TONY Abbott has launched a last-ditch plea to the three kingmaker Independents who will decide today who to back into The Lodge.

With increasing signs that Labor has the upper hand, Mr Abbott has sent the three Independents a simple message: Don't do it.
Link -
http://www.news.com.au/tony-abbott-pledges-to-put-country-first-to-woo-independents/story-e6frfkp0-1225914307262==============
If Liberal & Labor had that as their starting point, then we would not be where we are, which is far into a croc invetsed swamp, in a barbed wire canoe, without any paddles!


I don't, for one second, believe that Tony has 'seen the light", but frankly I doubt that Labor have either!

Whoever finally gets the nod, I say to those indepedents who will have the balance of power for the next "little while", whoever you climb into bed with, watch your backs!  

If Liberal & Labor had that as their starting point, then we would not be where we are, which is far into a croc invetsed swamp, in a barbed wire canoe, without any paddles!.....perceptions now



Or up to our armpits in crocodiles when we only set out to drain the swamp :(


Irrespective of who gets the top job,  I just wish Gillard had not hopped into bed with the Greens.  I think she'll have trouble with them.   For example, she has stated clearly she is not in favour of gay marriage, yet Brandt and Brown say it's one of their top agenda items ?????  Where to from there Julia ????


"Prime Minister Julia Gillard says she does not support legalising gay marriage in Australia.

Labor policy on gay marriage will remain the same under her prime ministership, Ms Gillard told Austereo show today.

"We believe the marriage act is appropriate in its current form, that is recognising that marriage is between a man and a woman, but we have as a government taken steps to equalise treatment for gay couples," Ms Gillard said.

if that was also her personal view, Ms Gillard said it was."

http://www.smh.com.au/national/gillard-against-gay-marriage-20100630-zkcj.html

Hi perceptions_now.  It looks very much to me that at least 2 of the Independents will go with Labor.  Let's hope Jooles puts Australia first before her own 'hidden' agenda.

So many back flips, so much taxpayer's money spent to appease a minority, NBN NOT thoroughly costed, the Unions and the Greens will be running the show...........get ready for an avalanche of gigantic proportions.

Speaking of the NBN, I have a fairly fast broadband service which costs me $49 per month.  Unless I want to download movies and the like day after day, why would I bother to pay up to $3000 to have Labor's fibre optic cable connected plus at least triple the cost per month to stay connected?

Who ever gets to Govern will be handed a poisoned chalice............if it's the Labor/Green alliance, then I predict that they will eventually be turfed out for over a decade.  Possibly the end of the Greens..........I can't wait for the Greens Policies to finally be scrutinised.  Interesting times ahead

sandysquirrel18 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 4:23pm:

Hi perceptions_now.  It looks very much to me that at least 2 of the Independents will go with Labor.  Let's hope Jooles puts Australia first before her own 'hidden' agenda. So many back flips, so much taxpayer's money spent to appease a minority, NBN NOT thoroughly costed, the Unions and the Greens will be running the show...........get ready for an avalanche of gigantic proportions. Speaking of the NBN, I have a fairly fast broadband service which costs me $49 per month.  Unless I want to download movies and the like day after day, why would I bother to pay up to $3000 to have Labor's fibre optic cable connected plus at least triple the cost per month to stay connected? Who ever gets to Govern will be handed a poisoned chalice............if it's the Labor/Green alliance, then I predict that they will eventually be turfed out for over a decade.  Possibly the end of the Greens..........I can't wait for the Greens Policies to finally be scrutinised.  Interesting times ahead

Will the Greens be thoroughly scrutinised though Sandy, especially prior to the Senate changes next July ?

They can do a fair bit of damage in the meantime if Julia doesn't watch it.  

I still maintain that Rudd, given time would have built up his popularity, not have had the election yet, and certainly not played footsies with the Greens.

sandysquirrel18 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 4:23pm:

... Speaking of the NBN, I have a fairly fast broadband service which costs me $49 per month.  Unless I want to download movies and the like day after day, why would I bother to pay up to $3000 to have Labor's fibre optic cable connected plus at least triple the cost per month to stay connected? ...

Where do those figures come from? My understanding is that, where possible, fibre will be connected and existing copper decommissioned. Unless the occupants choose to buy a different service, nothing else changes.

Who says you'll need to pay $3,000 for the fibre connection? Who says you'll be forced to pay "triple the cost to stay connected"?

The National Electrical and Communications Association confirmed it was likely residents and some businesses would have to pay if they needed new wiring and outlets to take full advantage of the NBN.

