NBN wins fans and critics in TV debate

 

Debate transcends weeks of political slanging.

The National Broadband Network last night received votes of confidence from a school, university, pediatrician, patient and rural resident in a televised debate on the SBS Insight program- but the reaction of a resident in a Tasmanian first-release site showed how far the Government has to go to bridge dividing public opinion on the network.

After a relatively dark couple of weeks for the National Broadband Network - turned into a political football by the Opposition and hounded by sections of the press -  the network positively basked in the lights cast by apparent supporters who could see applications that would benefit from a high-speed national internet infrastructure.

The head of the first Tasmanian school to receive an NBN connection, Circular Head Christian School Principal Patrick Bakes, said the school had seen an eightfold improvement in its uplink speeds for videoconferencing.

"Previously, one video conference, which wasn't very good quality, took our entire bandwidth in terms of up[link]," Bakes said.

"We can now do eight [video conferences], so that's significantly faster. We can also download a whole lot more which means that more of our students can be on the internet at any one time."

Bakes hoped the school might eventually be able to link up electronically with other schools to allow it to run subjects across schools that would be unfeasible to offer to low student numbers at each individual location.

"We want to be able to link with other schools in terms of setting up classrooms," he said.

"We might only have, for example, two students who want to do physics. If we can get to other schools using video conferencing, linking, we could run a much bigger class and make it more viable."

The University of New England harboured similar aspirations to use an NBN network connection to run virtual classrooms.

Another oft-cited use case for the NBN - e-health and telemedicine - was also front-and-centre of the debate.

Pediatrician Michael Williams, based at Mackay in North Queensland, was shown using telemedicine on an existing Queensland Health fibre-optic network - a system he said the NBN could make available more widely in the region.

"It may be able to extend things further out and particularly beyond the Queensland Health [fibre] network into private medical centres [and] homes," Dr Williams said.

"We could do follow-ups with some patients in the home and i think [NBN] will provide a better quality of videoconferencing in the home and on those sites.

"[Also] when I'm on call I might be able to get good quality provision looking through to an emergency call from one of our outlying hospitals and assess the patient there."

A local resident Danny Prentice used the telehealth service to diagnose a heart problem affecting his child.

Prentice said the system "helped out a lot to find out what's wrong with your kids straight away without having to go down to Brisbane [about a 1050 kilometre trip].

"It was actually pretty scary but when Dr Williams was able to organise that interlink it was a lot easier on us and less stress," he said.

An "older" resident of Smithton - one of Tasmania's first-release sites for the NBN - believed the NBN would be "very good" for telemedicine but said she didn't think she "could find very much use" for a fibre connection, and was yet to take advantage of the network.

She was also concerned about the cost of the project.

"I do wonder about the cost of it, because [NBN Co] was in Smithton for five months probably hooking up about 2,500 homes. and those men, they really worked, through gales and sludgy sleet and they worked from sun up to sundown and it still took them nearly five months," she said.

"There was hundreds of them."

The Smithton resident later queried Communications Minister Stephen Conroy on how much the Smithton rollout had cost taxpayers.

Her reaction to Conroy's response was indicative of the type of challenges that lie ahead for the Government to convince sections of Australia that the proposed price tag is not too high, as has been suggested by the Coalition and others.

"The first contract was just over $30 million but that was actually putting in place the backbone, the electronics, the operations centre and a whole host of things that were for the whole of Tasmania," Conroy explained.

"So the backbone, the operations centre, and a whole host of other things that will service all of Tasmania were included in the cost of the first contract."

The TV camera shot from Conroy to Webb after the $30 million figure was dropped, catching Webb exchange glances with the person sitting next to her before turning to face the camera, clearly concerned.

But for other residents of rural Australia, it seemed the NBN could not come soon enough.

Wayne Blacker of Bilyana in far North Queensland was supposed to join the debate by Skype video - only to have the connection drop out just before he was due to go live to air.

"We were going to have someone join from Skype but the line dropped out," host Jenny Brockie said.

"He was going to tell us how much problem he has [getting internet]."

When Blacker joined minutes later, he was connected to a pair-gain system in Townsville, limiting him to 4 Mbps - but said Bilyana was worse.

"Up at Bilyana I literally have to hang a wireless 3G modem over a curtain rod to get any sort of signal so it's not very good up there at all," Blacker said, much to Conroy's amusement.

When asked if he'd sign up to the NBN, he had one word: "Definitely".

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


NBN wins fans and critics in TV debate
(Right) Patricia Webb, Smithton resident (still courtesy SBS TV)
"I agree with Tom. Lots of posts and lots of counter arguments.. I prefer numbers: Neilsen's Law seems to track Moore's law. Availability and demand appear to be exponential. So 20, or 50, or even ..."
By Pilotyoda
 
 
 
Comments: 82
listohan
Oct 27, 2010 8:45 AM
As usual Malcolm Turnbull got his lion share of the debate time by his bullying. He kept referring to US practice, the country which cannot even foreclose its mortgages properly and is in danger of having its land title insurance system implode as an indirect result of sloppy legal work and the dud loans system. This is also the country that cannot even organise a viable medicare system, and looks as if it is about to vote out the venal politicians who delivered it to them.

The time has come now to apply the blowtorch to Malcolm on a cost benefit analysis of his system. As one who accesses the Internet from within the magic 1 km radius of his exchange, I am lucky to get 8 Mb when the Liberals seem to be promising 12 Mb nationwide. If this experience is shared, the proportion of the copper network which needs upgrading is probably far more than Malcolm and his organ grinder, Tony Abbott, understand.
longsword
Oct 27, 2010 9:49 AM
@Listohan why is a cost benefit analysis such a concern to you. As we the Austrlian tax payer are paying for this I'd like to have open and honest figures and a good business case/cost benefit analysis done. As a fornmer IT manager I had to provide a business case for any project spending more than $25K included mandataed projects from head office O/seas. Why should Conby and his Labour cronies get away with feathering ex Labour hacks next on the sly with the NBN. Every dollar spent should be approved as part of the budget process hence open to inspection.
MerariSchroeder
Oct 27, 2010 10:06 AM
"We can now do eight [videoconferences], so that's significantly faster."

That's the problem with the way debate on this issue is structured. They keep focusing on aspects which any alternative NBN plan could achieve.

Talk about the alternatives and the potential to have the same services for less cost.
schneider
Oct 27, 2010 10:12 AM
Longword,

I'm so happy there is someone else out there in the IT sector who is questioning the government. I'm so disappointed with our industry at the moment as they perform an I want argument instead of a measured debate of the merits of spending such a large sum of money. There are a lot of people entering into the debate with no REAL knowledge of what they are talking about and just as many using their qualification as justification for building the network rather then basing it on figures as we all are required to do in IT.

