Quigley's big stand: the full speech

 
Page 5 of 5 | Single page

So, is fibre likely to be superseded in the next few decades by some new technology we have not yet even thought of? I don't think so.

To suggest that we not build a fibre-based network in Australia now because maybe some new, but not yet imagined, technology may turn up, displays a rather naïve view about how science and technology progresses. It is like not investing in rail because we think automobile technology will radically improve sometime soon.

It is now time to say a few words about the benefits to Australia of a ubiquitous and standardised broadband platform.

Recent studies have noted the substantial annual benefits that flow from broadband in terms of GDP. One such study of a fibre access network estimated a US$160 billion economic benefit over 4 years. This same study estimated an annual increase in jobs of more than 210,000.

Productivity growth (labour, manufacturing and technology), national competitiveness and innovation are all a function of access to affordable broadband infrastructure.

Blending life between work and home is a modern reality and a key driver of employee retention is workplace flexibility, especially for women. The benefits to national income of boosting full-time female participation rank somewhere above those of tax reform and below those of promoting competition policy. A reasonably good ROI for broadband infrastructure.

Our society is both aging and living longer. Applications delivered over NBN infrastructure will enable more Australians to live in their own homes longer, with in-home monitoring and high definition video allowing the elderly to communicate regularly with family and health professionals.

In Korea, a country also facing challenges of an aging population, "Silver Cities" have been built to cater specifically for elderly residents with round-the-clock monitoring and embedded technology to improve quality of life.

Providing Australia's homes with access to affordable broadband infrastructure could lead to a substantial reduction in the number of elderly Australians moving into low dependency aged care facilities. For children at home with serious long term illnesses, high-speed broadband can allow the learning experience to continue.

In conclusion, I would like to say that I have much appreciated the opportunity to share with you my views on the NBN.

It is the first time to my knowledge that investment in broadband has become such a significant issue in a national election campaign anywhere in the world. It is, I suppose, an indicator of just how important broadband is becoming in our lives.

We at NBN Co are very conscious of the fact that we are, on behalf of our Government shareholders, investing a very large sum of money. It's proper therefore that this nation-building proposal be subjected to the tough questions and to a very rigorous public debate.

I'm sure that was the case when the Overland Telegraph and the Copper Access Network were proposed. They would have had their doubters and skeptics and I'm sure Charles Todd had to - from time to time - defend the Overland Telegraph.

However like all debates, this one is best conducted with the benefit of a few facts. And that is what I have sought to do today - place on the record the facts which are driving NBN Co to the positions we are taking.

I'm sure Charles Todd would approve.

Copyright © iTnews.com.au . All rights reserved.


Quigley's big stand: the full speech
"lindsayb, well in my town they spend $$$ on raods that could have been spent on hospitals. In the next town they spent money on derro jobless folks that could hjave been spent on hospital beds. ..."
By Maxxi2
 
 
 
Comments: 40
David Havyatt
Aug 18, 2010 3:22 PM
As I noted to Mike at the conclusion of his speech, he is incorrect in his claim that no mobile network offers a 50GB per month plan. vividwireless ofers an Unlimited plan.

That said I also note that the vividwireless chair Ryan Stokes told the Broadband and Beyond conference that wireless is complementary to fibre not a substitute.
BrettWinterford
Aug 18, 2010 3:39 PM
Thanks for the plug David, but I'm pretty sure his point still stands yeah? :)
lindsayb
Aug 18, 2010 3:40 PM
I think fibre is a great idea, but it is not the problem we currently have with the internet. Our problems are lack of content in this country and lack of providers with solutions for hosting small business web sites.

We dont have a Godaddy.com in OZ - this is what we need and I dont feel confident that our political leaders understand that problem, until we get local content we will always be constrained pipes in and out. Our 100M > 1G will be flat out delievring 1Mbps.

I also understand that the Tasman pilot is also suffering with congested trunks.