Association chief executive James Tinslay said that once the NBN had installed fibre-optic cables, residents would still need to equip their homes with new cables and devices.

"Residents will need to consider what technology they wish to embrace when the NBN reaches their front gate, and it is very likely that many households will need to be retrofitted with new cables, wiring and outlets to access new services."

Mr Tinslay said a standard retrofit could cost up to $3000.

"However, the big unknown at this stage is what the cost will be for getting fibre-optic cables from your front gate into your living room," he said.

Mr Tinslay also raised concerns about the safety of workers installing the NBN, saying there were still no training standards or cost estimates for a scheme to prepare thousands of people for dangerous work near powerlines connecting homes to the fibre-optic network.

"Our main concern is letting government know that there are dangers here and they need to make sure that there are no safety issues along the way, because they will cop it from everybody if they do," Mr Tinslay said.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/nbn-could-cost-households-an-extra-3000/story-fn59niix-1225908005122

nichy wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 4:36pm:

The National Electrical and Communications Association confirmed it was likely residents and some businesses would have to pay if they needed new wiring and outlets to take full advantage of the NBN. Association chief executive James Tinslay said that once the NBN had installed fibre-optic cables, residents would still need to equip their homes with new cables and devices. "Residents will need to consider what technology they wish to embrace when the NBN reaches their front gate, and it is very likely that many households will need to be retrofitted with new cables, wiring and outlets to access new services." Mr Tinslay said a standard retrofit could cost up to $3000. "However, the big unknown at this stage is what the cost will be for getting fibre-optic cables from your front gate into your living room," he said. Mr Tinslay also raised concerns about the safety of workers installing the NBN, saying there were still no training standards or cost estimates for a scheme to prepare thousands of people for dangerous work near powerlines connecting homes to the fibre-optic network. "Our main concern is letting government know that there are dangers here and they need to make sure that there are no safety issues along the way, because they will cop it from everybody if they do," Mr Tinslay said. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/nbn-could-cost-households-an-extra-3000/story-fn59niix-1225908005122

So if people choose a service different to the one they have, it might cost? That's a surprise.

My understanding is that, if the occupant stays with the service they had before fibre, there will be no extra cost.

# wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 4:47pm:

nichy wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 4:36pm: The National Electrical and Communications Association confirmed it was likely residents and some businesses would have to pay if they needed new wiring and outlets to take full advantage of the NBN. Association chief executive James Tinslay said that once the NBN had installed fibre-optic cables, residents would still need to equip their homes with new cables and devices. "Residents will need to consider what technology they wish to embrace when the NBN reaches their front gate, and it is very likely that many households will need to be retrofitted with new cables, wiring and outlets to access new services." Mr Tinslay said a standard retrofit could cost up to $3000. "However, the big unknown at this stage is what the cost will be for getting fibre-optic cables from your front gate into your living room," he said. Mr Tinslay also raised concerns about the safety of workers installing the NBN, saying there were still no training standards or cost estimates for a scheme to prepare thousands of people for dangerous work near powerlines connecting homes to the fibre-optic network. "Our main concern is letting government know that there are dangers here and they need to make sure that there are no safety issues along the way, because they will cop it from everybody if they do," Mr Tinslay said. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/nbn-could-cost-households-an-extra-3000/story-fn59niix-1225908005122 So if people choose a service different to the one they have, it might cost? That's a surprise. My understanding is that, if the occupant stays with the service they had before fibre, there will be no extra cost.

SO to take advantage of it you will still need to pay extra. so let's get it right. I currently have adsl 2+ but under the NBN i can keep it and pay nothing. right? so tell me again why we are spending $43B to give me something I probably wont use because it wil cost me extra???

That's the whole point isn't it longweekend?  Why spend billions and billions of taxpayer's money for something that the average person probably wouldn't need or want.  By the time it is finished there will be new wireless technology (I read it somewhere).  I wonder why Labor REFUSES to have actual costing done.  And of course, there is the 'filter'.

Abbott would do well now to just lay low and let Labor and the Greens implode.  How can Labor and the Greens really work together successfully?  They both have different agenda's and Policies.  Will the red bimbo back down to Bob Brown just to keep his support.  Will this be the end of the Labor?  Now wouldn't that be a wonderful thing?

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 4:54pm:

SO to take advantage of it you will still need to pay extra. so let's get it right. I currently have adsl 2+ but under the NBN i can keep it and pay nothing. right? so tell me again why we are spending $43B to give me something I probably wont use because it wil cost me extra???

Pay extra get extra. Not everyone wants to stay at your level.

sandysquirrel18 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 5:42pm:

... By the time it is finished there will be new wireless technology (I read it somewhere). ...