I'm quite disappointed in people like Simon Hackett who I respect for his push into quality not quantity. He money grabbing on the NBN is disappointing. He should be making a stance as an IT specialist in asking for a CBA but instead he is ridding on the government investment like the other money grabbers. I understand the benefits to his business in being on the network and having Australia on the network. I'm just disappointed he doesn't look at the bigger picture.
realitybites
Oct 27, 2010 11:46 AM
All of my colleagues/associates in the IT industry (in my region) that I speak to, want the NBN. They can see the benefits/advantages the NBN will bring both their businesses and the customers they service. That leads me to conclude that the only people in the IT industry who don't want the NBN are already in an area (read city) that provides fibre capacity.

Expanding this logic further makes me wonder if these IT businesses that already have access to fibre capacity feel somehow threatened by the regions obtaining the same capacity?

Just sayin...
nardoth
Oct 27, 2010 11:55 AM
Couldn't agree more realitybites.
HubertCumberdale
Oct 27, 2010 11:59 AM
I watched this last night and found it quite hilarious, despite Conroy's poor performance Turnbull & Morgan made absolute fools of themselves, Morgan especially. I love the way these Luddites always conveniently seem to ignore upload issues. This is what it's all about and they just dont get it. I imagine they never will.

Also 10/10 for Tony Windsor, we need more politicians like him.

Edited by HubertCumberdale: 27/10/2010 12:02:12 PM
schneider
Oct 27, 2010 1:06 PM
Realitybites,

I am not a provider of fibre nor do I have ANY vested interest in it other then as a customer and a tax paying. Our business WOULD benefit from Everyone having BB but I know everyone will NOT buy into it. The question is cost. a CBA would answer this but those who think it's so great will not support a CBA why is that? Is it because they know the outcome? Uploads are currently an issue ONLY because currently trends have push ADSL if it was SDSL there would be no problem (It was a CHOICE made by Technical advisors) in fact if you look at emerging Technologies such as LTE they are now allowing for larger Upload speeds. I know I have video conferenced on the next G network with 480 quality over two Next G devices... so what is the problem? I don't need to see my employee's new pimple... Let the experts deal with the issues that arise. They wouldn't be increasing data plans if they didn't think their networks could handle it.

I know of trips to rural Victoria (from Brisbane) I can RDP into remote sites while in a car and trouble shoot issues customers have. What do you expect? 1080p? and just so you know even with the NBN I would still be relying on Wireless for around 40% of my companies data traffic.
schneider
Oct 27, 2010 1:09 PM
Also a note. I currently have 15Mbps from my home. My current speed into the US (for many sites) is around 2Mbps the bottle neck for me is not in Australia, it's once I'm handed off to the network in the US.
rycrozier
Oct 27, 2010 1:25 PM
@Hubert - agreed that Conroy got off to a shaky (and possibly a bit too technical) start, but he did recover.

I think he can thank Paul Budde for his staunch defence of the project and also Jenny Brockie, whose question to Turnbull over whether the FCC/US model was really something we should be giving so much credence to, was a bit of a turning point in the debate, and certainly one where Turnbull started to look rustled.
HubertCumberdale
Oct 27, 2010 1:36 PM
schneider wrote:
What do you expect? 1080p?

I do. 1080p is not an unreasonable expectation in fact it wont be too long before even 4k becomes a possibility, do you really think this sort of thing is possible or practical with the current infrastructure or the poorly devised plans the coalition have put forward?
tim02
Oct 27, 2010 1:43 PM
The reason a CBA is a complete waste of money is that for it to be accurate you would need to include all the innovations that will eventuate from this technology. That means knowing what will be invented and utilised by this infrastructure for about the next 50 years. Otherwise you would not see all the benifits. You are kidding yourself if you think this can be done I find it amazing the objections to a government spending tax payers money on state of the art infrastructure. If you don't understand the technology you should educate yourself before commenting on the cost of it.
Gavk
Oct 27, 2010 2:24 PM
The bottleneck isnt the international links, we have 25 terabits of international capacity for gods sake, it's either you downloading from a website with poor connectivity or your ISP not purchasing enough international bandwidth.

To reiterate, we have enough international transit for everyone to keep the same download habits they have now and download at over 10Gbps, obviously source your downloading from won't keep up with that, but the capacity isn't the problem...

What alot of people also miss is sure, other technologies could handle 8 simultaneous video conferences, but then what? what when we need more than 8? what if a small business has 100 people using the connection at once? Oh sorry, that's where FTTN is completely useless.

We need to look more than today, FTTN wouldn't last us more than 5 years.

8 video conferences is just scratching the surface of what FTTH can do, the current speed record for copper is a few hundred megabits, cool, the record for Fiber is 100Pb/s - ie 100,000,000,000 simultaneous voice conferences.

Whilst yes, FTTN is cheaper than FTTH, what good is that when the investment will be useless in 5 years? do it right the first time.

What FTTH is now, is what copper was when we rolled it out, what would have happened if we said it was too expensive, let's not bother?

I saw this TV show also and Kevin Morgan was just lying nonstop, and all Turnbull could do was say the US (the nation #1 for debt) is rolling out a slower system so we should copy them despite having a far better economy, and throw around dollar signs to try and scare people.

The NBN is not even 1% of our budget, let's just build it already, let's lead the world in something for once instead of playing catchup.
schneider
Oct 27, 2010 2:42 PM
Hubert,
How to I fly with the eagle when their are turkeys like you?
1080p is a nice thing NO a need. 4k is totally unrealistic.

LTE will allow for 1080p but I think it's a waste of time as 480 does a good job for most people.

Tim02, if you did research you would find that in 50 years much of the network will need replacing... Fibre has a life span which means with out out side intervention you should get around 30 years out of it.. I know the research I talk to many people on a daily basis about this topic.

No one has every said fibre is NOT the fast current technology. The Question we are trying to force the government to answer is it the most economical way to provide the services into the future.

How is amazing I object to people poorly investing my taxes? I want value for money even from the government!

I don't support FTTN I support FTTP where there are benefit (businesses/Schools and alike) I don't support families getting Fibre so they can talk to grandma in 1080p! Why not build the first part we can always build the second after.... No wasted money! What is wrong with that? Most businesses need BB and fibre is just another way to deliver fast speeds. Stop the I want and start the we can affords... Express the 1% in terms on freed government money. Just like a house hold most of the money is already spent and REQUIRED for basic services. With the current government we are spending around 105% of our income... Where does the 1% come from?
nardoth
Oct 27, 2010 3:11 PM
schneider.

You really need to start thinking outside your little world. Just because you find 480 res fine for your needs, what makes you think everyone else is going to stick with that for the next 10 years.

Do you realise that todays average computers RAM is the size of 10 years ago average harddrive?