DONT BLOW 40 BILLION IF YOU DONT UNDERSTAND THE FIRST PROBLEM or you really will build a white elephant.
msniper
Aug 18, 2010 3:59 PM
So we, the taxpayer, not the NBN Co, are going to essentially pay telstra to move from it's (nee 'our') copper to NBN's fibre. Hmmm.

A structurally separated Telstra would achieve the same result. Telstra was, kinda still is, an fantastic engineering organisation. Sure they want to become a customer service organisation - real pity because we all know they suck at that. But for NewTelstraWholesale to do a rollout of NewBroadband where the government, in consultation with industry and consumers, sets a minimum standard for access speeds in all areas of the country, would be a whole lot better outcome than @lindsayb's 40 billion blown.

There are plenty of countries with mixed access methods. What is wrong with that? ADSL serves me at home, ESHDSL at one office and 12MB WiMax in another.

"we are a Telco. We are not a Government department." - poor deluded chap.
Maxxi2
Aug 18, 2010 4:00 PM
Hi David Havyatt. You are technically correct that Vivid does have an unlimited plan at this time, as many new ISPs have done before. It is though already mired in significant technical and commercial issues and will prove to be commercially unsustainable. The technical issues of downlaod misuse is already causing massive capacity issues for the network.

Mike Quigley is correct and his point will stand the proof of time wiothout any doubt, as no truly unlimited plan or 50GB monthly wireless plan has ever survived in Australia.

lindsayb: We will not be able to deliver the content delivered out of the USA, irregardless of what hosting is available here. That is a fantasy and has never even begun to change with any significance since the late 1990s... As I already get 10Mbps out of my 20Mbps copper connection (from my premises to the Telstra port), I am struggling with you projection that fibre connections and a massively upgraded backbone and ever-growing international links will be limited to under 1Mbps?

I believe that you would benefit from a lesson or two in physics and internet networking technologies mate.

Brett: Great article and thanks for printing this in it's entirety so quickly... A MUST read for all interested parties.
davmel
Aug 18, 2010 4:00 PM
@lindsayb "We dont have a Godaddy.com in OZ - this is what we need and I dont feel confident that our political leaders understand that problem, until we get local content we will always be constrained pipes in and out. Our 100M > 1G will be flat out delievring 1Mbps."

The NBN will result in many hosting companies setting up shop here in Australia to service our market since many customers will see the speed benefit of having content stored intra-nationally rather than internationally. That means significant $$$ stays here in Australia and helps Australian internet companies rather than helping overseas internet businesses grow.
The NBN will provide a massive influx of investment into Australian ICT rather than the current outgoing investment.

@lindsayb "DONT BLOW 40 BILLION IF YOU DONT UNDERSTAND THE FIRST PROBLEM"

Pot, kettle, black.
davmel
Aug 18, 2010 4:08 PM
@Maxxi2 "Mike Quigley is correct and his point will stand the proof of time wiothout any doubt, as no truly unlimited plan or 50GB monthly wireless plan has ever survived in Australia."

Huh??? Telstra Mobile offered a 50GB Next mobile plan over 2 years ago! And just recently for the same price you can get a 120GB NextG plan. Me thinks some people need to do some more research..... (including Mike Quigley)
Nza
Aug 18, 2010 4:10 PM
lindsayb "We dont have a Godaddy.com in OZ - this is what we need and I dont feel confident that our political leaders understand that problem, until we get local content we will always be constrained pipes in and out. Our 100M > 1G will be flat out delievring 1Mbps."

You are not seeing the big picture. It's the internal national traffic that will improve - the ability for many more businesses to go point to point with their offices at blazing speed. The ability for health networks to be connected much better than they are now. International speeds to websites rates somewhere down the bottom of data network priorities. Even so, even if it is an issue, at least it's one that can be tackled after we get the network right here at home.
MerariSchroeder
Aug 18, 2010 5:39 PM
Quigley gives a very persuasive speech. He does make the NBN sound very possible and part of the Australian spirit, by drawing on past pioneering developments. I have always said that FTTP is a good technology, but still maintain that it is not the best choice.