Tony Abbott said it. It's a lie. There's no prospect of wireless ever approaching the capacity of fibre.

For those who think wireless is the answer to Australia's broadband needs, this is from a much longer answer to a question on the Link mailing list http://mailman.anu.edu.au/pipermail/link/2010-August/089266.html
..." his faith in wireless is wildly optimistic. He does
acknowledge contention ratios, but nevertheless goes on to intimate
that 100Mbps performance could be a realistic customer expectation.
The spectrum required to deliver this to bandwidth hungry customers
in high-density urban areas just isn't available unless cell-sizes
are reduced to ridiculously small levels (a tower every few hundred
meters). Once again, he could do well to go back and study some basic
physics."

Discussion went on to make the point that wireless towers are connected by fibre links. To get anywhere near the speeds required in the very near future, let alone in ten years time, would require so many towers that connecting premises directly would use less fibre.

There's a lot more at that link, for anyone who really wants to know rather than just have their prejudices reinforced. At the end of the missive is a viral letter that's probably the source of much of the misinformation peddled in this forum. I guess the motives behind http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/nbn-could-cost-households-an-extra-3000/story-fn59niix-1225908005122 are similar to those of the author of the viral letter. If there was any substance in the Australian article, wouldn't we have heard about it from those areas where rollout of the NBN has already begun?

# wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 7:28pm:

For those who think wireless is the answer to Australia's broadband needs, this is from a much longer answer to a question on the Link mailing list http://mailman.anu.edu.au/pipermail/link/2010-August/089266.html ..." his faith in wireless is wildly optimistic. He does acknowledge contention ratios, but nevertheless goes on to intimate that 100Mbps performance could be a realistic customer expectation. The spectrum required to deliver this to bandwidth hungry customers in high-density urban areas just isn't available unless cell-sizes are reduced to ridiculously small levels (a tower every few hundred meters). Once again, he could do well to go back and study some basic physics." Discussion went on to make the point that wireless towers are connected by fibre links. To get anywhere near the speeds required in the very near future, let alone in ten years time, would require so many towers that connecting premises directly would use less fibre. There's a lot more at that link, for anyone who really wants to know rather than just have their prejudices reinforced. At the end of the missive is a viral letter that's probably the source of much of the misinformation peddled in this forum. I guess the motives behind http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/nbn-could-cost-households-an-extra-3000/story-fn59niix-1225908005122 are similar to those of the author of the viral letter. If there was any substance in the Australian article, wouldn't we have heard about it from those areas where rollout of the NBN has already begun?

And if wireless is so incapable why is singapore moving toward it when they already have a fast fibre network?

And the US.

The whole world is moving to wireless, but here we have a govt spending $43Bn on a network that in 10-20 years will be redundant because no one will make the hardware (for the consumer) that FO will use.

How many home computers do you see with a FO port? It's all ethernet or Wifi

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 7:35pm:

... And if wireless is so incapable why is singapore moving toward it when they already have a fast fibre network?

<sigh>Why don't you ask them?

It might have something to do with fibre being fixed, while wireless is portable. If anyone tells you that wireless can deliver the same performance as fibre, they're lying.

Read what I provided or cling to your ignorance. The choice is yours.

Quote:

If anyone tells you that wireless can deliver the same performance as fibre

Has anyone stated that or are you too busy building strawmen to have noticed?

Yahoon wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 7:41pm:

... The whole world is moving to wireless, ...

Says who?

Abbott Pledges to put country first?


Why would he change after all this time?

Did he mention which country?

Yahoon wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 7:43pm:

Quote: If anyone tells you that wireless can deliver the same performance as fibre Has anyone stated that or are you too busy building strawmen to have noticed?

Again: http://mailman.anu.edu.au/pipermail/link/2010-August/089266.html.

Only the biggest consumer market in the world
http://www.industryweek.com/articles/obama_calls_for_boost_in_wireless_broadband_22182.aspx

Quote:

Obama Calls for Boost in Wireless Broadband In a move to free up another 500 MHz of spectrum for wireless data services, President Obama ordered the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to free up federal and nonfederal spectrum. “Expanded wireless broadband access will trigger the creation of innovative new businesses, provide cost-effective connections in rural areas, increase productivity, improve public safety, and allow for the development of mobile telemedicine, tele-work, distance learning, and other new applications that will transform Americans’ lives,” Obama said in a signed presidential directive.

