2013 at 11:45am: and the previous plane for nationwide ADLS2+ treated the rural areas the same as the city and ironically the completion date for that project was 2011... !!!  if not for Rudd, a national broadband network would already be in place and paid for. ADSL2 is not suitable for two reasons: 1) Is low bandwidth compared to NBN 2) Suffers from severe degredation in performance when distance from exchange to house exceed 1 or 2 km (so not suited to rural) ADSL2 also uses copper, not fibre, thereby only a stopgap measure at best. ADSL 2+ bandwidth is identical to the NBNs standard offering. the rural upgrades included a lot of fibre to nodes that then proived a decent ADSL speed and it was at a cost of 20% of the NBN and would be finished 2 years ago. Ring Telstra & ask a technician how far from a exchange ADSL2 works, not a sales person but a technician. I live 5.1KLM from exchange & cannot get ADSL2 & I live in the largest non capital city in the country not some outback town. 4KLM is as far as ADSL2 will function on the current network, where as fibre will allow the internet providers to actually provide what they advertise to 100% of customers not just those lucky enough to live within 4 k radius of exchange. Is it part of the coalitions plan to build an exchange every 4 klm?

FTTN is fibre to the NODE. the coalitions plan is expansive fiber to many thousands of nodes. and nodes are like those dalek like things u see on the streets already - just there will be more of them.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 28^th, 2013 at 10:49am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 28th, 2013 at 10:44am: A densely populated area will have the most take-up. I know some of you seem completely foreign to running a budget - but if you want a programme to have the shortest net pay-back time you roll it out where you will get the most take-up. You will not get that in the middle of fking nowhere. They should not have it first because it will carry a loss for longer than is necessary. Think $$$$$. Broadband will never reach rural areas with such a policy, which is clearly demonstrated by our pre-NBN days. This is a case where government must make neccessary infrastructure investments where private ($$$ based) wont happen. A very similar analogy as roads. Country roads are not economically as useful as city roads, yet we still build them.

but we dont build 12-lane freeways do we. we build roads the size they need to be and upgrade as necessary.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 28^th, 2013 at 8:36am:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 28th, 2013 at 7:23am: News Ltd are unfit to operate anywhere IMO......the phone tapping and blatant abuse of power shown by the Murdoch empire shows these people are not concerned with decency and honesty.....Anyone who has been unfortunate enough to watch Fox News know how bias and unreliable there news coverage is.....Tapping the phones of dead people to get a scoop is very low and part of News Ltd SOP....sp@mpert Murdoch does not care about anything but himself and those who do his dirty work for him!!! >:( >:( >:( there's plenty of room and time for you 'ethical operators' to startup your own competition networks. of course you'd all just put left-wing spin on it and then pretend you are being even-balanced. and BTW, the vast majority of australia is right-wing and therefore a right-wing media is quite appropriate.

I have no problem with right wing media.....News Ltd however have sunk to the bottom of the barrel and have spawned a culture that cannot be trusted.....Why am I not surprised you missed the point completely???

::) ::) ::)

John S wrote on Feb 28^th, 2013 at 5:01am:

Why does the Liberal party let one man dictate policy to them. Murdoch is not even Australian and he doesn't vote here.

Doug Cameron is not Australian yet he sits in our parliament. Nick Bolkus was a Greek citizen yet he was a government minister. It's a bit late to be worried about non-citizens ain't it?

salad in wrote on Feb 28^th, 2013 at 6:45pm:

John S wrote on Feb 28th, 2013 at 5:01am: Why does the Liberal party let one man dictate policy to them. Murdoch is not even Australian and he doesn't vote here. Doug Cameron is not Australian yet he sits in our parliament. Nick Bolkus was a Greek citizen yet he was a government minister. It's a bit late to be worried about non-citizens ain't it?

Doug Cameron is an Australian citizen and Nick Bolkus was born in Adelaide.....Just so you know!!!

:) :) :)

they were running fibre optic cable down my street today ...bloody ripper .... unfortunately I still have to wait another 6 months before it is available, todays guys just run the cable. .. they don't do the connections.  I should be safe though, It seems that it's a bit late for Mr No to stop it getting here  ...

salad in wrote on Feb 28^th, 2013 at 6:45pm:

John S wrote on Feb 28th, 2013 at 5:01am: Why does the Liberal party let one man dictate policy to them. Murdoch is not even Australian and he doesn't vote here. Doug Cameron is not Australian yet he sits in our parliament. Nick Bolkus was a Greek citizen yet he was a government minister. It's a bit late to be worried about non-citizens ain't it?

you have to be an australian citizen to be an MP - no exceptions.

John Smith wrote on Feb 28^th, 2013 at 6:55pm:

they were running fibre optic cable down my street today ...bloody ripper .... unfortunately I still have to wait another 6 months before it is available, todays guys just run the cable. .. they don't do the connections.  I should be safe though, It seems that it's a bit late for Mr No to stop it getting here  ...

thats the easy bit. the connections to the premises is what is the hard and expensive and slow part.

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 28^th, 2013 at 6:52pm:

Doug Cameron is an Australian citizen and Nick Bolkus was born in Adelaide.....Just so you know!!! :) :) :)

With Cameron's accent he'll never be Australian. Bolkus is a Greek; as you know you can't relinquish your Greek citizenship even if you're born outside of Greece but your parents are Greek.

Just so you know   ;) :) ;)


Quote:

A child of a Greek citizen acquires Greek nationality automatically at birth. The same applies to children born in Greece whose parents have lived legally and permanently in Greece for five years. Children born abroad and whose parents have lived legally and permanently in Greece for five years become Greek citizens upon successful completion of elementary education (six years). Greeks born abroad may transmit citizenship to their children from generation to generation indefinitely. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_nationality_law

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 28^th, 2013 at 7:16pm:

you have to be an australian citizen to be an MP - no exceptions.

My father told me that it was Ron Casey (radio commentator) who identified about 21 MPs who held dual citizenship yet continued to sit in our parliament. They use the cloak of privacy to avoid scrutiny.

John Smith wrote on Feb 28^th, 2013 at 6:55pm:

they were running fibre optic cable down my street today ...bloody ripper .... unfortunately I still have to wait another 6 months before it is available, todays guys just run the cable. .. they don't do the connections.  I should be safe though, It seems that it's a bit late for Mr No to stop it getting here  ...

When I moved to an outer suburb of brisbane a few years ago they were laying optus cable in the street. It was one reason i bought the house. thing is suddenly (before they got to my house) they stopped. Seems the council didnt want "unsightly optus cable" and they stopped it. Point? Dont count your chickens.

SOB

salad in wrote on Feb 28^th, 2013 at 9:32pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 28th, 2013 at 7:16pm: you have to be an australian citizen to be an MP - no exceptions. My father told me that it was Ron Casey (radio commentator) who identified about 21 MPs who held dual citizenship yet continued to sit in our parliament. They use the cloak of privacy to avoid scrutiny.

dual citizenship is not a problem nor a constitutional issue. Just because someone has that does not define them as disloyal. Paul Keating was an australian citizen only but since he got the boot spends most of his time outside the country and bagging australia. Loyalty is not conferred by citizenship.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 28^th, 2013 at 5:47pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 28th, 2013 at 10:49am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 28th, 2013 at 10:44am: A densely populated area will have the most take-up. I know some of you seem completely foreign to running a budget - but if you want a programme to have the shortest net pay-back time you roll it out where you will get the most take-up. You will not get that in the middle of fking nowhere. They should not have it first because it will carry a loss for longer than is necessary. Think $$$$$. Broadband will never reach rural areas with such a policy, which is clearly demonstrated by our pre-NBN days. This is a case where government must make neccessary infrastructure investments where private ($$$ based) wont happen. A very similar analogy as roads. Country roads are not economically as useful as city roads, yet we still build them. but we dont build 12-lane freeways do we. we build roads the size they need to be and upgrade as necessary.