We must remember that Quigley is the CEO, and therefore he must support the companies direction, which is set by the directors - the federal government. That doesn't mean that Quigley doesn't believe the words he is saying, but in light of being concrete on facts in this political climate let's summarize the opposing forces.

1) The threat of new innovation. Quigley is right, you can't keep waiting for a technology to come, but when the productivity gains are questionable and a more affordable technology is available offering better affordability retaining 100Mbps speeds, such an assessment is dismissive of the facts.
2) Wireless. I'm glad Quigley at least acknowledged this time that wireless will continue to improve, however he still does not believe in an NBN which includes wireless. It is clear today that affordability is a major factor, and that many are opting for wireless data plans, which are offering more and more in speed and volume. So why ignore such a huge market force? Why say that telcos are building FTTP (which BTW are in high value areas), when wireless is outstripping those developments? Why will price sensitive consumers purchase a FTTP subscription and a mobile subscription? Are people going to hang up their mobiles and go back to land-line only phones? Why won't NBNCo at least include wireless *with* FTTP? He talked of duplication of fixed line infrasturucture, yet there are more than 3 overlapping wireless networks! He sounds convicted in his speech of his company, however I believe it is simply defending his directors' plans. The federal government admitted that their $43bn plan was made in haste, so where was the refinement to add relevance? You'll find that in politics, a policy is a costly thing to change for one's reputation.
3) Peak Debt and affordability. Putting aside wireless, FTTN remains a very viable option. It is much cheaper to implement (in the order of $15bn total), still delivers 100Mbps and therefore allows more affordable subscription which should be the aim of NBNCo. Of course FTTN doesn't have a straight forward upgrade path to PON FTTP, but the peak debt is reduced. If Australia has the most affordable internet we will then be the most competative internationally. *When* faster speeds are required, then we can use micro-trenching to upgrade to a FTTP network.
4) Elusive Productivity. So often do NBNCo advocates mention productivity benifits. Quigley mentions health monitoring of the elderly - why build an NBN for the equivilent in data as an email? And comparing a fibre network to the copper one? Going from no telephony to telephony is has much more of a productive jump, than what video is going to deliver over telephony.

Don't get sucked in - be objective.

scan06disk
Aug 18, 2010 5:41 PM
@lindsayb so by what other medium other than fiber do you want local traffic to increase/improve ? using clotheslines ?

Fiber can house a lot more independent hosts and smaller firms who may wish to start anew housing their own infrastructure, at the moment they rely on DC's, SHDSL & Ethernet to house server & provide services, which breaks the budget for many...

@David Havyatt vividwireless is WiMax/4G(Minority) have you see the frequencies they work on ?, it can house a lot more traffic/bandwidth, now you cannot compare that to 3G, Quigley refers to the majority of users mainly 3G mobile networks with 98% coverage that cannot provide 50GBs, just imagine the toll taken by a low HSPA+ vs a IEEE 802.16 network interface if it were offered to every single user..., no one would be able to make use of it ! lol

@davmel u must be on Drugs bro...
RS
Aug 18, 2010 5:54 PM
"Every cellular base station is fed by fibre" - not true. One provider advertises all their 3G base stations as being fibre connected, but even then that may not be 100% correct.

Mr Quigley's point is still correct though - wireless cannot provide the same density of bandwidth to residences now, nor in the future is it like to ever come close to a FTTP network.

FTTN is not a suitable stop-gap. Unlike ADSL1 and VDSL1, ADSL2+ and VDSL2 are unlikely to be greatly improved upon and FTTN is already a faster proposition. Given that any "NBN" is expected to take several years to be rolled out, copper pairs will truly be a legacy technology before the network is finished.

I'm using FTTN today, courtesy of TransACT. Their pricing isn't the best due to their monopoly on wired telecommunications in the area, but their slowest offering is 10/2 (really 13.8/2.1) megabit which is better than what ADSL2+ averages. It is quite clearly the way forward.
Maxxi2
Aug 18, 2010 6:02 PM
OK davmel, let's just have a closer look at the Telstra wireless 120GB plan shall we? As you say, research is useful. Facts are great:

1st: It is a $600 per month plan, only available to businesses, no access to Telstra Unmetered.