Do you really think over the next 10 years your needs and requirements in all IT related areas isn't going to continue to go up?

And do you really think that your copper is going to be the best and most cost effective way of handling this constant growing IT World??

If your really wanted value for money you would be looking to see what was best not just for your pocket today and tomorrow, but what would be best over the next 30 years (seeing as that is what you reakon the life of fibre is).
HubertCumberdale
Oct 27, 2010 3:22 PM
schneider wrote:

1080p is a nice thing NO a need.

NO a need? what does that even mean? Do you want to talk about needs & wants? 1080p is not an unreasonable expectation from an internet connection in 2010. People with lower standards can use SD if they like...

schneider wrote:

4k is totally unrealistic.

No it isn't.

schneider wrote:

LTE will allow for 1080p but I think it's a waste of time as 480 does a good job for most people.

You have that (SD) option with FTTH, plus it opens up the possibility of using 1080p with multiple people and without disrupting other internet activities.

schneider wrote:

Tim02, if you did research you would find that in 50 years much of the network will need replacing... Fibre has a life span which means with out out side intervention you should get around 30 years out of it..

Copper has a life span too, it's about time to replace it should we A) replace that copper with copper or B) replace that copper with fibre which has a longer life span?

schneider wrote:

I know the research I talk to many people on a daily basis about this topic.

LOL

schneider wrote:

How is amazing I object to people poorly investing my taxes?

Your taxes?

schneider wrote:

I don't support FTTN I support FTTP where there are benefit (businesses/Schools and alike)

I think you have that around the wrong way (not surprised) but FTTN is a dead end, you talk about wanting "value for money even from the government" but would endorse wasting money on a FTTN network. You fail.

schneider wrote:

I don't support families getting Fibre so they can talk to grandma in 1080p!

Really what people do with their 100mbit NBN connections is none of your business.

schneider wrote:

I want value for money even from the government!

NBN achieves that, thanks for stopping by.


btw nice quote from the show last night:
Quote:
STEPHEN CONROY: Larry Smart, an American, one of the founders and fathers of the internet, he comes to Australia regularly to say that what Australia is doing the best in the world. He says if people say, they can’t imagine what you can do with 100 megs - that is a failure of their imagination not 100 megs.

I think it's quite poignant.

tim02
Oct 27, 2010 3:42 PM
Schneider,

Does 30 Years make it easier to conduct an accurate CBA? The fact is that both the major parties support fast broadband, but the Coalition will only fall into line with the NBN when a CBA is conducted. My point is that any CBA undertaken will not be accurate. Whether it be 30, 40 or 50 years, you can not possibly know the full benifits of this infrastructure.
schneider
Oct 27, 2010 3:47 PM
"Fibre To The Premise" IS what I meant. I DON'T support FTTH or FTTN yes I now what they are!

Yes my taxes are going to the NBN if you didn't know that's where the government gets their money... from taxes... I'm a Tax payer just like you are...

Yes copper has a life span (you wrong about it's life span though... it's longer) and yes when replacing it we should look at alternatives. Just as telstra HAS for the South Brisbane area which IS being upgraded to Fibre (free of charge to the tax payers!)

Cost is key here. This is what I have said for a few years not a CBA will help evaluate. and they CAN make assumption about technologies and they CAN talk about short term investment issues and they can talk about every aspect of the NBN. It's part of due diligence! It's not a waste of money if it comes back as a worth while investment they will have a road map if it comes back as a poor investment it will give options if it come back some where in the middle at LEAST it will have the figures so people don't have to fight with both hand tied behind their back! Give US the numbers!!!
tim02
Oct 27, 2010 4:07 PM
Perhaps you can look at it this way? In a 1 trillion dollar economy, we can ASSUME that an NBN can help generate a conservative figure of 20 Billion or 2 per cent of economic growth per year in the business sector. Multiply that by 30 years...
HubertCumberdale
Oct 27, 2010 4:10 PM
schneider wrote:
"Fibre To The Premise" IS what I meant. I DON'T support FTTH or FTTN yes I now what they are!

You dont support FTTN either? there is no hope for you I'm afraid...

schneider wrote:

Yes my taxes are going to the NBN if you didn't know that's where the government gets their money... from taxes... I'm a Tax payer just like you are...

And I approve of them spending OUR taxes on the NBN.

schneider wrote:

Yes copper has a life span (you wrong about it's life span though... it's longer)

Proof? you are wrong but it'll be interesting to see what you come up with to support your claim.

schneider wrote:

Cost is key here. blah blah blah Give US the numbers!!!

The cost is 43billion of which the government will contribute 26billion. This is all basic NBN stuff, haven't you been paying attention?
schneider
Oct 27, 2010 4:29 PM
Hubert,

Why would I have to support FTTH or FTTN? Nether have good ROI so I say no to both. FFTB (a re-coin term for businesses) Is something I support because there will be return! Everyone else just needs to be educated better on what is and will be available to them. I love the guy cry about using a USB dongle hung over a curtain rod. My parent live in an area where they only have access to 3g and only from telstra and they have NO phone of internet reception from inside the house!!! We installed a high gain antenna and hay presto full speed Next G! I can stream 1080p over that and uploads are around half and this is the old Next G technology (7.2) Now they would be able to upload at 1080p!

I love eHealth did you see the bandwidth! 128Kbps!! go have a look! and that was over fibre... so they had unlimited speed available. Could most ADSL supply this? YES.

Since you seem to know the numbers what will the wholesale cost be per connection? This is STILL not costed into the access given to customer in Tasmania!
realitybites
Oct 27, 2010 4:44 PM
ohh dear, round we go again... *sigh*
tim02
Oct 27, 2010 4:47 PM
This is what would be so good about an NBN. Coupled with technology like Intel's Light Peak and photonic chips (switches) currently being developed at the Uni of Sydney, we would not have to argue about speeds. We would just specify what connection we wanted and it would be available. All the chest beating going on about what's faster will be a thing of the past.
schneider
Oct 27, 2010 4:58 PM
and all the imagery profit will be taken by connection charges and government taxes
Ezy2Confuze
Oct 27, 2010 5:01 PM
HubertCumberdale wrote:

And I approve of them spending OUR taxes on the NBN

I second that comment. I'm tired of everyone else telling me I can't have something because they don't want it. I've paid taxes for 25+ years and the NBN is the first time I'll actually see any of it returned back to me in a way that benefits me directly.
anonymous
Oct 27, 2010 5:10 PM

@schneider: ""Fibre To The Premise" IS what I meant. I DON'T support FTTH or FTTN yes I now (sic) what they are!"

What you meant was Fibre to the Premises, since the word Premise to describe a building is incorrect. And since FTTP is effectively the same as FTTH, you don't seem very clear about what you want or why.