They are not building 12-lane highways to rural houses. fibre optics is cheaper than copper.

Current Copper is a bush track knocked through with a buldozer. Slow trip on a 4wd only
NBN is a tar seal road, cars, trucks, 100km/hr

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 1^st, 2013 at 8:15am:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 28th, 2013 at 5:47pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 28th, 2013 at 10:49am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 28th, 2013 at 10:44am: A densely populated area will have the most take-up. I know some of you seem completely foreign to running a budget - but if you want a programme to have the shortest net pay-back time you roll it out where you will get the most take-up. You will not get that in the middle of fking nowhere. They should not have it first because it will carry a loss for longer than is necessary. Think $$$$$. Broadband will never reach rural areas with such a policy, which is clearly demonstrated by our pre-NBN days. This is a case where government must make neccessary infrastructure investments where private ($$$ based) wont happen. A very similar analogy as roads. Country roads are not economically as useful as city roads, yet we still build them. but we dont build 12-lane freeways do we. we build roads the size they need to be and upgrade as necessary. They are not building 12-lane highways to rural houses. fibre optics is cheaper than copper. Current Copper is a bush track knocked through with a buldozer. Slow trip on a 4wd only NBN is a tar seal road, cars, trucks, 100km/hr

whatever your argument is, 'cheaper' is not one of them. laying fibre is no cheaper than copper. laying fibre to the premises is totally unnecessary which is even more expensive.

anyhow, get over it. In september FTTH ends and FTTN begins.  The debate is all but over.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 1^st, 2013 at 8:48am:

laying fibre is no cheaper than copper. l

I think you'll find that 'LAYING" either costs roughly the same.
However copper would be more expensive than fiber.


longweekend58 wrote on Mar 1^st, 2013 at 8:48am:

In september FTTH ends and FTTN begins

I wouldn't put money on that.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 1^st, 2013 at 8:56am:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 1st, 2013 at 8:48am: laying fibre is no cheaper than copper. l I think you'll find that 'LAYING" either costs roughly the same. However copper would be more expensive than fiber. longweekend58 wrote on Mar 1st, 2013 at 8:48am: In september FTTH ends and FTTN begins I wouldn't put money on that.

granted... it might take until december. but the NBN as it is currently deployed is over. they know it as does everyone else. and FTTN will be put in place at 1/4 the cost and ten years ahead of schedule. A win for everyone.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 1^st, 2013 at 10:43am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 1st, 2013 at 8:56am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 1st, 2013 at 8:48am: laying fibre is no cheaper than copper. l I think you'll find that 'LAYING" either costs roughly the same. However copper would be more expensive than fiber. longweekend58 wrote on Mar 1st, 2013 at 8:48am: In september FTTH ends and FTTN begins I wouldn't put money on that. granted... it might take until december. but the NBN as it is currently deployed is over. they know it as does everyone else. and FTTN will be put in place at 1/4 the cost and ten years ahead of schedule. A win for everyone.

1/4 of the cost would be 8-10 billion.

10 years ahead of schedule would be 2011.

As for the nbn being over - any contracts they enter in to (some until 2015/2015) may have to be fulfilled - unless the coalition want to pay billions in penalties.

If I was Mike Quigley I would sign companies up until the end of the roll out and then watch the coalition try to get out of the contracts.

Unless they have a copper network and a time machine, they won't be able to fulfill this promise.

The copper network which they will either buy from Telstra is worth about $20 billion.

As for the time frame - fttn could be finished by 2019 - wow a whole 2 years ahead of ftth, with 3/4 of the cost.

I wonder what type of speed their promising - maybe I should make a fttn speed bingo card?

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 28^th, 2013 at 4:48am:

The slowdown in new subscribers in other countries could also be that ppl are waking up to them and their corruption thanks to questions being asked and leveson enquiry and questions being asked. No such thing is happening here and questions are actively discouraged. the sheep must not be allowed to wake up. SOB

It's not pay tv: he's keeping Australia a quarry!

fttn is boat anchor techology: china said so!

Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Mar 1^st, 2013 at 11:12am:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 1st, 2013 at 10:43am: Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 1st, 2013 at 8:56am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 1st, 2013 at 8:48am: laying fibre is no cheaper than copper. l I think you'll find that 'LAYING" either costs roughly the same. However copper would be more expensive than fiber. longweekend58 wrote on Mar 1st, 2013 at 8:48am: In september FTTH ends and FTTN begins I wouldn't put money on that. granted... it might take until december. but the NBN as it is currently deployed is over. they know it as does everyone else. and FTTN will be put in place at 1/4 the cost and ten years ahead of schedule. A win for everyone. 1/4 of the cost would be 8-10 billion. 10 years ahead of schedule would be 2011. Like you expected the NBN to be finished by 2011??  every month they fall further behind. they have so far passed 72000 premises out of 12.2million in just over 4 years. not good. As for the nbn being over - any contracts they enter in to (some until 2015/2015) may have to be fulfilled - unless the coalition want to pay billions in penalties. If I was Mike Quigley I would sign companies up until the end of the roll out and then watch the coalition try to get out of the contracts. Thats the advantage of being in govt. you can pass legislation specifically to void contracts like that. Rudd cancelled many Howard contracts. thats the prerogative of being in govt. get used to it! Unless they have a copper network and a time machine, they won't be able to fulfill this promise. The copper network which they will either buy from Telstra is worth about $20 billion. As for the time frame - fttn could be finished by 2019 - wow a whole 2 years ahead of ftth, with 3/4 of the cost. wrong again. it will be finished a decade ahead of the NBN at 1/4 the cost. and BTW. the copper is already there! I wonder what type of speed their promising - maybe I should make a fttn speed bingo card?

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 1^st, 2013 at 10:43am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 1st, 2013 at 8:56am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 1st, 2013 at 8:48am: laying fibre is no cheaper than copper. l I think you'll find that 'LAYING" either costs roughly the same. However copper would be more expensive than fiber. longweekend58 wrote on Mar 1st, 2013 at 8:48am: In september FTTH ends and FTTN begins I wouldn't put money on that. granted... it might take until december. but the NBN as it is currently deployed is over. they know it as does everyone else. and FTTN will be put in place at 1/4 the cost and ten years ahead of schedule. A win for everyone.

If FTTP stops at all, it certainly won't stop in September. Or December. Turnbull says all current contracts will be honoured, and the current FTTP contracts will run for at least another 2 years. 4 with any luck.

As to cost and time...

You have already been corrected on the cost. Even if Telstra give NBN Co their copper for free (extremely unlikely), then the cost of FTTN will be at least $19bn, plus what has already been spent/contracted on the FTTP rollout.