2nd: Totally and irrrevocably unsustainable for residential users davmel, and already a limited plan. Does not equate to Mike Quigley's comment about general public plans.

3rd: Show us how that 50GB **mobile** plan is publicly available today for broad public usage for home users with **no** extra connection costs. I thinkl if you **research** that plan davmel you will find that it is unsustainable for national broadband usage.

4th: Putting up short-lived or incredibly expensive and limited use mobile and business account plans to try and negate Quigley's reality based comments on national broadband usage plans is all fluff and no substance.

Ever tried to get 50GB via a Telstra mobile at under $500???
Maxxi2
Aug 18, 2010 6:13 PM
Merari: This statement is false, a misrepresentation and borders on a lie mate:

"2) Wireless. I'm glad Quigley at least acknowledged this time that wireless will continue to improve, however he still does not believe in an NBN which includes wireless."

He has stated clearly and irrevocably in this speech and in all NBN planning that wireless is included in the NBN.

To help you as you seem to have problem reading the English language:

"In reaching the seven percent of Australia's premises that are not within the fibre footprint, NBN Co will be providing a 12 Mbps service on wireless and satellite that is as close to the fibre product as technology allows. It will be provided at the same wholesale price, no matter where the premise is located."

Now I am pains to assist you to undserstand the written words of his speech Merari. Can you see and comprehend the words *NBN Co will be providing a 12 Mbps service on wireless* ??

If you are having problems understanding the English words and grammar there, I can reccomend several excellent English language schools to you...

(nonwithstanding my various typos...)

I am not what drugs you are using, but you should consult your doctor about them... >;))
davmel
Aug 18, 2010 7:13 PM
@Maxxi2 "OK davmel, let's just have a closer look at the Telstra wireless 120GB plan shall we? As you say, research is useful. Facts are great:"

Yes, facts are great. Where did Quigley qualify the question referring only to residential consumers? He didn't. He explicitly stated that there is no wireless plan available in Australia which offers 50GB or more which is totally incorrect. That is a fact.
Oh, and anyone can apply for an ABN and be eligible to subscribe to the Telstra Mobile plans whether they use them in an office, at home or anywhere else!
I have never claimed that the Telstra wireless service could scale so that everyone in the country could use it as that would grind the network to a halt, I was just correcting the factually incorrect statement that Quigley made and he should have known better!
Paul K
Aug 18, 2010 9:50 PM
It amazes me that people will nit pick, and twist and turn, to avoid changing their minds when faced with such a well writen, and reasoned, speach.
ndlr
Aug 18, 2010 10:26 PM
Still going with the wireless comedy act Merari?

I've got to be blunt with you though, your sarcasm isn't translating to text at all. A lot of people think you're being serious and completely miss the joke.

Maybe if you start with something about the 'Three Golden Rules of Wireless', just to set the stage for the main act. Then everyone should see that your tongue has practically ripped a hole through your cheek!

Wireless is only for people on the move.
Wireless is only for small population centres off the beaten track.
Wireless is only light users that can't access a cheaper wired connection.

I'm thinking centre alignment, One in italics, One underlined and the other bolded. Obviously all in an over-sized font.

Kind Regards
-Your biggest fan

P.S. - What's this about 100mb/s FTTN now? Are they going to replace all the twisted pair with HFC or just putting in more twisted pairs so everyone can have Two VDSL2+ connections? Only $15bn??
bslattery
Aug 19, 2010 1:58 AM
This is one of the most misleading, self-serving, factually incorrect speeches I have ever heard. As the 2010 Charles Todd Medalist I am disgusted by the misrepresentations and misinformation that has been passed off as "facts without fear or favour". My full response will be in Commsday later today.
Maxxi2
Aug 19, 2010 3:26 AM
davmel, agreed you are technically correct!