"Everyone else just needs to be educated ..." ROFL.
In your case, the education, like charity, should clearly begin at home.
HubertCumberdale
Oct 27, 2010 5:21 PM
schneider wrote:
Why would I have to support FTTH or FTTN?

Clearly you dont, enjoy dial-up or whatever other third world technology you prefer..

schneider wrote:

Nether have good ROI so I say no to both. FFTB (a re-coin term for businesses) Is something I support because there will be return!

yeah and there's a term for people like you...

schneider wrote:

Everyone else just needs to be educated better on what is and will be available to them.

If by "Everyone else" you mean just you then I agree.

schneider wrote:

I love eHealth did you see the bandwidth! 128Kbps!! go have a look! and that was over fibre... so they had unlimited speed available. Could most ADSL supply this? YES.

yay? I can eat a meal with a Swiss army knife that but doesn't make it a good idea. Especially when the proper utensils are available.

schneider wrote:

I love the guy cry about using a USB dongle hung over a curtain rod. My parent live in an area where they only have access to 3g and only from telstra and they have NO phone of internet reception from inside the house!!! We installed a high gain antenna and hay presto full speed Next G! I can stream 1080p over that and uploads are around half and this is the old Next G technology (7.2)

Oh great another wireless fanboy, latency? what about upload speed? you guys always ignore these things. btw not everything is exciting.
deteego
Oct 27, 2010 5:23 PM
Well actually according to the FCC (and Nielson's Law) the amount of bandwidth we need right now is between 4-15mbits. Anything higher is technically classed as a want (or a need by the few industries that require such high broadband which the private industry should cater for)

In terms of actual arguing I would have to say that Malcom/Keven outdid the others for various reasons

1. Paul was a freaking rude annoying loudmouth that constantly interrupted and spoke over the other people. It doesn't matter what you say, if you say it in such a way people will see you as being desperate to sell something (or being forceful) neither of which is good
2. Conroy performed better then he normally does, but he still had the horrible habit of using anecdotal evidence and creating straw-mans to prove his point (for example stating how people in X and Y are stuck on poor broadband when that was never coalitions argument and that they always wanted to fix that digital divide as did Labor)
3. A lot of the examples brought up in the debate (hospital, schools, buisness) it has already been argued by coalition many times that they fully support putting Fibre into all of those places. The issue is with putting Fibre to every home (and not just the places that required it)
4. Conroy quoting the IBM study (which did it on FTTN and not FTTH) and saying that as evidence that FTTH is very profitable (when it costs almost 10 times as much) is sheer stupidity. Your not an economist Conroy, so stop talking like you have the credentials as one. As correctly pointed out, the benefits in stepping from no/shitty broadband to decent broadband is massive, where as the benefits stepping from average broadband to high broadband start becoming negligible (when taking it into account the country nationally and not anecdotal evidence from a few people)
5. Malcom actually manged to provide external independent evidence to refute many of Conroys claims (not all), such as the US study in eHealth only stating you need 25mbits, which did a lot to hurt the case for FTTH. It doesn't matter if you disagree with such claims, he managed to provide them. Kevin also managed to debunk a proof about the claims brought by the EU study into broadband (specifically the point where their data was being misused by Paul, the benefits done in the study took into account people that stepped from no broadband to some broadband)
6. Tony Windsor ended up getting portrayed as a guy who didn't care about how the taxpayers money was being spent, as long as he got what he (or 'rural Australia') wanted and using what Tony Abbot said as an excuse (even though if you read the legislation there is nothing there that could stop/delay the NBN whatsoever). He only got portrayed this way because the other Independents (and the greens) said they are considering the Bill. This is very hypocritical of him, considering he stated earlier that he wanted more transparency into the NBN

As said rightly by ZDNet, Labor has a massive problem actually selling the benefits of the NBN, and if they can't do that then people will see it as a massive waste of money

Edited by deteego: 27/10/2010 05:27:28 PM
schneider
Oct 27, 2010 5:44 PM
Hubert,

Answer me this at what point is the NBN too expensive? $1B, $10B, $50B, $100B? Or it doesn't matter.

Latency in wireless can be a problem but it's one thing that LTE is set top address.

What is the term you want to give me come on show your Juvenal approach to the topic! Resort to name calling...

Third world system like ADSL2+... I'm quite happy with that actually. I see issues with my business every so often during peak times but at home 15Mbps is quick enough for me! I download over 50GB last night so I'm happy.
deteego
Oct 27, 2010 5:57 PM
@schneider

HubertCumberdale is just the type of person that would want FTTH at any cost
HubertCumberdale
Oct 27, 2010 6:01 PM
deteego wrote:
Well actually according to the FCC (and Nielson's Law) the amount of bandwidth we need right now is between 4-15mbits.

Right now I already have 16mbit, what about 2 years from now? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? and I certainly do not get 16mbit upload.


schneider wrote:
Answer me this at what point is the NBN too expensive? $1B, $10B, $50B, $100B? Or it doesn't matter.

I would say at $43,000,000,001

schneider wrote:

Latency in wireless can be a problem but it's one thing that LTE is set top address.

It really doesn't matter what improvements there are to wireless technologies it will never match fibre.

schneider wrote:

What is the term you want to give me come on show your Juvenal approach to the topic! Resort to name calling...

I didn't call you anything. Are you imagining words on the screen that dont actually exist? There's a name for people like that too.

schneider wrote:

Third world system like ADSL2+... I'm quite happy with that actually.

So when NBN starts connecting up your area opt for the 25mbit plan. This isn't rocket surgery you know.
HubertCumberdale
Oct 27, 2010 6:05 PM
deteego wrote:
@schneider

HubertCumberdale is just the type of person that would want FTTH at any cost

Of course as usual you are wrong, I would say 43billion is reasonable for a country like Australia. What wrong deteego? did you get sick of everyone at zdnet, delimiter and whirlpool? dont worry I can turn you into mince meat again if you like.
deteego
Oct 27, 2010 6:10 PM
HubertCumberdale wrote:
deteego wrote:
@schneider

HubertCumberdale is just the type of person that would want FTTH at any cost

Of course as usual you are wrong, I would say 43billion is reasonable for a country like Australia. What wrong deteego? did you get sick of everyone at zdnet, delimiter and whirlpool? dont worry I can turn you into mince meat again if you like.


And you are qualified to make such a claim?

HubertCumberdale wrote:
deteego wrote:
Well actually according to the FCC (and Nielson's Law) the amount of bandwidth we need right now is between 4-15mbits.

Right now I already have 16mbit, what about 2 years from now? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? and I certainly do not get 16mbit upload.

Also according to Nielson's law and Australia's history of internet, the private sector has ALWAYS kept up to demands of the internet speeds without the government spending money creating a new network from scratch and dumping the old one

Edited by deteego: 27/10/2010 06:11:37 PM
HubertCumberdale
Oct 27, 2010 6:14 PM
deteego wrote:

And you are qualified to make such a claim?