And considering it's already 2013, and the FTTP build is scheduled to be complete in June 2021, I'd love to know how FTTN could be completed 10 years earlier unless they have access to a time machine.  ;D

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 1^st, 2013 at 4:05pm:

1/4 of the cost would be 8-10 billion. 10 years ahead of schedule would be 2011. Like you expected the NBN to be finished by 2011??  every month they fall further behind. they have so far passed 72000 premises out of 12.2million in just over 4 years. not good. You said "scheduled" completion. The NBN is scheduled to be complete in 2021. They have not been building it for 4 years. They only let the construction contracts in mid-late 2011. The NBN is currently under construction for 784,000 premises and they have not changed their assessment. The 2012 Corp plan said 286,000pp by 6/2013, and that is still the projection. As for the nbn being over - any contracts they enter in to (some until 2015/2015) may have to be fulfilled - unless the coalition want to pay billions in penalties. If I was Mike Quigley I would sign companies up until the end of the roll out and then watch the coalition try to get out of the contracts. Thats the advantage of being in govt. you can pass legislation specifically to void contracts like that. Rudd cancelled many Howard contracts. thats the prerogative of being in govt. get used to it! Firstly, Turnbull has already said they would honour existing construction contracts. Secondly, they won't have control of the senate and will therefore be unable to enact such legislation. Thirdly, are you seriously advocating the Govt passing legislation to specifically cancel legal contracts with companies without paying any compensation probably sending many of them to the wall considering they will have spent millions of dollars and employed thousands of people on the basis of their contracts? Unless they have a copper network and a time machine, they won't be able to fulfill this promise. The copper network which they will either buy from Telstra is worth about $20 billion. As for the time frame - fttn could be finished by 2019 - wow a whole 2 years ahead of ftth, with 3/4 of the cost. wrong again. it will be finished a decade ahead of the NBN at 1/4 the cost. and BTW. the copper is already there! It's there, but NBN Co don't own it. Telstra do. Do you expect them to give it away for free, or do you expect the Coalition to pass legislation to nationalise it? Citigroup costed the Coalition's FTTN plan last year at $16.9bn (not including satellites, buying copper from Telstra or FTTP build so far)

double post

NBNMyths wrote on Mar 1^st, 2013 at 4:15pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 1st, 2013 at 10:43am: Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 1st, 2013 at 8:56am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 1st, 2013 at 8:48am: laying fibre is no cheaper than copper. l I think you'll find that 'LAYING" either costs roughly the same. However copper would be more expensive than fiber. longweekend58 wrote on Mar 1st, 2013 at 8:48am: In september FTTH ends and FTTN begins I wouldn't put money on that. granted... it might take until december. but the NBN as it is currently deployed is over. they know it as does everyone else. and FTTN will be put in place at 1/4 the cost and ten years ahead of schedule. A win for everyone. If FTTP stops at all, it certainly won't stop in September. Or December. Turnbull says all current contracts will be honoured, and the current FTTP contracts will run for at least another 2 years. 4 with any luck. As to cost and time... You have already been corrected on the cost. Even if Telstra give NBN Co their copper for free (extremely unlikely), then the cost of FTTN will be at least $19bn, plus what has already been spent/contracted on the FTTP rollout. And considering it's already 2013, and the FTTP build is scheduled to be complete in June 2021, I'd love to know how FTTN could be completed 10 years earlier unless they have access to a time machine.  ;D

pretty easy... FTTP would not have been completed by 2021 or anywhere near it. they fall further behind each and every day. 2031 is more like it.

anyhow I dont care. come election time the NBN will be changing very very quickly. And Rudd said the same thing about honouring contracts before the 2007 election and then tore them all up as soon as he took office. expect the same. In fact the NBN have already been formally notified by Turnball that they are required by law to advise their contractors that they coalition intends to change them.

get over it. FTTH is coming... HAHA!

NBNMyths wrote on Mar 1^st, 2013 at 4:30pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 1st, 2013 at 4:05pm: 1/4 of the cost would be 8-10 billion. 10 years ahead of schedule would be 2011. Like you expected the NBN to be finished by 2011??  every month they fall further behind. they have so far passed 72000 premises out of 12.2million in just over 4 years. not good. You said "scheduled" completion. The NBN is scheduled to be complete in 2021. They have not been building it for 4 years. They only let the construction contracts in mid-late 2011. The NBN is currently under construction for 784,000 premises and they have not changed their assessment. The 2012 Corp plan said 286,000pp by 6/2013, and that is still the projection. As for the nbn being over - any contracts they enter in to (some until 2015/2015) may have to be fulfilled - unless the coalition want to pay billions in penalties. If I was Mike Quigley I would sign companies up until the end of the roll out and then watch the coalition try to get out of the contracts. Thats the advantage of being in govt. you can pass legislation specifically to void contracts like that. Rudd cancelled many Howard contracts. thats the prerogative of being in govt. get used to it! Firstly, Turnbull has already said they would honour existing construction contracts. Secondly, they won't have control of the senate and will therefore be unable to enact such legislation. Thirdly, are you seriously advocating the Govt passing legislation to specifically cancel legal contracts with companies without paying any compensation probably sending many of them to the wall considering they will have spent millions of dollars and employed thousands of people on the basis of their contracts? Unless they have a copper network and a time machine, they won't be able to fulfill this promise. The copper network which they will either buy from Telstra is worth about $20 billion. As for the time frame - fttn could be finished by 2019 - wow a whole 2 years ahead of ftth, with 3/4 of the cost. wrong again. it will be finished a decade ahead of the NBN at 1/4 the cost. and BTW. the copper is already there! It's there, but NBN Co don't own it. Telstra do. Do you expect them to give it away for free, or do you expect the Coalition to pass legislation to nationalise it? Citigroup costed the Coalition's FTTN plan last year at $16.9bn (not including satellites, buying copper from Telstra or FTTP build so far)

you are just a paid NBN poster. yrou opinions are worthless and certainly poorly put together in light of polticial history. the govt can cancel many of these contracts without legislation just as Rudd did.

and they dont have to buy Telstras copper. What are Telstra going to do> disconnect it?

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 1^st, 2013 at 4:56pm:

pretty easy... FTTP would not have been completed by 2021 or anywhere near it. they fall further behind each and every day. 2031 is more like it. anyhow I dont care. come election time the NBN will be changing very very quickly. And Rudd said the same thing about honouring contracts before the 2007 election and then tore them all up as soon as he took office. expect the same. In fact the NBN have already been formally notified by Turnball that they are required by law to advise their contractors that they coalition intends to change them. get over it. FTTH is coming... HAHA!

Actually, the rollout is doing quite well at present. Although they are behind in WA, SA and NT, they are ahead in NSW, ACT, VIC, TAS and QLD so overall are on track to meet their June 2013 target of passing 286,000 premises.

Turnbull might like NBN Co to put outs in the contracts, but they are under no obligation to do so. NBN Co are most certainly not required to tell contractors that the coalition will change the policy. Their only legal obligation as a GBE is to carry out the orders of the Government of the day. Where do you get this rubbish?
http://delimiter.com.au/2013/02/07/caretaker-mode-no-nbn-co-should-go-hog-wild/

Oh, and FTTH (Fibre To The Home) is coming you say? Woohoo.  ;D



longweekend58 wrote on Mar 1^st, 2013 at 4:58pm:

you are just a paid NBN poster. yrou opinions are worthless and certainly poorly put together in light of polticial history. the govt can cancel many of these contracts without legislation just as Rudd did. and they dont have to buy Telstras copper. What are Telstra going to do> disconnect it?

1. I absolutely am not a paid NBN poster. I'm a firefighter FFS. My identity and employment (unlike yours) is on the public record.

2. Rudd cancelled the OPEL contracts because OPEL were not meeting their contract obligations. Simple.

As for your Telstra comment....Seriously? You are advocating NBN Co forcibly take possession of Telstra's copper without paying for it? I think that's called theft and I imagine a few judges might have a differing opinion to yours. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you make such patently ridiculous statements?