Considering that 5-10 years ago we were all on 33-56K dialup (gee the economy survived back then without it) and now wireless is approaching 100Mb/s (without a massive public injection of funds on a scale never seen around the world), the only question is how long before the $43Bn turns into a little used white elephant

# wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 7:42pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 7:35pm: ... And if wireless is so incapable why is singapore moving toward it when they already have a fast fibre network? <sigh>Why don't you ask them? It might have something to do with fibre being fixed, while wireless is portable. If anyone tells you that wireless can deliver the same performance as fibre, they're lying. Read what I provided or cling to your ignorance. The choice is yours.

Has it yet occured to you that the issue at play here isnt technological but financial? has it occured to you yet that delivering ADLS 2+ standard internet to 99% of the country wil cost 1/10th of this amount and stil provide 90% of the functionality. you simply REFUSE to address the cost/benefit issue because it fails dramatically at this point. why should we spend TEN TIMES as much money on a network that only provides marginal effective improvements on ADLS2+? try and generate a proper argument that addresses cost/befit if you can!

# wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 7:50pm:

Yahoon wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 7:43pm: Quote: If anyone tells you that wireless can deliver the same performance as fibre Has anyone stated that or are you too busy building strawmen to have noticed? Again: http://mailman.anu.edu.au/pipermail/link/2010-August/089266.html.

That only proves you are building strawmen

Yahoon wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 7:56pm:

... That only proves you are building strawmen

Troll.  >:(

# wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 8:05pm:

Yahoon wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 7:56pm: ... That only proves you are building strawmen Troll.  >:(

I think not, but you could try and prove me wrong and highlight where
Quote:

anyone tells you that wireless can deliver the same performance as fibre

But I see you must have already exhausted your brain cell

Yahoon wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 7:52pm:

... Considering that 5-10 years ago we were all on 33-56K dialup (gee the economy survived back then without it) and now wireless is approaching 100Mb/s (without a massive public injection of funds on a scale never seen around the world), the only question is how long before the $43Bn turns into a little used white elephant

And 50 years ago, bread and milk were delivered by horse-drawn carts. Which is of similar relevance.

Yahoon wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 8:07pm:

... I think not, ...

Evidently.

# wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 8:08pm:

Yahoon wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 7:52pm: ... Considering that 5-10 years ago we were all on 33-56K dialup (gee the economy survived back then without it) and now wireless is approaching 100Mb/s (without a massive public injection of funds on a scale never seen around the world), the only question is how long before the $43Bn turns into a little used white elephant And 50 years ago, bread and milk were delivered by horse-drawn carts. Which is of similar relevance.

And someone invented the motor vehicle and started a business building them to cater to market demand.

They obviously didn't have the stunning intelligence of you there at the time to tell them that the Model T is nowhere near good enough an that you demand a Ferrari.

Just imagine, we could all have had our milk delivered so much quicker had you been there

# wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 8:10pm:

Yahoon wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 8:07pm: ... I think not, ... Evidently.

And evidently, now you have been forced to eat your strawman, there are plenty of crows around
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6JPrNHnRVZI/SW5WXZh6soI/AAAAAAAAC9E/zPAPSK8gqJo/s400/eat-crow.jpg

Dig in, chump  ;D

Yahoon wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 8:19pm:

# wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 8:10pm: Yahoon wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 8:07pm: ... I think not, ... Evidently. And evidently, now you have been forced to eat your strawman, there are plenty of crows around Dig in, chump  ;D

Child, show me the strawman you think you see.

*sigh*

Quote:

anyone tells you that wireless can deliver the same performance as fibre

Now do point out where this has occurred. And posing this
Quote:

Again: http://mailman.anu.edu.au/pipermail/link/2010-August/089266.html.

as you did last time and I shoved your face in it is not acceptable because nowhere does it state that wireless can deliver the same performance as fibre.

Now run along before I have to spank you in front of everyone again

Yahoon wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 8:27pm:

... nowhere does it state that wireless can deliver the same performance as fibre. ...

Exactly. It gives reasons why it can't.

# wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 8:31pm:

Yahoon wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 8:27pm: ... nowhere does it state that wireless can deliver the same performance as fibre. ... Exactly. It gives reasons that it can't.

You would be aware that consumers are abandoning fixed lines for wireless I assume.

So why would any organisation (let alone the taxpayers) build a network with a declining number of users?

::)

Nice try at a diversion from your strawman but I will humour your ignorance

It doesn't give any reasons why it is warranted, in fact it goes on to say that the existing technologies are more than adequate

Quote:

Re DSL technologies - yes, they will continue to get better - mostly as a consequence of Moore's Law and the ability to throw more processing capacity at the task of discerning signals against a noisy background

.