Yes.
HubertCumberdale
Oct 27, 2010 6:15 PM
Also
schneider wrote:
How to I fly with the eagle when their are turkeys like you?
schneider wrote:
What is the term you want to give me come on show your Juvenal approach to the topic! Resort to name calling...

yeah I notice the anti NBN crowd enjoy being hypocrites, not that it matters really but I do quite enjoy pointing out the inconsistencies with their arguments.
deteego
Oct 27, 2010 6:16 PM
HubertCumberdale wrote:
deteego wrote:

And you are qualified to make such a claim?

Yes.


Oh really, lets see your credentials. You are an economist now? Or are you like everyone else, claiming they know what they are talking about by dividing the cost of the NBN to a per day cost per capita?

Come on, tell us who you are?
realitybites
Oct 27, 2010 6:19 PM
"Also according to Nielson's law and Australia's history of internet, the private sector has ALWAYS kept up to demands of the internet speeds without the government spending money creating a new network from scratch and dumping the old one"

HAHAHAHA.. Thanks deteego, I needed that.
Who is this Neilson anyway? Is he related to Murphy at all?
HubertCumberdale
Oct 27, 2010 6:24 PM
deteego wrote:

Oh really, lets see your credentials. You are an economist now? Or are you like everyone else, claiming they know what they are talking about by dividing the cost of the NBN to a per day cost per capita?

Come on, tell us who you are?

Oh my you really are clueless aren't you?

I said:
Quote:
I would say 43billion is reasonable for a country like Australia.


And I'm right, someone else might say 46billion is reasonable and you might say 5 billion is reasonable and you'd be right too... if you were talking about a FTTN network.

deteego wrote:

Also according to Nielson's law and Australia's history of internet, the private sector has ALWAYS kept up to demands of the internet speeds without the government spending money creating a new network from scratch and dumping the old one

So everyone in Australia can get 16mbit now? and will be able to get 100mbit (from the private sector) in 2 years?
deteego
Oct 27, 2010 6:24 PM
realitybites wrote:
"Also according to Nielson's law and Australia's history of internet, the private sector has ALWAYS kept up to demands of the internet speeds without the government spending money creating a new network from scratch and dumping the old one"

HAHAHAHA.. Thanks deteego, I needed that.
Who is this Neilson anyway? Is he related to Murphy at all?


Google helps
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakob_Nielsen_(usability_consultant)#cite_note-0

(also his law has been 100% correct, and he made the law in the 90's)

HubertCumberdale wrote:

So everyone in Australia can get 16mbit now? and will be able to get 100mbit (from the private sector) in 2 years?

Nielsens law says we will need 100mbit in 15-20 years, not 2 (actually having a look at what the law is helps)

Edited by deteego: 27/10/2010 06:28:05 PM
realitybites
Oct 27, 2010 6:31 PM
"Who is this Neilson anyway? Is he related to Murphy at all?"

Failed at humour again! Dang, tough crowd.. Back to humour(?) school for me ;)
anonymous
Oct 27, 2010 6:32 PM

@deteego, maybe you should do some Googling yourself, when you would find out that it is Nielsen's Law, which says that the speed of Net connections increases by 50% per year, compound.

In other words, starting with a connection speed of 8Mbps, we wwill need more than 460Mbps in ten years and more than 200Gbps in twentyfive years.

And you persist in claiming that we do not need the NBN.
HubertCumberdale
Oct 27, 2010 6:36 PM
deteego wrote:

Nielsens law says we will need 100mbit in 15-20 years, not 2 (actually having a look at what the law is helps)

Ha! I'm not waiting 15years for 100mbit, Good thing NBNco are building this FTTH network.

but actually that exactly what Nielsens law says:

I assume you know how to count bits?

And btw there is no real reason why we need to be bound by Nielsens law anyway.
deteego
Oct 27, 2010 6:36 PM
anonymous wrote:

@deteego, maybe you should do some Googling yourself, when you would find out that it is Nielsen's Law, which says that the speed of Net connections increases by 50% per year, compound.

uhh, its not compounded, its linear (the graph is a straight line)

This is what I was referring to
http://nbnexplained.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/100910_1805_Whydoweneed13.jpg

Edited by deteego: 27/10/2010 06:38:48 PM
HubertCumberdale
Oct 27, 2010 6:48 PM

It basically says the same thing in that graph too, what is wrong with you? 100mbit in 2015 that's 5 years away not 15, also it says 1gbit in about 2021 which fits right in with my estimates, they should call it Huberts Law. But how do you suppose we get these awesome speeds with the FTTN network the coalition was planning... WIRELESS WILL SAVE US! lol
deteego
Oct 27, 2010 6:51 PM
HubertCumberdale wrote:

It basically says the same thing in that graph too, what is wrong with you? 100mbit in 2015 that's 5 years away not 15, also it says 1gbit in about 2021 which fits right in with my estimates, they should call it Huberts Law. But how do you suppose we get these awesome speeds with the FTTN network the coalition was planning... WIRELESS WILL SAVE US! lol


Actually the lowest band is what is required (that is below the green), anything between the 2 green bars is the universal "average", so its around 2020-2025 (or w/e).

Its definitely not the 2 years you were stating, and FTTN can deliver those speeds with Fibre from the house to the Node (they just need updates in cabinet technology, which can easily happen in 10 years)

Edited by deteego: 27/10/2010 06:51:58 PM
realitybites
Oct 27, 2010 6:52 PM
Now I'm confused (yes I know that's easy) why does Hubert's differ to your's deteego? If it's a law should it remain constant?

"Two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong"
HubertCumberdale
Oct 27, 2010 6:54 PM
Who are you trying to fool deetego?

deteego wrote:
Actually the lowest band is what is required (that is below the green), anything between the 2 green bars is the universal "average", so its around 2020-2025 (or w/e).

Its definitely not the 2 years you were stating, and FTTN can deliver those speeds with Fibre from the house to the Node (they just need updates in cabinet technology, which can easily happen in 10 years)


Quote:
One of the most important implications of Neilson’s law and the current trend of Australian bandwidth requirements is that by 2015 the average Australian internet user will require a 100Mbit/s connection. 6 years on in 2021 it will become a 1Gbit/s connection. Figure 1 clearly shows that the current copper infrastructure (the orange line) will not be sufficient to provide the needs of future Australians (the continuing green line).
deteego
Oct 27, 2010 6:54 PM
realitybites wrote:
Now I'm confused (yes I know that's easy) why does Hubert's differ to your's deteego? If it's a law should it remain constant?