You can't honestly believe the Coalition will take a policy to the election of stealing the assets of a public company?

longlooser always makes comments on subjects he has no idea about ....

he actually believes the govt. can just pass a law to scrap contracts? and he claims he's in business?

and his other comment  .. he thinks Abbott will just take the copper network of telstra? is that how he sees the libs gaining a surplus perhaps? by selling it back to Telstra in another few years?

longlooser, even if the govt. could do all that you claim, and I don't believe it for a minute ... it would be the death knell of the govt. .... how do you expect any company to ever commit to anything with any govt. department again?

NBNMyths wrote on Mar 1^st, 2013 at 8:12pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 1st, 2013 at 4:56pm: pretty easy... FTTP would not have been completed by 2021 or anywhere near it. they fall further behind each and every day. 2031 is more like it. anyhow I dont care. come election time the NBN will be changing very very quickly. And Rudd said the same thing about honouring contracts before the 2007 election and then tore them all up as soon as he took office. expect the same. In fact the NBN have already been formally notified by Turnball that they are required by law to advise their contractors that they coalition intends to change them. get over it. FTTH is coming... HAHA! Actually, the rollout is doing quite well at present. Although they are behind in WA, SA and NT, they are ahead in NSW, ACT, VIC, TAS and QLD so overall are on track to meet their June 2013 target of passing 286,000 premises. Turnbull might like NBN Co to put outs in the contracts, but they are under no obligation to do so. NBN Co are most certainly not required to tell contractors that the coalition will change the policy. Their only legal obligation as a GBE is to carry out the orders of the Government of the day. Where do you get this rubbish? http://delimiter.com.au/2013/02/07/caretaker-mode-no-nbn-co-should-go-hog-wild/ Oh, and FTTH (Fibre To The Home) is coming you say? Woohoo.  ;D longweekend58 wrote on Mar 1st, 2013 at 4:58pm: you are just a paid NBN poster. yrou opinions are worthless and certainly poorly put together in light of polticial history. the govt can cancel many of these contracts without legislation just as Rudd did. and they dont have to buy Telstras copper. What are Telstra going to do> disconnect it? 1. I absolutely am not a paid NBN poster. I'm a firefighter FFS. My identity and employment (unlike yours) is on the public record. 2. Rudd cancelled the OPEL contracts because OPEL were not meeting their contract obligations. Simple. As for your Telstra comment....Seriously? You are advocating NBN Co forcibly take possession of Telstra's copper without paying for it? I think that's called theft and I imagine a few judges might have a differing opinion to yours. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you make such patently ridiculous statements? You can't honestly believe the Coalition will take a policy to the election of stealing the assets of a public company?

so is NBNMYTHS your first or last name?? What does it mean that you name is on public record as if no one else's isnt??? you are as anonymous as the rest of us.

and I look forward to the NBN being converted to FTTN if only to shaft the arrogant like you.

John Smith wrote on Mar 1^st, 2013 at 10:07pm:

longlooser always makes comments on subjects he has no idea about .... he actually believes the govt. can just pass a law to scrap contracts? and he claims he's in business? and his other comment  .. he thinks Abbott will just take the copper network of telstra? is that how he sees the libs gaining a surplus perhaps? by selling it back to Telstra in another few years? longlooser, even if the govt. could do all that you claim, and I don't believe it for a minute ... it would be the death knell of the govt. .... how do you expect any company to ever commit to anything with any govt. department again?

Rudd cancelled all the broadband contracts when he took office. he also cancelled a lot of water contracts. Do you think this is news? The NBN has been told they are to tell their contractors that there wil be a change of govt and a change of technology. And if they want to keep their jobs on Sept 15 they would do well to abide by that. Quigley is already saying NBN needs to investigate alternative technologies. he has obviously seen what is coming.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 7:38am:

so is NBNMYTHS your first or last name?? What does it mean that you name is on public record as if no one else's isnt??? you are as anonymous as the rest of us. and I look forward to the NBN being converted to FTTN if only to shaft the arrogant like you.

Perhaps if you looked at the about page at the NBNmyths site. Not really difficult, is it?
http://nbnmyths.wordpress.com/about/

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 7:41am:

John Smith wrote on Mar 1st, 2013 at 10:07pm: longlooser always makes comments on subjects he has no idea about .... he actually believes the govt. can just pass a law to scrap contracts? and he claims he's in business? and his other comment  .. he thinks Abbott will just take the copper network of telstra? is that how he sees the libs gaining a surplus perhaps? by selling it back to Telstra in another few years? longlooser, even if the govt. could do all that you claim, and I don't believe it for a minute ... it would be the death knell of the govt. .... how do you expect any company to ever commit to anything with any govt. department again? Rudd cancelled all the broadband contracts when he took office. he also cancelled a lot of water contracts. Do you think this is news? The NBN has been told they are to tell their contractors that there wil be a change of govt and a change of technology. And if they want to keep their jobs on Sept 15 they would do well to abide by that. Quigley is already saying NBN needs to investigate alternative technologies. he has obviously seen what is coming.

What Turnbull says NBN Co "have to do" and what they actually have to do are completely different things. There is no obligation for NBN Co to do anything of the sort. None. Zip. Zero. Zilch. They can sign an FTTP contract to the end of the rollout if they want to.

There is not even any certainty that there will be a change in technology, because Turnbull says that (even though he believes FTTN is the way to go), he won't change anything until the PC does a CBA of the different options available.

Oh, and Mr Quigley did not say that at all.

I can only imagine what you'd be saying if the ALP were proposing to forcibly nationalise the assets of a public company, yet you're advocating the Coalition actually do so. It's remarkable. :o


So how about you stop talking out of your @rse, creating policies and rules that not only don't exist, but don't even follow basic common law or the stated policies of your preferred bunch of political rabble.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 7:41am:

John Smith wrote on Mar 1st, 2013 at 10:07pm: longlooser always makes comments on subjects he has no idea about .... he actually believes the govt. can just pass a law to scrap contracts? and he claims he's in business? and his other comment  .. he thinks Abbott will just take the copper network of telstra? is that how he sees the libs gaining a surplus perhaps? by selling it back to Telstra in another few years? longlooser, even if the govt. could do all that you claim, and I don't believe it for a minute ... it would be the death knell of the govt. .... how do you expect any company to ever commit to anything with any govt. department again? Rudd cancelled all the broadband contracts when he took office. he also cancelled a lot of water contracts. Do you think this is news? The NBN has been told they are to tell their contractors that there wil be a change of govt and a change of technology. And if they want to keep their jobs on Sept 15 they would do well to abide by that. Quigley is already saying NBN needs to investigate alternative technologies. he has obviously seen what is coming.

Rudd cancelled the contracts because the companies contracted were not keeping to the terms of the contract.  Not the same thing.

NBNMyths wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 8:01am:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 7:38am: so is NBNMYTHS your first or last name?? What does it mean that you name is on public record as if no one else's isnt??? you are as anonymous as the rest of us. and I look forward to the NBN being converted to FTTN if only to shaft the arrogant like you. Perhaps if you looked at the about page at the NBNmyths site. Not really difficult, is it? http://nbnmyths.wordpress.com/about/

Nice retainer from NBN Co no doubt on this one.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 9:04am:

NBNMyths wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 8:01am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 7:38am: so is NBNMYTHS your first or last name?? What does it mean that you name is on public record as if no one else's isnt??? you are as anonymous as the rest of us. and I look forward to the NBN being converted to FTTN if only to shaft the arrogant like you. Perhaps if you looked at the about page at the NBNmyths site. Not really difficult, is it? http://nbnmyths.wordpress.com/about/ Nice retainer from NBN Co no doubt on this one.