Quote:

the latest VDSL2 chipsets can reliably deliver 80Mbps downstream and 20Mbps upstream over its cabling. That sort of bandwidth will satisfy most people for quite a while into the future.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 7:56pm:

... Has it yet occured to you that the issue at play here isnt technological but financial? has it occured to you yet that delivering ADLS 2+ standard internet to 99% of the country wil cost 1/10th of this amount and stil provide 90% of the functionality. you simply REFUSE to address the cost/benefit issue because it fails dramatically at this point. why should we spend TEN TIMES as much money on a network that only provides marginal effective improvements on ADLS2+? try and generate a proper argument that addresses cost/befit if you can!

Better people than me have decided that it's worth doing. I haven't seen any compelling arguments to the contrary. Plenty of assertions, but nothing that could be considered an argument.

Yes, it's costly. Nation-building infrastructure's like that.

As for cost/benefit analysis, you'll need to find someone qualified in the field. That isn't me.

I'll be interested to hear what they come up with.

Quote:

As for cost/benefit analysis, you'll need to find someone qualified in the field. That isn't me. I'll be interested to hear what they come up with.

So would everyone. Labor is too ignorant to even visit that aspect

Yahoon wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 8:38pm:

::) Nice try at a diversion from your strawman but I will humour your ignorance It doesn't give any reasons why it is warranted,

Your own strawman here. The question was about wireless. You've just done a switch to justifying the NBN. Naughty!
Quote:

in fact it goes on to say that the existing technologies are more than adequate [quote]Re DSL technologies - yes, they will continue to get better - mostly as a consequence of Moore's Law and the ability to throw more processing capacity at the task of discerning signals against a noisy background

.[/quote]
Classic lie of omission. The full quote is:

Quote:

Re DSL technologies - yes, they will continue to get better - mostly as a consequence of Moore's Law and the ability to throw more processing capacity at the task of discerning signals against a noisy background. However, the law of diminishing returns applies ... and Shannon's Law is ultimately one of limitation, not exponential growth. Copper will *never* compare to fibre in its capacity, and the key to better performance lies in shortening copper distances - that is, pushing fibre deeper into the network.

Quote:

the latest VDSL2 chipsets can reliably deliver 80Mbps downstream and 20Mbps upstream over its cabling. That sort of bandwidth will satisfy most people for quite a while into the future.

And again. If you're going to lie, at least choose a different lie. The paragraph following that reads:

Quote:

But with our trading partners moving to fibre, applications that consume higher bandwidth *will* emerge and we will be caught short as a nation if in the long term we don't have the infrastructure to compete. I would contend that Australia needs a plan to evolve to predominantly fibre infrastructure - not necessarily in a short a timeframe as eight years, but certainly sometime over the next 20 years.

We might be able to delay the expense of the NBN, but not for long.

deepthought wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 8:38pm:

# wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 8:31pm: Yahoon wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 8:27pm: ... nowhere does it state that wireless can deliver the same performance as fibre. ... Exactly. It gives reasons that it can't. You would be aware that consumers are abandoning fixed lines for wireless I assume. So why would any organisation (let alone the taxpayers) build a network with a declining number of users?

Who says fixed lines are declining? Sure, for those whose only need is voice communications, mobiles are adequate. For low bandwidth applications, wireless is handy. For high bandwidth applications, wireless just isn't in the game. It's unlikely most of us will ever be free of the need for a fixed line.

Why would we build a network?

Quote:

... with our trading partners moving to fibre, applications that consume higher bandwidth *will* emerge and we will be caught short as a nation if in the long term we don't have the infrastructure to compete. I would contend that Australia needs a plan to evolve to predominantly fibre infrastructure ...

Why, DavidB5, do you think the US is moving to wireless?

In fact the US President said this;



Quote:

"The Internet, as vital infrastructure, has become central to the daily economic life of almost every American by creating unprecedented opportunities for small businesses and individual entrepreneurs," the president wrote in a memorandum. "We are now beginning the next transformation in information technology: the wireless broadband revolution."

Why are you looking into the past while the world moves on to the next generation technology?

Quote:

Your own strawman here. The question was about wireless.

The only strawman was you saying that people were comparing fibre performance to wireless. It still stands and you have yet to prove otherwise, but continue making a fool of yourself.


Quote:

But with our trading partners moving to fibre, applications that consume higher bandwidth *will* emerge

Will they emerge with other countries pursuing wireless? Will they also require a huge injection of public funds to emerge? What if they don't emerge and applications from more populous nations are based on the continuing and changing nature of wireless?