However in the context of whether wireless would make a usable, viable and sutainable alternative for the majority of the NBN, Quigley is correct.

As the wisdom goes, the exception proves the rule.

The average ounter *could* grab an ABN and use the $600pm plan, but I am punting that few punters would, and if the NBN was based on that infrastructure and plans, it would fail.

But, techncially you are correct that the plan exists.
Maxxi2
Aug 19, 2010 3:27 AM
hmmmm... punter, not ounter...
bslattery
Aug 19, 2010 7:53 AM
@maxi2 "However in the context of whether wireless would make a usable, viable and sutainable alternative for the majority of the NBN, Quigley is correct."

Agree. However the context in which Quigley made this statement was that uptake on the NBN will not be substantially hindered by wireless broadband plans. He cited the lack of 50GB download options on wireless TODAY as his supporting evidence.

That evidence is completely flawed because:
1. Additional whitespace TV spectrum can and should be brought to the wireless provider market particularly in the metro markets
2. Does not take into consideration the 4G technologies that are now being rolled out around the world TODAY which can deliver continuous multi-megabit services (actually in the tens of megabits)

[b]

Rossyduck
Aug 19, 2010 8:53 AM
Talk about smoke and mirrors, and half truths with some techno jargon thrown in to try and add credibilty. This was scrapping the barrel to protect his and his mates jobs. this guy is so out of touch. Where do we start ?

* He is not representing the NBN and should not talk on its behalf - it is a concept, he is representing NBN Co, one of the many tools chosen to develop the NBN. A lot of us would argue they are making a mess of it.

* Alcatel -lucent is not a private company - it is supported and boltered by the French government - even the Australian operation have a parastal feel to them.

* Why boast about the telco professionals - this is precisely the problem. A telco and an FttH provider are very different operations. Telcos have fought FttH, with only Telstra making a very inept foray with Velocity, an obviously stodgy telco design that just did not work, putting it in as a way to circumvent declared services legislation. By bringing in telco "professinals" from our illustrious Telcos all governemnt have done is move the problems from the telcos to NBN co.

* First basic communications was a strategic necesity with overland telegraph, essentail for survival of the colony. NBN Co are building a network that is a luxury, not what is really needed. Most other countries already have mixed access networks and they work reasonalbly well and certainly not badly enough to warrent $30 billion of taxpayers money just so it all looks the same to the contractors supporting it. I even see that as a negative - reember the Irish potato famine ?

* the contractors in Tasmania were screwed and screwed them selves to get the first business in the hopes of further business. They have lost money hand over fist. Lets look at the true cost of Tasmania - and not expect that to happen for the mainland deployment.

* He is so out of touch with technology - why is he making such a big deal of his 1Gbps ? We have all been offering this - just not sure if his solution is forklift approach to replace equipment, or are his quaking staff dedicating the entire GPON system bandwidth to one customer ? the question to ask is can he serve more than 2 customers on a network that shold be serving 64 ?

and so on the list is endless. What a lot of twaddle - about the only thing he got right is that from a physics perspective fibre is the better technology.
MerariSchroeder
Aug 19, 2010 8:56 AM
Maxxi2 "Can you see and comprehend the words *NBN Co will be providing a 12 Mbps service on wireless* ??"
Clearly there is a difference between terrestrial wireless and satellite. Quigley speaks of satellite. I speak of terrestrial, more specifically 4G such as LTE. Also with LTE coding there is over 3.2Gbps in spectrum. As more and more services move do more efficient digital encoding, more and more spectrum will be available to wireless.

"What's this about 100mb/s FTTN now? Are they going to replace all the twisted pair with HFC"
You don't seem to understand FTTN, it will leverage the sunsetting copper.

"or just putting in more twisted pairs so everyone can have Two VDSL2+ connections" Two VDSL2 connections? You only need one pair for 100Mbps.

"Only $15bn??"
Yes, that's an upper limit figure of which the labor government said would cost $4.7bn at the last election.