As I've written several times, I do not and have never received any payment of any kind for that site or anything else I have ever done in relation to the NBN.

Sorry if your right-wing ideology prevents you from believing that someone would make any effort to do anything without being paid for it.  ::)

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 28^th, 2013 at 10:28am:

If you want a programme to pay for itself, you roll it out where it makes the most economic sense. Rolling it out first to people who live in the middle of fking nowhere makes no sense whatsoever. You should have a 2 tier system with the capital cities receiving the most expensive, fastest network and then the countryside receiving it later on down the track when the additional capital can afford to do it. Rolling it out to the hillbillies who live about 5 miles from each neighbour makes no economic sense whatsoever. Honestly, I don't think public servants ever have the first clue as to how to run something within budget.

That's why those people will be serviced by wireless or satellite. 93% of houses are slated for connection by fibre, which is a very similar percentage to the number of people who live in urban areas.  fancy that.  Did you really think anyone would be so reckless as to spend $50,000 laying fibre to a handful of houses?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 9:04am:

NBNMyths wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 8:01am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 7:38am: so is NBNMYTHS your first or last name?? What does it mean that you name is on public record as if no one else's isnt??? you are as anonymous as the rest of us. and I look forward to the NBN being converted to FTTN if only to shaft the arrogant like you. Perhaps if you looked at the about page at the NBNmyths site. Not really difficult, is it? http://nbnmyths.wordpress.com/about/ Nice retainer from NBN Co no doubt on this one.

he's put himself out there, you haven't ... I'd say there is more chance that it is you on the retainer ... it would be typical of the libs to outsource to o'seas cretins ... do you type with an indian accent?

John Smith wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 9:13am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 9:04am: NBNMyths wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 8:01am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 7:38am: so is NBNMYTHS your first or last name?? What does it mean that you name is on public record as if no one else's isnt??? you are as anonymous as the rest of us. and I look forward to the NBN being converted to FTTN if only to shaft the arrogant like you. Perhaps if you looked at the about page at the NBNmyths site. Not really difficult, is it? http://nbnmyths.wordpress.com/about/ Nice retainer from NBN Co no doubt on this one. he's put himself out there, you haven't ... I'd say there is more chance that it is you on the retainer ... it would be typical of the libs to outsource to o'seas cretins ... do you type with an indian accent?

I have no party allegiance whatsoever.
I am no pro-Liberal than I am pro-Labor.

Unlike you who seems to take a stance defending the ALP often - are you not a supporter of them?

Indians? No thanks. Though I do chat to the cleaners here about cricket now and again. But some of them are Pakistani.

NBNMyths wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 9:12am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 9:04am: NBNMyths wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 8:01am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 7:38am: so is NBNMYTHS your first or last name?? What does it mean that you name is on public record as if no one else's isnt??? you are as anonymous as the rest of us. and I look forward to the NBN being converted to FTTN if only to shaft the arrogant like you. Perhaps if you looked at the about page at the NBNmyths site. Not really difficult, is it? http://nbnmyths.wordpress.com/about/ Nice retainer from NBN Co no doubt on this one. As I've written several times, I do not and have never received any payment of any kind for that site or anything else I have ever done in relation to the NBN. Sorry if your right-wing ideology prevents you from believing that someone would make any effort to do anything without being paid for it.  ::)

It's ok nothing wrong with it.
In Washington as a global oil company we have guys doing the same kind of work as you.

Though they declare themselves as lobbyists and also declare that they receive $250,000 from us to do it.

Lobbying - which is what you are doing - is part of the game.

To quote my CEO "It's what makes this the greatest country in the world".

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 9:21am:

It's ok nothing wrong with it. In Washington as a global oil company... Lobbying - which is what you are doing - is part of the game. To quote my CEO "It's what makes this the greatest country in the world".

Yep, I dream of living in a country where public policy is dictated by global oil companies, rather that what may be the best policy for the country and its citizens.

The ridiculous self-serving political lobbying is one of the things that has put the US in the dire social and financial position it is in today. It is abhorrent.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 9:21am:

To quote my CEO "It's what makes this the greatest country in the world".

I thought it was THIS ?


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/02/18/article-0-17A627B2000005DC-65_634x463.jpg


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2280334/All-Around-Pizza-Virginia-Beach-offers-15-percent-discount-gun-owners.html

John Smith wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 9:13am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 9:04am: NBNMyths wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 8:01am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 7:38am: so is NBNMYTHS your first or last name?? What does it mean that you name is on public record as if no one else's isnt??? you are as anonymous as the rest of us. and I look forward to the NBN being converted to FTTN if only to shaft the arrogant like you. Perhaps if you looked at the about page at the NBNmyths site. Not really difficult, is it? http://nbnmyths.wordpress.com/about/ Nice retainer from NBN Co no doubt on this one. he's put himself out there, you haven't ... I'd say there is more chance that it is you on the retainer ... it would be typical of the libs to outsource to o'seas cretins ... do you type with an indian accent?

so he put his name out there... apart from being less than clever what does it prove?  he is after all a firefighter - not an IT guy. Plus his argument is the same as every other pro-NBN goon. the money simply doesnt matter. Its always more fun spending other peoples money.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 11:49am:

John Smith wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 9:13am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 9:04am: NBNMyths wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 8:01am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 7:38am: so is NBNMYTHS your first or last name?? What does it mean that you name is on public record as if no one else's isnt??? you are as anonymous as the rest of us. and I look forward to the NBN being converted to FTTN if only to shaft the arrogant like you. Perhaps if you looked at the about page at the NBNmyths site. Not really difficult, is it? http://nbnmyths.wordpress.com/about/ Nice retainer from NBN Co no doubt on this one. he's put himself out there, you haven't ... I'd say there is more chance that it is you on the retainer ... it would be typical of the libs to outsource to o'seas cretins ... do you type with an indian accent? so he put his name out there... apart from being less than clever what does it prove?  he is after all a firefighter - not an IT guy. Plus his argument is the same as every other pro-NBN goon. the money simply doesnt matter. Its always more fun spending other peoples money.

for starters it proves he has some integrity and is willing to stand up for what he believes ... unlike you ... the fact that he is a firefighter does not mean he does not know what he is talking about ... he certainly makes more sense than you ... you'd do well to take note, you may learn a thing or two

but you are right about one thing .. the money simply does not matter .... why is that difficult for you to understand? When you borrow $500 000 to buy a house does that pay for itself? and yet milllions of people do it. ... The argument about money would have stopped every major infrastructure project ever funded by government ... the problem is we are a very big country and the private sector is simply not going to come to the party, haven't you learn't anything from watching Telstra sit on it's arse for the last 10 yrs ..... government has to take up the slack or we fall behind the rest of the world. Whatever the govt. spends now will be recouped 10 times over over the next few decades ....

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 11:49am:

Plus his argument is the same as every other pro-NBN goon. the money simply doesnt matter. Its always more fun spending other peoples money.

But it still needs to be done.  Business and society are only growing more reliant on networking, and the old copper infrastructure just doesn't have the capacity to handle it.  Failure to improve in this area will only see us fall further behind.  Then, when we finally realise that and inevitably decide we do need to upgrade, will it be any cheaper and easier to do than it is now?  Probably not. 

So whaddya do? 