Firstly Hubert said we needed 100mbits in 2 years, thats definitely not what the graph states

Secondly, he is interpretative that graph incorrectly, what is between the 2 bars is average speed for applications, what is just below that green line is what is "required" (something that the government should be spending their money on)

Thirdly, there is nothing stopping from Private companies delivering Fibre at the time we require such speeds (which surprisingly enough, isn't now)

Hubert has some screwed up idea that private companies don't know how to lay down fibre

Edited by deteego: 27/10/2010 06:57:35 PM
tim02
Oct 27, 2010 6:59 PM
Well, this is an intelligent debate! The NBN will probably be built by the time you guys work out how the graph works... But why would we build infrastructure again and again to suit our ongoing needs? Why not build something that will cater for our needs into the future? Either way both of the major parties will legislate to upgrade the network.
realitybites
Oct 27, 2010 7:01 PM
Thanks to you both, Huberts orange line explaination also made things much clearer.
deteego
Oct 27, 2010 7:03 PM
tim02 wrote:
Well, this is an intelligent debate! The NBN will probably be built by the time you guys work out how the graph works... But why would we build infrastructure again and again to suit our ongoing needs?


Because its cheaper and the difference is negligible

Mind you, its definitely possible for FTTN to be used to deliver Fibre to the house (from the node). Its not possible (now) because the DSLAMS in there take up so much room (for ADSL), but with improvements in Technology, its definitely feasible

realitybites wrote:
Thanks to you both, Huberts orange line explaination also made things much clearer.


Under the assumption that private companies can't build fibre

Edited by deteego: 27/10/2010 07:04:21 PM
realitybites
Oct 27, 2010 7:05 PM
"Well, this is an intelligent debate! The NBN will probably be built by the time you guys work out how the graph works..."

lol, the explanation of the graph bit is my fault, apologies.. :)
HubertCumberdale
Oct 27, 2010 7:07 PM
deteego wrote:

Firstly Hubert said we needed 100mbits in 2 years, thats definitely not what the graph states

Actaully I didnt say that at all, I said
Quote:
and will be able to get 100mbit (from the private sector) in 2 years?

I (me) actually need 100mbit now but figure ~2 years for NBNco to connect my area, since I reasonably expect that everyone else is 3 years behind me then 100mbit for 2015 is needed.

deteego wrote:

Secondly, he is interpretative that graph incorrectly, what is between the 2 bars is average speed for applications, what is just below that green line is what is "required" (something that the government should be spending their money on)

oh boy you really enjoy making a fool of yourself.

deteego wrote:

Hubert has some screwed up idea that private companies don't know how to lay down fibre

If they did I'd be using a 100mbit fibre connection right now.

deteego
Oct 27, 2010 7:10 PM
HubertCumberdale wrote:

If they did I'd be using a 100mbit fibre connection right now.


Why would they be, there is no current market demand for it now ;)

Also, in new estates private companies have built FTTH, and i3 is doing an FTTH network in all of brisbane (which is only taking them 3-4 years).

Not sure you realize, but private companies do things a hellofalot faster then public ones, they have 10-25 years (whatever figure you want to put on it) to build something that would only take a few years (probably waiting for technology improvements to deploy Fibre for cheaper/faster along the way)

Edited by deteego: 27/10/2010 07:17:18 PM
singo79
Oct 27, 2010 7:31 PM
Let all of those people that don't want the NBN go with some form of wireless and put up with low data limits, high latency and an unreliable service. Meanwhile the rest of that want the NBN can encourage the Government and the NBNCo to roll out the network as fast as they can.

It all isn't just about cost (though that is important), but it is about nation building infrastructure and building a service that is going to take us into the future and most likely well outlast our pathetic copper network. Of course there are going to be people that say that there is still life in the copper network as most of which have a vested interest in the continuation of the network.

Forget about the US, they aren't even a drop in the ocean in terms of broadband adoption, speed or coverage. The countries we should be looking at are South Korea, Japan and the like, after all they are the leaders in this area.

Of course the Coalition want an Cost Benefit Analysis, for it will surely show the NBN in a not so positive light. The Cost Benefit Analysis can't and won't take into account all of the possibilities that could eventuate because of the NBN. Furthermore the NBN will most certainly be costly to install out in the bush (where I live) because of the remote areas that the crews will be working and staying whilst installing the network.

I know that there are areas in the major cities that are also affected by poor broadband speeds, reliability and competition, however the bush is by far the worse affected. No commercial enterprise is going to install costly infrastructure to regional residents due to the lower rate of return, therefore they target all of their time and money on the greater population.

This creates disparity between city and country and is just not acceptable (in my opinion). For if it not for people living and working in the country then we wouldn't have mining exports to bring in revenue for our economy, we wouldn't have farms that produce livestock and fresh fruit and vegetables and we wouldn't have work crews to maintain and service our national roads and electricity grid.

The NBN provides hope for people like me stuck on Telstra infrastructure. I am lucky to achieve 4Mbit on an ADSL2 port and I pay more for my services because there is no competition in our market.

The Coalition are just creating problems for the sake of being difficult jaded about the fact that they lost the election and that Labor were able to reform Government. I have no time or respect for their current actions. All they are proving is that they are sore losers incapable of living up to agreements made during negotiations to form government.
viditor
Oct 28, 2010 2:14 AM
Please people, don't get sidetracked by deteego. He is a proven troll that has been banned in other places...please don't feed the troll.
midspace
Oct 28, 2010 1:51 PM
If they do a CBA on the NBN with FTTP,
Then they'd better also do one for FTTN with Ikanos technology or one of these others that provide 100Mbs on copper pair. As all this tech is really new, I expect the cost to be prety high up there, along with installing sub-exchanges to extend out the reach to those areas that are 2-5 kilometers away from exchanges.
deteego
Oct 28, 2010 4:15 PM
midspace wrote:
If they do a CBA on the NBN with FTTP,
Then they'd better also do one for FTTN with Ikanos technology or one of these others that provide 100Mbs on copper pair. As all this tech is really new, I expect the cost to be prety high up there, along with installing sub-exchanges to extend out the reach to those areas that are 2-5 kilometers away from exchanges.


Actually a CBA has already been done on FTTN scheme, by IBM (and showed its returns were incredibly high, especially in areas with little/no broadband such as rural areas). FTTH scheme is another story though

Main reason is that FTTN is really cheap, and that the benefits of no broadband -> average broadband is massive compared to average broadband -> high broadband (for example the difference between going from 100kbs to 10.1mbits is massive, but returns going from lets say 25 to 26.1 mbits is a lot less as a nation on avereage)

viditor wrote:
Please people, don't get sidetracked by deteego. He is a proven troll that has been banned in other places...please don't feed the troll.