I see no one refuting:
3) The Peak Debt argument, just noise about the inability of FTTN to go 1Gbps, which I clearly preempted and addressed in my last post. The Peak debt is lower, the bandwidth is more than enough (the government said that 25Mbps is enough) for 10 years, it's more affordable, there's less financial risk and it CAN be improved on in the future. Other innovative comms technolgies or FTTP CAN be built off of FTTN as it's NEEDED, and will likely be CHEAPER in total as new processes such as micro-trenching will be available.

4) Elusive Productivity. Somehow going from telephone/SD video calls to HD video calls increases productivity? There may be a marginal improvement, but for $43bn? We can still have faster broadband and those marginal improvements by selecting more affordable options.
MerariSchroeder
Aug 19, 2010 8:59 AM
[Wireless]
My mistake, the NBNCo does have terrestrial wireless as part of their plan, but only for 4% on the fringes. I'm talking about wholesaleing LTE for 100% of the people. There are currently 3 or 4 overlapping 3.5G wireless networks.
bruiser
Aug 19, 2010 10:53 AM
Interestingly, Paul Fletcher, who Mr Quigley refers to, is actually a member of the Liberal Party and running for election in the seat of Bradfield.
Don't get me wrong, i love the idea of NBN, but I would also like to drive a Benz, but had to settle for what I could afford.
RDEFCON1
Aug 19, 2010 1:25 PM
@bslattery

Great input Bevan. It would be great if your response to Quigley's speech, as published in CommsDay, were made available in a more public forum.
mehanna
Aug 19, 2010 2:26 PM
The comments here on this true technically and praticly accurate article and is from experienced man that lived and practiced them to begin with. I personally strongly think that the NBN FTTP is future proof for up to 100 not just 50 years. Wireless is supportive technolgy but no matter how technology develops with it, Wireless will always struggles in signal penetration (as mobile signal do today today), reliability and service balance, availabity in service with open air weather and landscape environments and man made architecture. NBN FTTP needs our full support for the hugely properous future of Australia and each one of us. I assure you if we let this project goes through to completion. All of us will much more work done in all aspects of our lifes; smarter, faster and with little effort. We'all be smiling and even much more prouder Australians. The ROI on this investment will be easily > 100% in the long run. any arguments against it, will be short sited in the Australian interest I think.
noobi
Aug 19, 2010 2:38 PM

The problem with FTTN is the use of the old last mile copper/aluminum cable from the pillar which will need dslam/power and upgrading of the poi for all access seekers (large fridge sized cabinets at each pillar)
trunking fibre will also need to be run from the node to the telstra exchange (oop's there may be a problem with that)now who is going to look after the maintenance of the old copper cable from pillar to home? who will pay for the power to the node? how will all of the TLS share holders react to the news that telstra will have to keep all of thier old and failing exchanges operating and upgrade them. IMHO the only way to go is FTTP this will allow a fair playing field for everyone involved, telstra will be able to sell old scaresly used exchanges/realestates and consolidate equipment and IMO create even larger profits for its share holders.

(sorry for spelling and grammar)
I do not own TLS shares, and I work for a competitor.
RGrundy
Aug 19, 2010 3:09 PM
@RDEFCON1
http://www.commsday.com/commsday/?p=1410

Not really a counter argument, more pointing out where Quigley hasn't get the facts right.
zag
Aug 19, 2010 5:00 PM
@David Havyatt

No company has done a 50gb+ mobile plan in Australia anyway, vividwireless is the only mobile company doing a 40gb plan.

Though Optus do offer a way to get 24+gb on their mobile network.

@lindsayb
Yeah I agree but from what I noticed while doing website work is that Australian companies arn't interested in the net or even having a website as it doesn't bring in the business for them.

Australia is still into the whole phone up company get info etc that way.

Though I don't agree that Australia don't have a domain register, it costs more for .com.au domains than .com because again companies aren't fussed about having a website so they don't sell as often, and for many it's an unwanted expense.