John Smith wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 11:58am:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 11:49am: John Smith wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 9:13am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 9:04am: NBNMyths wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 8:01am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 7:38am: so is NBNMYTHS your first or last name?? What does it mean that you name is on public record as if no one else's isnt??? you are as anonymous as the rest of us. and I look forward to the NBN being converted to FTTN if only to shaft the arrogant like you. Perhaps if you looked at the about page at the NBNmyths site. Not really difficult, is it? http://nbnmyths.wordpress.com/about/ Nice retainer from NBN Co no doubt on this one. he's put himself out there, you haven't ... I'd say there is more chance that it is you on the retainer ... it would be typical of the libs to outsource to o'seas cretins ... do you type with an indian accent? so he put his name out there... apart from being less than clever what does it prove?  he is after all a firefighter - not an IT guy. Plus his argument is the same as every other pro-NBN goon. the money simply doesnt matter. Its always more fun spending other peoples money. for starters it proves he has some integrity and is willing to stand up for what he believes ... unlike you ... the fact that he is a firefighter does not mean he does not know what he is talking about ... he certainly makes more sense than you ... you'd do well to take note, you may learn a thing or two but you are right about one thing .. the money simply does not matter .... why is that difficult for you to understand? When you borrow $500 000 to buy a house does that pay for itself? and yet milllions of people do it. ... The argument about money would have stopped every major infrastructure project ever funded by government ... the problem is we are a very big country and the private sector is simply not going to come to the party, haven't you learn't anything from watching Telstra sit on it's arse for the last 10 yrs ..... government has to take up the slack or we fall behind the rest of the world. Whatever the govt. spends now will be recouped 10 times over over the next few decades ....

and there is the basic LABOR problem. We want a gold-plated NBN and bugger the cost and bugger the fact it may make a sizable loss for the next 30 years. where labor is concerned there is never a cost-benefit analysis, never any kind of oversight or planning that business does. all they ever do is spend. FTTN gives everyone the same performance as basic FTTH for 1/4 the cost.

Why not treat it like we do every other service that runs past your block of land? you want it? pay to be connected.  If you want 100Mbps, then pay to have your house wired up to the fibre going past,. Otherwise take the ADSL 2+ that everyone will have. it can even be a subsidised cost but if you ACTAULLY want or need that speed then you choose. Given everyone this level of service and then finding out (as found overseas) that less than 5% even choose the higher speed, higher price service.

... wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 11:58am:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 11:49am: Plus his argument is the same as every other pro-NBN goon. the money simply doesnt matter. Its always more fun spending other peoples money. But it still needs to be done.  Business and society are only growing more reliant on networking, and the old copper infrastructure just doesn't have the capacity to handle it.  Failure to improve in this area will only see us fall further behind.  Then, when we finally realise that and inevitably decide we do need to upgrade, will it be any cheaper and easier to do than it is now?  Probably not.  So whaddya do?

the copper NETWORK is still being replaced regardless. it is about fiber network to the node and copper for the last few hundred metres. thatis where all the cost does - wiring up every building in the country regardless of need or want. why not make it an optional service?

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 12:17pm:

... wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 11:58am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 11:49am: Plus his argument is the same as every other pro-NBN goon. the money simply doesnt matter. Its always more fun spending other peoples money. But it still needs to be done.  Business and society are only growing more reliant on networking, and the old copper infrastructure just doesn't have the capacity to handle it.  Failure to improve in this area will only see us fall further behind.  Then, when we finally realise that and inevitably decide we do need to upgrade, will it be any cheaper and easier to do than it is now?  Probably not.  So whaddya do?  the copper NETWORK is still being replaced regardless. it is about fiber network to the node and copper for the last few hundred metres. thatis where all the cost does - wiring up every building in the country regardless of need or want. why not make it an optional service?

Why do it half arsed to save a few bucks?  It'll only need to be fixed up later.

... wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 12:25pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 12:17pm: ... wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 11:58am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 11:49am: Plus his argument is the same as every other pro-NBN goon. the money simply doesnt matter. Its always more fun spending other peoples money. But it still needs to be done.  Business and society are only growing more reliant on networking, and the old copper infrastructure just doesn't have the capacity to handle it.  Failure to improve in this area will only see us fall further behind.  Then, when we finally realise that and inevitably decide we do need to upgrade, will it be any cheaper and easier to do than it is now?  Probably not.  So whaddya do?  the copper NETWORK is still being replaced regardless. it is about fiber network to the node and copper for the last few hundred metres. thatis where all the cost does - wiring up every building in the country regardless of need or want. why not make it an optional service? Why do it half arsed to save a few bucks?  It'll only need to be fixed up later.

$25B and 10 years is hardly 'a few bucks'. and you make a good point. people could connect their homes to the fiber AS THEY NEEDED TO - as would business. That way the people who need it would have it and the people who don't wouldn't.

If you were asked to pay $350 to upgrade your ADSL 2+ to 100Mbps would you do it or not?

thats a serious question.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 12:16pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 11:58am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 11:49am: John Smith wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 9:13am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 9:04am: NBNMyths wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 8:01am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 7:38am: so is NBNMYTHS your first or last name?? What does it mean that you name is on public record as if no one else's isnt??? you are as anonymous as the rest of us. and I look forward to the NBN being converted to FTTN if only to shaft the arrogant like you. Perhaps if you looked at the about page at the NBNmyths site. Not really difficult, is it? http://nbnmyths.wordpress.com/about/ Nice retainer from NBN Co no doubt on this one. he's put himself out there, you haven't ... I'd say there is more chance that it is you on the retainer ... it would be typical of the libs to outsource to o'seas cretins ... do you type with an indian accent? so he put his name out there... apart from being less than clever what does it prove?  he is after all a firefighter - not an IT guy. Plus his argument is the same as every other pro-NBN goon. the money simply doesnt matter. Its always more fun spending other peoples money. for starters it proves he has some integrity and is willing to stand up for what he believes ... unlike you ... the fact that he is a firefighter does not mean he does not know what he is talking about ... he certainly makes more sense than you ... you'd do well to take note, you may learn a thing or two but you are right about one thing .. the money simply does not matter .... why is that difficult for you to understand? When you borrow $500 000 to buy a house does that pay for itself? and yet milllions of people do it. ... The argument about money would have stopped every major infrastructure project ever funded by government ... the problem is we are a very big country and the private sector is simply not going to come to the party, haven't you learn't anything from watching Telstra sit on it's arse for the last 10 yrs ..... government has to take up the slack or we fall behind the rest of the world. Whatever the govt. spends now will be recouped 10 times over over the next few decades .... and there is the basic LABOR problem. We want a gold-plated NBN and bugger the cost and bugger the fact it may make a sizable loss for the next 30 years. where labor is concerned there is never a cost-benefit analysis, never any kind of oversight or planning that business does. all they ever do is spend. FTTN gives everyone the same performance as basic FTTH for 1/4 the cost. Why not treat it like we do every other service that runs past your block of land? you want it? pay to be connected.  If you want 100Mbps, then pay to have your house wired up to the fibre going past,. Otherwise take the ADSL 2+ that everyone will have. it can even be a subsidised cost but if you ACTAULLY want or need that speed then you choose. Given everyone this level of service and then finding out (as found overseas) that less than 5% even choose the higher speed, higher price service.

what this gold plaited rubbish? you cannot win your argument on it's merits so try to make it sound worse by exagerating everything., ... there is nothing gold plated about the NBN ... it simply uses the best available method ... considering it needs to last for probably as long as the copper wire system has been in place, there is no point in wasting money on technology or methodology that is already obsolete....   maybe before you compare prices you need to get the libs to actually come clean on what their system will cost ....

if it costs $34B how much can the govt. expect to sell it for in 10 or 20 yrs time?

Yeah I would, but I'm paying for it through taxes anyway. 

... wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 12:53pm:

Yeah I would, but I'm paying for it through taxes anyway.

but you are paying for it to go to 12.2million places. how about if you didnt need to pay for them at all?

... wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 12:53pm:

Yeah I would, but I'm paying for it through taxes anyway.

so you are saying 100Mbps is not important enough for you to pay $350 to connect to?

John Smith wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 12:47pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 12:16pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 11:58am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 11:49am: John Smith wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 9:13am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 9:04am: NBNMyths wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 8:01am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 7:38am: so is NBNMYTHS your first or last name?? What does it mean that you name is on public record as if no one else's isnt??? you are as anonymous as the rest of us. and I look forward to the NBN being converted to FTTN if only to shaft the arrogant like you. Perhaps if you looked at the about page at the NBNmyths site. Not really difficult, is it? http://nbnmyths.wordpress.com/about/ Nice retainer from NBN Co no doubt on this one. he's put himself out there, you haven't ... I'd say there is more chance that it is you on the retainer ... it would be typical of the libs to outsource to o'seas cretins ... do you type with an indian accent? so he put his name out there... apart from being less than clever what does it prove?  he is after all a firefighter - not an IT guy. Plus his argument is the same as every other pro-NBN goon. the money simply doesnt matter. Its always more fun spending other peoples money. for starters it proves he has some integrity and is willing to stand up for what he believes ... unlike you ... the fact that he is a firefighter does not mean he does not know what he is talking about ... he certainly makes more sense than you ... you'd do well to take note, you may learn a thing or two but you are right about one thing .. the money simply does not matter .... why is that difficult for you to understand? When you borrow $500 000 to buy a house does that pay for itself? and yet milllions of people do it. ... The argument about money would have stopped every major infrastructure project ever funded by government ... the problem is we are a very big country and the private sector is simply not going to come to the party, haven't you learn't anything from watching Telstra sit on it's arse for the last 10 yrs ..... government has to take up the slack or we fall behind the rest of the world. Whatever the govt. spends now will be recouped 10 times over over the next few decades .... and there is the basic LABOR problem. We want a gold-plated NBN and bugger the cost and bugger the fact it may make a sizable loss for the next 30 years. where labor is concerned there is never a cost-benefit analysis, never any kind of oversight or planning that business does. all they ever do is spend. FTTN gives everyone the same performance as basic FTTH for 1/4 the cost. Why not treat it like we do every other service that runs past your block of land? you want it? pay to be connected.  If you want 100Mbps, then pay to have your house wired up to the fibre going past,. Otherwise take the ADSL 2+ that everyone will have. it can even be a subsidised cost but if you ACTAULLY want or need that speed then you choose. Given everyone this level of service and then finding out (as found overseas) that less than 5% even choose the higher speed, higher price service. what this gold plaited rubbish? you cannot win your argument on it's merits so try to make it sound worse by exagerating everything., ... there is nothing gold plated about the NBN ... it simply uses the best available method ... considering it needs to last for probably as long as the copper wire system has been in place, there is no point in wasting money on technology or methodology that is already obsolete....   maybe before you compare prices you need to get the libs to actually come clean on what their system will cost .... if it costs $34B how much can the govt. expect to sell it for in 10 or 20 yrs time?

what do you think 'best available' is??? gold-plating.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 2:25pm:

... wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 12:53pm: Yeah I would, but I'm paying for it through taxes anyway.  but you are paying for it to go to 12.2million places. how about if you didnt need to pay for them at all?

It's like roads - we don't pay for sealing only the street we live on, we expect that wherever feasible, the roads should be sealed.  It's vital infrastructure. In very remote areas the roads aren't sealed, but cable wouldn't be laid to these places.  They'd be serviced by wireless or satellite.


longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 2:26pm:

Robert Paulson wrote Today at 12:53pm: Yeah I would, but I'm paying for it through taxes anyway. so you are saying 100Mbps is not important enough for you to pay $350 to connect to?

 
How did you manage to read "yeah I would" as "no I wouldn't?"

... wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 2:39pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 2:25pm: ... wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 12:53pm: Yeah I would, but I'm paying for it through taxes anyway.  but you are paying for it to go to 12.2million places. how about if you didnt need to pay for them at all? It's like roads - we don't pay for sealing only the street we live on, we expect that wherever feasible, the roads should be sealed.  It's vital infrastructure. In very remote areas the roads aren't sealed, but cable wouldn't be laid to these places.  They'd be serviced by wireless or satellite. longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 2:26pm: Robert Paulson wrote Today at 12:53pm: Yeah I would, but I'm paying for it through taxes anyway. so you are saying 100Mbps is not important enough for you to pay $350 to connect to?   How did you manage to read "yeah I would" as "no I wouldn't?"

poor analogy. try gas pipes. gas goes past everyone's house. it doesnt go into mine because I dont need or want gas. Why isnt the govt putting gas all through my house in case I decide to use gas alter on... or not?

simply because it would be a waste of time and money. When I want gas, I pay to be connected. When i want 100Mps internet instead of the standard 12mps then I pay to be connected to the node by fiber.  it aint rocket science. it is however, economics. Every gets what they need.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 2:27pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 12:47pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 12:16pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 11:58am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 11:49am: John Smith wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 9:13am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 9:04am: NBNMyths wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 8:01am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 7:38am: so is NBNMYTHS your first or last name?? What does it mean that you name is on public record as if no one else's isnt??? you are as anonymous as the rest of us. and I look forward to the NBN being converted to FTTN if only to shaft the arrogant like you. Perhaps if you looked at the about page at the NBNmyths site. Not really difficult, is it? http://nbnmyths.wordpress.com/about/ Nice retainer from NBN Co no doubt on this one. he's put himself out there, you haven't ... I'd say there is more chance that it is you on the retainer ... it would be typical of the libs to outsource to o'seas cretins ... do you type with an indian accent? so he put his name out there... apart from being less than clever what does it prove?  he is after all a firefighter - not an IT guy. Plus his argument is the same as every other pro-NBN goon. the money simply doesnt matter. Its always more fun spending other peoples money. for starters it proves he has some integrity and is willing to stand up for what he believes ... unlike you ... the fact that he is a firefighter does not mean he does not know what he is talking about ... he certainly makes more sense than you ... you'd do well to take note, you may learn a thing or two but you are right about one thing .. the money simply does not matter .... why is that difficult for you to understand? When you borrow $500 000 to buy a house does that pay for itself? and yet milllions of people do it. ... The argument about money would have stopped every major infrastructure project ever funded by government ... the problem is we are a very big country and the private sector is simply not going to come to the party, haven't you learn't anything from watching Telstra sit on it's arse for the last 10 yrs ..... government has to take up the slack or we fall behind the rest of the world. Whatever the govt. spends now will be recouped 10 times over over the next few decades .... and there is the basic LABOR problem. We want a gold-plated NBN and bugger the cost and bugger the fact it may make a sizable loss for the next 30 years. where labor is concerned there is never a cost-benefit analysis, never any kind of oversight or planning that business does. all they ever do is spend. FTTN gives everyone the same performance as basic FTTH for 1/4 the cost. Why not treat it like we do every other service that runs past your block of land? you want it? pay to be connected.  If you want 100Mbps, then pay to have your house wired up to the fibre going past,. Otherwise take the ADSL 2+ that everyone will have. it can even be a subsidised cost but if you ACTAULLY want or need that speed then you choose. Given everyone this level of service and then finding out (as found overseas) that less than 5% even choose the higher speed, higher price service. what this gold plaited rubbish? you cannot win your argument on it's merits so try to make it sound worse by exagerating everything., ... there is nothing gold plated about the NBN ... it simply uses the best available method ... considering it needs to last for probably as long as the copper wire system has been in place, there is no point in wasting money on technology or methodology that is already obsolete....   maybe before you compare prices you need to get the libs to actually come clean on what their system will cost .... if it costs $34B how much can the govt. expect to sell it for in 10 or 20 yrs time? what do you think 'best available' is??? gold-plating.

nope. ... gold plating isn't the best available ... it is additional to what is required, not because you need it to function better, but because you want it ... eg, if you were to gold plate your toilet seat, it is certainly not necessary to qualify as the best quality of toilet seat , in fact you can have a cheap $11 toilet seat from Bunnings and gold plate it  ...