Wow you registered just to say this, you don't even know the reason why I got banned (it was doing too many offtopic posts). In fact according to your profile, you have done more personal attacks and trolling posts on WP then I have ;)

Edited by deteego: 28/10/2010 04:29:54 PM
HubertCumberdale
Oct 28, 2010 5:07 PM
viditor wrote:
Please people, don't get sidetracked by deteego. He is a proven troll that has been banned in other places...please don't feed the troll.

Banning seems a little extreme for someone as innocuous as deeteego and if by other places you mean whirlpool then that hardly counts, of course he doesn't know what hes talking about most of the time but I rather have these sorts spout their crap in the open for all to see so we can ROTFL at them all day long in five years.

Edited by HubertCumberdale: 28/10/2010 05:09:37 PM
deteego
Oct 28, 2010 5:15 PM
HubertCumberdale wrote:
viditor wrote:
Please people, don't get sidetracked by deteego. He is a proven troll that has been banned in other places...please don't feed the troll.

Banning seems a little extreme for someone as innocuous as deeteego and if by other places you mean whirlpool then that hardly counts, of course he doesn't know what hes talking about most of the time but I rather have these sorts spout their crap in the open for all to see so we can ROTFL at them all day long in five years.

Edited by HubertCumberdale: 28/10/2010 05:09:37 PM


Hell if you want I can show you the PM. I got banned for making 30 offtopic posts in a thread that I didn't even derail
HubertCumberdale
Oct 28, 2010 5:30 PM
deteego wrote:

Hell if you want I can show you the PM. I got banned for making 30 offtopic posts in a thread that I didn't even derail

No need. I believe you, that is the nature of whirpool, they dont care about normal conversation flows anyway.
advocate
Nov 1, 2010 9:31 AM
viditor wrote:
Please people, don't get sidetracked by deteego. He is a proven troll that has been banned in other places...please don't feed the troll.


Hey viditor you sound like you are one of the many biased moderators from Whirlpool, you know where the rules on off topic and trolling are made up on the fly to regularly get rid of posts you personally don't like.

Edited by advocate: 1/11/2010 09:33:50 AM
umbria
Nov 1, 2010 10:50 AM
Back on topic, the smug deception of Malcolm Turnbull and silly Kevin Morgan were disappointing.

But the positive arguments have yet to be articulated well and consistently to inform the public who must ultimately decide much of the eventual outcome.

First, Senator Conroy really needs to publish a list of the certain benefits of having 97% penetration of 12 Mbps wireless, which is only made possible without congestion by underpinning it with a 93% fixed infrastructure to carry the heaviest data loads. ADSL fades to 8 Mbps after 1 km, so is utterly unsuitable for our future needs and any new DSLAMs will generate diminishing returns on investment.

Secondly, the NBN fibre footprint has a population density similar to our high-tech Asian neighbours who installed FTTH up to a decade ago. The NBN fibre only reaches largeish towns and cities - it doesn't include Sydney's national parks, the Nullarbor, Great Sandy desert or Arnhem Land. The fibre footprint actually has a population density of around 200 persons per sq km.

Thirdly, even if funded entirely from personal income tax, $27 billion over eight years from nine million taxpayers is less than $30 a month each, which equals the average household monthly savings on combined copper line, calls and internet when they replace these with a $50 fibre service.

Finally, the OECD asserted this year that each 10% of population gaining broadband access (and 40% lack it now) will increase GDP by 1%. Our GDP is a trillion dollars, so the benefit outweighs the build cost, if there is a net cost at all to taxpayers (see third point above).

In short, we are still waiting to see the definitive NBN public education product, but the program was a good introduction to some of the protagonists.

Edited by umbria: 2/11/2010 01:26:37 AM
advocate
Nov 2, 2010 11:09 AM
umbria wrote:
Back on topic, the smug deception of Malcolm Turnbull and silly Kevin Morgan were disappointing.

As distinct from the smug deception of the pro-NBN argument you mean?

But the positive arguments have yet to be articulated well and consistently to inform the public who must ultimately decide much of the eventual outcome.

The public have no role in deciding the outcome - the NBN is being rolled out whether they want it or not.

Thirdly, even if funded entirely from personal income tax, $27 billion over eight years from nine million taxpayers is less than $30 a month each, which equals the average household monthly savings on combined copper line, calls and internet when they replace these with a $50 fibre service.

That's assuming all of the 9 million take up a NBN service, the pilots in Tasmania so far indicate this will not be the case, which means all of your per household calculations go out the window, so is your completely false total cost figure of $27 billion over eight years.

Finally, the OECD asserted this year that each 10% of population gaining broadband access (and 40% lack it now) will increase GDP by 1%. Our GDP is a trillion dollars, so the benefit outweighs the build cost, if there is a net cost at all to taxpayers (see third point above).

Once again assuming all households take up a NBN service, and the key word in the OECD report is as you stated an 'assertion'.




Maxxi2
Nov 2, 2010 1:05 PM
So, at the end of all this we have a couple of clear metrics to go by:

Nielsens Law predicates a requirement in 2011 of 100Mbps, averaged.

The Coalition will stay in Opposition for 3-6 years if the NBN under Conroy is successful...

The copper network is end of life and was a while ago, with even Telstra beginning to wind down it's support and maintenance a while ago.

Private industry has demonstrated time and time agin that they will not adequately support the USO, which is mandatory if they want to take part in national infrastructure builds...

The numbers are correct at less than $30 per month per taxpayer, when funded from taxpayers... NBN takeup in that scenario is irrelevant for the taxpayer burden. The take-up rate is relevant for the NBNco profitability, not the tax burden.

I have a 20Mbps ADSL2+ servcie from Telstra, am 1km from the exchange and cannot reach 12Mbps at any time, averaging between 4Mbps and 11Mbps for short bursts. Averages out at 7.5Mbps:

http://www.zdnet.com.au/broadband/speedtest.htm?omnRef=NULL

Wireless physics do not support major rollouts the size of anywhere near the Australian requirements without beginning to seriously impact performance, environment and health...

The national GDP ramifications of improved telecommunications infrastructure and servcies has been proven by history without exception, and this not stop in 2010...

Basing assumptions that the NBn will fail if not everyone takes it up are ill-founded and defy historical proof. No single technology stage has had 100% take-up to date and yet the industry is humming along and mightily profitable.

Oh, except the copper network:

It was built and run by a national, govt owned monopoly using tax-payer funds, and was profitable in itself after a few short years... (Australia Post dragged down the PMG profitability)

You might want to think about that fact...
anonymous
Nov 2, 2010 1:18 PM

@deteego, re Nielsen's Law: "uhh, its not compounded, its linear (the graph is a straight line)"

As usual, you got both wrong. It is compound, and your reference displays a log scale, not a linear one. The "straight line" is simply the trend disclosed by the resulting statistics.
Ace
Nov 2, 2010 2:31 PM
@anon, any response to @deteego depletes your IQ by a point, so save yourself. His/her posting skills far outstrip his/her thinking skills, so you can only win by increasing your post count, which may be counter-productive.
anonymous
Nov 2, 2010 4:57 PM

Thanks, Ace, you're quite right, of course.