@Maxxi2
LOL, none of the major mobile companies do any unlimited or high quota mobile plans, they'll be in the pipeline though.

Optus already offer double the standard quota on mobile plans.

Mike Quigley isn't correct because no mobile company in Australia has ever offered a 50gb plan, though singtel in Singapore offer 50gb mobile plans for $20 Singapore dollars a month.

The problem isn't to do with the network it's the mobile companies not offering such plans.

RDEFCON1
Aug 19, 2010 5:37 PM
@RGrundy - "Not really a counter argument, more pointing out where Quigley hasn't get the facts right."

Having now read it, it seems like Quigley didn't get any of the facts right...
golfman
Aug 19, 2010 9:13 PM
When evaluating key infrastructure upgrades like high speed broadband it is useful to analyse what path other developed countries have taken.

This page summarizes the cable connected (i.e. non wireless) choices taken by other countries. Remember that the coalition's policy maintains an openness to leveraging new technologies as they arrive, which very importantly means the adoption of Fibre to the node/neighbourhood:

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

In ALL but 4 countries the cheaper, faster to deploy, 'Fibre to the node/neighbourhood' option was taken to leverage the investment in existing copper pairs by installing nodes that meant coppers only do small hauls up to 1 - 1.6km instead of hauling all the way back to the exchange.

Only 4 'stand out' countries chose the NBN's much more expensive 'Fibre to the Home/Premises' architecture.

These were:
1. Spain: European economic basket case
2. Portugal: European economic basket case
3. Singapore: A country the size of a city. High population density and so no long distances. Probably could have wired together 2 tin cans with strings from one side of the country to the other and still been successful ;)

"Lucky" last on the list of the 4 countries to have chosen NBN style HTTP over HTTN:

Australia: Borrowing $100,000,000 a day. Borrow an extra $43Billion+interest+BER style blowouts for the NBN .. does that put us at risk of joining Spain and Portugal in the basket?
ITnovice
Aug 19, 2010 9:47 PM
"Paul K
Aug 18, 2010 9:50 PM

It amazes me that people will nit pick, and twist and turn, to avoid changing their minds when faced with such a well writen, and reasoned, speach."

I couldn't agree more (*has MerariSchroeder in mind amongst others). Some people are more interested in supporting their parties views than being real about the best technical solution to the problem. Abbotts plan is barely technically adequate for today, let alone the future.

It is not as simple as less cost and wireless feedom equals better internet for all.
golfman
Aug 19, 2010 9:56 PM
Mike stepped onto very shaky ground when he said this:
"It is much easier to deliver nationwide e-Health and remote education services on a standardised and ubiquitous network. On the contrary, it's rather difficult to deliver these services on a patchwork of technologies - it's been tried in other countries."

The entire point of IP based communication networks (of which the internet is a well known example) means that you and the network applications (like browsers, email clients etc..,) that you use don't care how lower layers of the ISO stack are implemented or which infrastructure they go through or where they are located or who owns them.

A packet simply goes into the cloud at one point and comes out at a specified destination point without us caring how it got there. e-health, education or any range of web based applications don't care how their data is delivered across the internet so long as it get there in a timely fashion.

In fact the internet is rarely ever the homogenized, purile, standardized, ubiquitous, 'nirvana of infrastructure' that Mike is trying to convince us that we "must have" or we'll all be rendered to the age of steam.

And yet every day billions and billions of packets flow over this chaotic, organic, every growing and ever changing network with barely ever a fault that bubbles up to the end user.

The philosophy of the internet's original, beautiful, elegant design was not to fear this chaotic, organic 'mess' and not to impose constraints so as to enforce some unnatural order on its natural form. No, the beauty of its design was that it falls in love with and embraces this 'organic chaos' and becomes its life long soul mate.

The fact that I'm entering keystrokes now that will be delivered across this 40 year old love affair with chaos is a testament to the awesome genius of its creators all those years ago.