2 years ago it was inconceivable that wireless would hit 2Mb/s speeds, now Telstra has announced 42Mb/s wireless on existing infrastructure. You and you ignorant ilk base your assumptions on the the technology of today and fail to take into account the changing nature of tech, but your are happy to spend other peoples money getting what you want at a massive cost to the public.

deepthought wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 9:08pm:

Why, DavidB5, do you think the US is moving to wireless? In fact the US President said this; Quote: "The Internet, as vital infrastructure, has become central to the daily economic life of almost every American by creating unprecedented opportunities for small businesses and individual entrepreneurs," the president wrote in a memorandum. "We are now beginning the next transformation in information technology: the wireless broadband revolution." Why are you looking into the past while the world moves on to the next generation technology?

Anyone would think we're not subject to the laws of physics.

Quote:

Similarly, his faith in wireless is wildly optimistic. He does acknowledge contention ratios, but nevertheless goes on to intimate that 100Mbps performance could be a realistic customer expectation. The spectrum required to deliver this to bandwidth hungry customers in high-density urban areas just isn't available unless cell-sizes are reduced to ridiculously small levels (a tower every few hundred meters). Once again, he could do well to go back and study some basic physics.

# wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 9:06pm:

Who says fixed lines are declining? Sure, for those whose only need is voice communications, mobiles are adequate. For low bandwidth applications, wireless is handy. For high bandwidth applications, wireless just isn't in the game. It's unlikely most of us will ever be free of the need for a fixed line.

The supplier.  Telstra.



Quote:

The profit announcement for the year to June 30 showed Telstra's fixed-line revenues fell $504 million, a drop of 8 per cent, and that 326,000 customers cancelled their fixed lines. This fall in the fixed-line business was offset somewhat by growth in revenue from mobile services, which increased 5.9 per cent.

Yahoon wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 7:41pm:

... How many home computers do you see with a FO port? It's all ethernet or Wifi

Interesting point. I know people who've replaced the cat5e cabling in their home networks with cat6 for gigabit ethernet. The only reason they haven't gone for fibre is the cost of switches and NICs.

I guess the answer to your question is: none. Yet.

# wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 9:13pm:

deepthought wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 9:08pm: Why, DavidB5, do you think the US is moving to wireless? In fact the US President said this; Quote: "The Internet, as vital infrastructure, has become central to the daily economic life of almost every American by creating unprecedented opportunities for small businesses and individual entrepreneurs," the president wrote in a memorandum. "We are now beginning the next transformation in information technology: the wireless broadband revolution." Why are you looking into the past while the world moves on to the next generation technology? Anyone would think we're not subject to the laws of physics. [quote]Similarly, his faith in wireless is wildly optimistic. He does acknowledge contention ratios, but nevertheless goes on to intimate that 100Mbps performance could be a realistic customer expectation. The spectrum required to deliver this to bandwidth hungry customers in high-density urban areas just isn't available unless cell-sizes are reduced to ridiculously small levels (a tower every few hundred meters). Once again, he could do well to go back and study some basic physics.

[/quote]


You're still fixated on the past.

Technology races.

What's more, new technology hardware is designed for mobility.   Not antiquated desktops.

Laptops now outsell desktops.

You dinosaurs need to ask yourselves why.

# wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 8:42pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 7:56pm: ... Has it yet occured to you that the issue at play here isnt technological but financial? has it occured to you yet that delivering ADLS 2+ standard internet to 99% of the country wil cost 1/10th of this amount and stil provide 90% of the functionality. you simply REFUSE to address the cost/benefit issue because it fails dramatically at this point. why should we spend TEN TIMES as much money on a network that only provides marginal effective improvements on ADLS2+? try and generate a proper argument that addresses cost/befit if you can! Better people than me have decided that it's worth doing. I haven't seen any compelling arguments to the contrary. Plenty of assertions, but nothing that could be considered an argument. Yes, it's costly. Nation-building infrastructure's like that. As for cost/benefit analysis, you'll need to find someone qualified in the field. That isn't me. I'll be interested to hear what they come up with.

You shoudlnt be WAITING to here. the cost/benefit analysis should have already been done. it is the height of fiscalirresponsibility to spend such a massive amount of money with no idea if it is viable or cost effective.

and you support this?

and I notice that on any issue you cant answer - you just deflect or ignore. It shows you dont know your subject at all.

Idiot.

# wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 9:06pm:

deepthought wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 8:38pm: # wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 8:31pm: Yahoon wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 8:27pm: ... nowhere does it state that wireless can deliver the same performance as fibre. ... Exactly. It gives reasons that it can't. You would be aware that consumers are abandoning fixed lines for wireless I assume. So why would any organisation (let alone the taxpayers) build a network with a declining number of users? Who says fixed lines are declining? Sure, for those whose only need is voice communications, mobiles are adequate. For low bandwidth applications, wireless is handy. For high bandwidth applications, wireless just isn't in the game. It's unlikely most of us will ever be free of the need for a fixed line. Why would we build a network? Quote: ... with our trading partners moving to fibre, applications that consume higher bandwidth *will* emerge and we will be caught short as a nation if in the long term we don't have the infrastructure to compete. I would contend that Australia needs a plan to evolve to predominantly fibre infrastructure ...

well actually TESTRA says fixed lines are diminishing. and you woudl know that if you gleaned your information from places other thena the ALP website.

# wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 9:13pm:

deepthought wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 9:08pm: Why, DavidB5, do you think the US is moving to wireless? In fact the US President said this; Quote: "The Internet, as vital infrastructure, has become central to the daily economic life of almost every American by creating unprecedented opportunities for small businesses and individual entrepreneurs," the president wrote in a memorandum. "We are now beginning the next transformation in information technology: the wireless broadband revolution." Why are you looking into the past while the world moves on to the next generation technology? Anyone would think we're not subject to the laws of physics. [quote]Similarly, his faith in wireless is wildly optimistic. He does acknowledge contention ratios, but nevertheless goes on to intimate that 100Mbps performance could be a realistic customer expectation. The spectrum required to deliver this to bandwidth hungry customers in high-density urban areas just isn't available unless cell-sizes are reduced to ridiculously small levels (a tower every few hundred meters). Once again, he could do well to go back and study some basic physics.

[/quote]


UNiversity educated in physics are you? I can list a whloe slew of PhDs and professores that said something was IMPOSSIBLE only to be proven totally wrong a few years later. what is being suggested is NOT impossible or even difficult. as far as I can see the only devastating aspect of the proposal is that it is a liberal one rather than your beloved Labor.

Hmmm..............it seems I have opened a can of worms regarding the potential white elephant that is the NBN.

My mind goes back to the time of my first internet subscription.........dial up.  Remember that anyone?  Now we have ADSL 2, wireless and obviously fibre cable or whatever it is called.  It was a marvel to have access to something called the Internet, one could download 1 megabyte games and other assorted goodies.  And my fellow bloggers, that wasn't all that long ago.

So, having said that, this NBN is supposed to take up to 6 yrs or so to be completed, is that right?  6 yrs is a very long time in technology terms.  You can bet your bottom dollar that wireless, with all the extra satellites that are planned, and advances in new discoveries being made almost daily, will see the NBN as a dinasaur by the time it is completed....................current estimation $43 billion and rising.............rising.............rising.

Good grief, my latest computer, which is about 10 months old will be a dinasaur in 2 yrs.

In the meantime, however, I thorougly believe that the new Government should at least make sure that our current broadband setup is available to anyone in Australia.  It does not necessarily mean that we have to go with the NBN that has NOT had a cost/benefit analysis performed on it.  That would be utter folly.

Here's hoping that veg will soon be able to have broadband herself........go veg

Yahoon wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 9:12pm:

Quote: Your own strawman here. The question was about wireless. The only strawman was you saying that people were comparing fibre performance to wireless. It still stands and you have yet to prove otherwise, but continue making a fool of yourself.

It's earlier in this thread:

sandysquirrel18 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 5:42pm:

... By the time it is finished there will be new wireless technology (I read it somewhere). ...

That is not comparing wireless to fibre performance.

Try again  ::)

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 10:43pm:

... I can list a whloe slew of PhDs and professores that said something was IMPOSSIBLE only to be proven totally wrong a few years later.

Please do so.

Are there none who were proven right? Which is the majority: those proven wrong or those proven right?

Quote:

what is being suggested is NOT impossible or even difficult.

People far more knowledgeable than you or I disagree, as I've shown.

Quote:

as far as I can see the only devastating aspect of the proposal is that it is a liberal one rather than your beloved Labor.

I hold no particular affection for any political party. I do, however, find it difficult to deny physics.

Just remember folks; Tony told you that if you don't see it in writing it dosen't exist

Yahoon wrote on Sep 6^th, 2010 at 3:07pm:

That is not comparing wireless to fibre performance. Try again  ::)

Once again, the troll attempts to manipulate me into wasting time chasing shadows. The post in question implied that wireless would make a fibre network obsolete. As I've been pointing out (with ample evidence), physics makes that impossible.