John Smith wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 5:21pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 2:27pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 12:47pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 12:16pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 11:58am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 11:49am: John Smith wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 9:13am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 9:04am: NBNMyths wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 8:01am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 7:38am: so is NBNMYTHS your first or last name?? What does it mean that you name is on public record as if no one else's isnt??? you are as anonymous as the rest of us. and I look forward to the NBN being converted to FTTN if only to shaft the arrogant like you. Perhaps if you looked at the about page at the NBNmyths site. Not really difficult, is it? http://nbnmyths.wordpress.com/about/ Nice retainer from NBN Co no doubt on this one. he's put himself out there, you haven't ... I'd say there is more chance that it is you on the retainer ... it would be typical of the libs to outsource to o'seas cretins ... do you type with an indian accent? so he put his name out there... apart from being less than clever what does it prove?  he is after all a firefighter - not an IT guy. Plus his argument is the same as every other pro-NBN goon. the money simply doesnt matter. Its always more fun spending other peoples money. for starters it proves he has some integrity and is willing to stand up for what he believes ... unlike you ... the fact that he is a firefighter does not mean he does not know what he is talking about ... he certainly makes more sense than you ... you'd do well to take note, you may learn a thing or two but you are right about one thing .. the money simply does not matter .... why is that difficult for you to understand? When you borrow $500 000 to buy a house does that pay for itself? and yet milllions of people do it. ... The argument about money would have stopped every major infrastructure project ever funded by government ... the problem is we are a very big country and the private sector is simply not going to come to the party, haven't you learn't anything from watching Telstra sit on it's arse for the last 10 yrs ..... government has to take up the slack or we fall behind the rest of the world. Whatever the govt. spends now will be recouped 10 times over over the next few decades .... and there is the basic LABOR problem. We want a gold-plated NBN and bugger the cost and bugger the fact it may make a sizable loss for the next 30 years. where labor is concerned there is never a cost-benefit analysis, never any kind of oversight or planning that business does. all they ever do is spend. FTTN gives everyone the same performance as basic FTTH for 1/4 the cost. Why not treat it like we do every other service that runs past your block of land? you want it? pay to be connected.  If you want 100Mbps, then pay to have your house wired up to the fibre going past,. Otherwise take the ADSL 2+ that everyone will have. it can even be a subsidised cost but if you ACTAULLY want or need that speed then you choose. Given everyone this level of service and then finding out (as found overseas) that less than 5% even choose the higher speed, higher price service. what this gold plaited rubbish? you cannot win your argument on it's merits so try to make it sound worse by exagerating everything., ... there is nothing gold plated about the NBN ... it simply uses the best available method ... considering it needs to last for probably as long as the copper wire system has been in place, there is no point in wasting money on technology or methodology that is already obsolete....   maybe before you compare prices you need to get the libs to actually come clean on what their system will cost .... if it costs $34B how much can the govt. expect to sell it for in 10 or 20 yrs time? what do you think 'best available' is??? gold-plating. nope. ... gold plating isn't the best available ... it is additional to what is required, not because you need it to function better, but because you want it ... eg, if you were to gold plate your toilet seat, it is certainly not necessary to qualify as the best quality of toilet seat , in fact you can have a cheap $11 toilet seat from Bunnings and gold plate it  ...

now you are just being silly. so what was Gillard saying abotu gold-plating electricity infrastructure? Gold wires????

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 7:30pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 5:21pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 2:27pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 12:47pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 12:16pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 11:58am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 11:49am: John Smith wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 9:13am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 9:04am: NBNMyths wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 8:01am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 7:38am: so is NBNMYTHS your first or last name?? What does it mean that you name is on public record as if no one else's isnt??? you are as anonymous as the rest of us. and I look forward to the NBN being converted to FTTN if only to shaft the arrogant like you. Perhaps if you looked at the about page at the NBNmyths site. Not really difficult, is it? http://nbnmyths.wordpress.com/about/ Nice retainer from NBN Co no doubt on this one. he's put himself out there, you haven't ... I'd say there is more chance that it is you on the retainer ... it would be typical of the libs to outsource to o'seas cretins ... do you type with an indian accent? so he put his name out there... apart from being less than clever what does it prove?  he is after all a firefighter - not an IT guy. Plus his argument is the same as every other pro-NBN goon. the money simply doesnt matter. Its always more fun spending other peoples money. for starters it proves he has some integrity and is willing to stand up for what he believes ... unlike you ... the fact that he is a firefighter does not mean he does not know what he is talking about ... he certainly makes more sense than you ... you'd do well to take note, you may learn a thing or two but you are right about one thing .. the money simply does not matter .... why is that difficult for you to understand? When you borrow $500 000 to buy a house does that pay for itself? and yet milllions of people do it. ... The argument about money would have stopped every major infrastructure project ever funded by government ... the problem is we are a very big country and the private sector is simply not going to come to the party, haven't you learn't anything from watching Telstra sit on it's arse for the last 10 yrs ..... government has to take up the slack or we fall behind the rest of the world. Whatever the govt. spends now will be recouped 10 times over over the next few decades .... and there is the basic LABOR problem. We want a gold-plated NBN and bugger the cost and bugger the fact it may make a sizable loss for the next 30 years. where labor is concerned there is never a cost-benefit analysis, never any kind of oversight or planning that business does. all they ever do is spend. FTTN gives everyone the same performance as basic FTTH for 1/4 the cost. Why not treat it like we do every other service that runs past your block of land? you want it? pay to be connected.  If you want 100Mbps, then pay to have your house wired up to the fibre going past,. Otherwise take the ADSL 2+ that everyone will have. it can even be a subsidised cost but if you ACTAULLY want or need that speed then you choose. Given everyone this level of service and then finding out (as found overseas) that less than 5% even choose the higher speed, higher price service. what this gold plaited rubbish? you cannot win your argument on it's merits so try to make it sound worse by exagerating everything., ... there is nothing gold plated about the NBN ... it simply uses the best available method ... considering it needs to last for probably as long as the copper wire system has been in place, there is no point in wasting money on technology or methodology that is already obsolete....   maybe before you compare prices you need to get the libs to actually come clean on what their system will cost .... if it costs $34B how much can the govt. expect to sell it for in 10 or 20 yrs time? what do you think 'best available' is??? gold-plating. nope. ... gold plating isn't the best available ... it is additional to what is required, not because you need it to function better, but because you want it ... eg, if you were to gold plate your toilet seat, it is certainly not necessary to qualify as the best quality of toilet seat , in fact you can have a cheap $11 toilet seat from Bunnings and gold plate it  ... now you are just being silly. so what was Gillard saying abotu gold-plating electricity infrastructure? Gold wires????

so you admit that you're an idiot ....

Gillard was refering to the extras they were spending under the banner of 'infrastructure upgrades' ...