Anyone who thinks they can impose form and structure on a naturally chaotic system is not embracing the spirit of the internet's creators and will surely suffer all the wrath of an angry lover.
RDEFCON1
Aug 20, 2010 10:21 AM
@ITnovice - "Some people are more interested in supporting their parties views than being real about the best technical solution to the problem."

Just because some people have different views about what it the 'best' technical solution to 'the problem', doesn't mean they are supporting a political party. 'Best' is very subjective and depends on your criteria, and some people on these forums would debate even the definition of 'the problem'.

Just because someone thinks you're wrong, doesn't mean they vote for the other party.
plover
Aug 20, 2010 2:09 PM
The wikipedia link posted by golfman is to a page about the technology used for FTTN. Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber_to_the_premises_by_country for a view of its usage around the world. Although that page is a bit out of date.
DazzaJ
Aug 22, 2010 7:57 PM
How will wasting 43 to 50 Billion dollars help with the current lack of affordable housing, or with the closure of rural hospitals, or the lack of education, or the high unemployment, or the increasing crime rate or anything else.
Let Telstra, Optus and whoever wants to, supply their services with less restriction.
Remember Telstra wanted to upgrade its network years ago and the Government stopped them.
The NBN is a joke, and Quiggley is simply looking after his own pocket.
End result of Labours spending spree? More tax, more inflation, higher interest rates, and unaffordable internet access!
advocate
Aug 23, 2010 9:35 AM
Head of the NBN Co justifies NBN Co's existence just before a close election that may see it dissolved - that is a surprise.



Edited by advocate: 23/8/2010 09:40:13 AM
lindsayb
Aug 24, 2010 9:49 PM
Look as I said in my first post, I think fibre is a good choice and I dont think it will ever be cheaper to implement, but after reading this article in the SMH

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/there-was-no-room-at-the-hospital-for-gravely-sick-connor-williams-he-died-16-hours-later-20100823-13imr.html

I dont think this is where we should spend federal funds.
Maxxi2
Aug 26, 2010 1:55 AM
And Vivid Wireless has now clearly demonstrated the ability of wireless networks to keep poace with Internet usage growth...

Oh, oops, wrong again. Let's try this once more...

Vivid Wireless having massive capacity problems due to high usage levels of the customers. Seems the wireless infrastructure cannot cope with this loading.

Now what was Quiglley saying about wireless not being suitable for high loading and usage levels??

Oh yes, he was saying they will have problems handing the foreseen growth...

10 plaus points for the Quig, 10 demerit points for the wireless advocates. Soz guys, the proof is in the pudding, or lack thereof.
Maxxi2
Aug 26, 2010 2:02 AM
lindsayb, well in my town they spend $$$ on raods that could have been spent on hospitals.

In the next town they spent money on derro jobless folks that could hjave been spent on hospital beds.

My neighbour spent money on a new car that he could have donated to that hospital.

We have all thse brain cooking mobile networks, why do Telstra and Optus spend money on those?? Support hospitals.

No fed funding for sport, spend it on hospital beds.

No fed spending on roads, spend it on hospitals.

No fed spending on export support! Spend it on hospitals.

There, those few choice examples, plus 100 others, should see us with wonderful hospitals. We can cancel all sorts of things lindsayb, all sorts of things, why stop at the NBN mate????

Why only degrade the telecommunications market and infrastructure, let's hammer schools, unis, industry support, R&D, all sorts of things are not as important as saving lives, let's cancel them all and spend it on hospitals.

Right?

BTW: Why did you pick the NBN as the reason that Connor died?
Comments have been disabled for this article.
 
 
 
Top Stories
Australian miners send drones to work
In-depth: Unmanned aerial vehicles in the resources sector.
 
The New Zealand telco problem
Opinion: Could Telstra save Kiwi telcos?
 
IT price probe to 'name and shame' gougers
Industry ducking the issue, committee claims.
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...

Latest VideosSee all videos »

Latest Comments
Polls
Should the Government enact new legislation to protect copyright holders in the digital age?

   |   View results
Yes
  20%
 
No
  80%
TOTAL VOTES: 507

Vote