Quote:

The post in question implied that wireless would make a fibre network obsolete.

No, it didn't. That was just your inference

Quote:

As I've been pointing out (with ample evidence), physics makes that impossible.

Physics does not dictate market forces.

Struggle through a bit more and really embarrass yourself

deepthought wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 9:16pm:

The supplier.  Telstra. Quote: The profit announcement for the year to June 30 showed Telstra's fixed-line revenues fell $504 million, a drop of 8 per cent, and that 326,000 customers cancelled their fixed lines. This fall in the fixed-line business was offset somewhat by growth in revenue from mobile services, which increased 5.9 per cent.

I asked someone in the industry what those figures mean. Apparently "cancelled their fixed lines" can mean, among other things:

• had the line disconnected at the exchange (very rare);
  
• had the phone service discontinued, but retained the line for naked DSL or
  
• transferred their phone service to another provider, such as Optus.
  

Telstra is losing customers. Nobody I know in business is with them. Few lines have actually been disconnected. My contact did say that more are being installed than disconnected.

Yahoon wrote on Sep 6^th, 2010 at 3:19pm:

... Quote: As I've been pointing out (with ample evidence), physics makes that impossible. Physics does not dictate market forces. ...

Even the market can't deny physics. You may consider it a deity, but it's just a human construct.

Quote:

Even the market can't deny physics. You may consider it a deity, but it's just a human construct.

You do like those strawmen, don't you  ::)

Yahoon wrote on Sep 6^th, 2010 at 3:49pm:

... You do like those strawmen, don't you  ::)

You don't know what the term means, do you?

Quote:

Even the market can't deny physics. You may consider it a deity, but it's just a human construct.

Where did I say that the market denies physics and where did I say I consider it a deity? Keep digging, dufus  ::)

# wrote on Sep 6^th, 2010 at 3:43pm:

I asked someone in the industry what those figures mean. Apparently "cancelled their fixed lines" can mean, among other things: had the line disconnected at the exchange (very rare); had the phone service discontinued, but retained the line for naked DSL or transferred their phone service to another provider, such as Optus. Telstra is losing customers. Nobody I know in business is with them. Few lines have actually been disconnected. My contact did say that more are being installed than disconnected.

I suggest you show this post to your contact.



Quote:

Income from fixed telephone lines fell 8 per cent in the latest financial year as 326,000 customers ditched the old technology. Chief financial officer John Stanhope said about 12 per cent of households in Australia now used only mobile phones. Fixed-line revenue fell to $5.8 billion and revenue from calls on the fixed network fell by $188 million. Mobile-services revenue rose 5.9 per cent to $6.5 billion, driven by substantial growth in mobile broadband, messaging and data downloads on smartphones.

He has made you look foolish.

He will also be interested to know . . .




Quote:

Mobile broadband take-up will lead fixed line 'in five years', 4G Summit told MOBILE internet users will outnumber those of fixed internet users in Australia in five years time, according to speakers at the 2010 Australian 4G Summit. The conference got under way yesterday in Sydney and is an exploratory look at the future of communications in Australia. Attendees yesterday were told the annual growth rate of mobile internet devices has reached almost 30 per cent, eight times greater than that of traditional web connections. But the “unlimited” possibilities unlocked by the evolution of wireless internet were not being fully explored, said country manager of Qualcomm Robert Hart. “How far those developments can go is only limited by our imaginations,” Mr Hart said. Most countries, including Australia, are lagging 10 years behind leaders in the field such as Japan, said Morgan Stanley analyst Mark Blackwell. Developing countries also have an advantage over Australia due to their lack of fixed line infrastructure, which allows them to “leapfrog to mobile internet”, Mr Blackwell said.

You will note that last paragraph - "Developing countries also have an advantage over Australia due to their lack of fixed line infrastructure, which allows them to “leapfrog to mobile internet"


Meanwhile the steam powered GALP want to drive us back to the olden days and bury even more fixed lines in the ground.  Their supporters blindly follow without question, ignoring the reality before them.

Maybe the topic should have been Abbott pledges to put wireless first?

Or Gillard pledges to put massive spending (with no cost benefit analysis) first

Or Abbott moves forward?

Using whiney voice :  Yeas he cain.

Here we have the hypocrisy of Tony Abbott....he now wants to put the bush first because he needs the 3 rural independents.....anyone who thinks Abbott gives a stuff about anything but being PM is deluding themselves.....Abbott is pathetic!!!

I reckon he`s a closet Baptist too!!!

Do you ever see him dancing?

WELL DO YOU !!!! >:( >:( >:( >:(