After all, if I fed the troll only 99 more times, my IQ would be exactly equal to theirs.
;-(
allinacrook
Nov 2, 2010 9:45 PM
They can see the benefits/advantages the NBN will bring both their businesses and the customers they service.


SAMSUNG T469 GRAVITY 2 DEEP OCEAN
advocate
Nov 3, 2010 1:50 PM
Maxxi2 wrote:

The copper network is end of life and was a while ago, with even Telstra beginning to wind down it's support and maintenance a while ago.

Better tell the millions of customers using it everyday for PSTN, ADSL1 and ADSL2+ that it's not working and it's at the end of its life.
I also wonder what the majority of Australians are going to use in the next 10 years waiting on the FTTH?

Private industry has demonstrated time and time again that they will not adequately support the USO, which is mandatory if they want to take part in national infrastructure builds...

The USO is nothing to do with private industry wanting to or not to support the USO, it is provided by Telstra to provide a basic telephone service to all.
I don't think you have any idea what the USO actually is.

The numbers are correct at less than $30 per month per taxpayer, when funded from taxpayers... NBN takeup in that scenario is irrelevant for the taxpayer burden. The take-up rate is relevant for the NBNco profitability, not the tax burden.

Oh really, so if the NBN takeup is poor for example it has no effect upon the tax burden other than the fact that will have to be keep being propped up with taxpayer funds to keep it going.

You have a weird view of the 'taxpayer burden'.


The national GDP ramifications of improved telecommunications infrastructure and servcies has been proven by history without exception, and this not stop in 2010...

Well it hasn't in reality, but you are allowed to dream, most pro-NBN supporters do, every day of the week.

Basing assumptions that the NBn will fail if not everyone takes it up are ill-founded and defy historical proof. No single technology stage has had 100% take-up to date and yet the industry is humming along and mightily profitable.

You overlooked the HFC cable rollouts by Telstra and Optus that lost them both millions, but other than it being a direct comparison with the FTTH rollout you are right. lol

It was built and run by a national, govt owned monopoly using tax-payer funds, and was profitable in itself after a few short years... (Australia Post dragged down the PMG profitability)


You also conveniently overlook that unlike the first rollout of copper by the PMG, the NBN rollout has to compete for customers with both mobiles and wireless BB, Telstra has been losing customers to mobiles for years now, have a look at their financial reports for the last 5 years, many homes do not have a fixed line connection at all anymore, and this is increasing.

You might want to think about that fact!
advocate
Nov 3, 2010 1:54 PM
Ace wrote:
@anon, any response to @deteego depletes your IQ by a point, so save yourself. His/her posting skills far outstrip his/her thinking skills, so you can only win by increasing your post count, which may be counter-productive.


If this sort of immature personal attack is the best you can come up with to counter deetgo's arguments, then he has nothing to worry about at all.
HubertCumberdale
Nov 3, 2010 3:36 PM
advocate wrote:
If this sort of immature personal attack

LOL personal attack. I remember a time when Australians had spines, well that was before Gen Y came along... oh noes stating facts about a group of people, is that considered a personal attack too?

btw do you think you can learn how to quote properly? I was completely disregarding most of your posts because I thought you were just quoting someone elses posts, seemed odd to me. I rate your previous post 3/10. I didn't read it either but you can understand the low score. This one I rate 1/10, you can understand that too I hope.
Maxxi2
Nov 3, 2010 4:04 PM
@advocate: You might want to start by learning the difference between End of Life and discontinued... When you have comprehended that aspect, then let's discuss the other aspects. Good luck m8.
advocate
Nov 4, 2010 9:25 AM
HubertCumberdale wrote:
I rate your previous post 3/10. I didn't read it either but you can understand the low score. This one I rate 1/10, you can understand that too I hope.


Your self appointed rating system is absolutely meaningless and is of no relevance whatever, you can understand that too I hope?
advocate
Nov 4, 2010 9:29 AM
Maxxi2 wrote:
You might want to start by learning the difference between End of Life and discontinued... When you have comprehended that aspect, then let's discuss the other aspects. Good luck m8.


... and good luck with the playing down of the Telstra copper infrastructure, most of Australia will still be using it for at least the next decade (that's also assuming Labor last's that long!).
anonymous
Nov 4, 2010 10:51 AM

@advocate ... and good luck with your unthinking and inaccurate Telstra boosting. Now you can go back to the Telstra cafeteria and have a nice cup of cocoa with your mate d.
HubertCumberdale
Nov 4, 2010 10:59 AM
advocate wrote:
HubertCumberdale wrote:
I rate your previous post 3/10. I didn't read it either but you can understand the low score. This one I rate 1/10, you can understand that too I hope.


Your self appointed rating system is absolutely meaningless and is of no relevance whatever, you can understand that too I hope?

4/10
Tom Brown
Nov 4, 2010 2:51 PM
Ry Crozier, maybe we can have a competition on how many/ length of comments for one article.

My 2 bobs worth, the implementation study assessed the cost of implementation (comment no 2 Longsword). Equating a CBA to project cost is wrong and shows lack of understanding of the processes involved in this type of project. The CBA would equate the cost, 43Bn maybe to the anticipated benefits both monetary and intrinsic. Really a lot of 2nd guessing, offset with a predominant agreement across industry of the need and worth.
advocate
Nov 5, 2010 8:55 AM
anonymous wrote:

@advocate ... and good luck with your unthinking and inaccurate Telstra boosting. Now you can go back to the Telstra cafeteria and have a nice cup of cocoa with your mate d.


That's the sort of deep thinking thoughtful analysis that pushes the NBN debate forward so much in forums like this, keep up the good work.
anonymous
Nov 5, 2010 10:12 AM

Why, thank you, advocate, for your deep thinking thoughtful analysis.

Although it could have been even better if you had chosen to address some of the potential benefits of NBN, instead of your relentless opposition to the project.
Ace
Nov 5, 2010 1:50 PM
I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank @advocate for his note to me. I have since been attempting to avoid commenting on, or responding to some of the absolute drivel that 'certain folk' feel the need to post here. By the cubic tonne. Mum's the word from now on!
Pilotyoda
Nov 7, 2010 3:02 PM
I agree with Tom. Lots of posts and lots of counter arguments..
I prefer numbers: Neilsen's Law seems to track Moore's law. Availability and demand appear to be exponential. So 20, or 50, or even 100Mb/s will be routine within a few years (for most).

$40Billion odd over 20-50 years is only $800k - $2B per annum which is chickenfeed compared to general government waste and even applying more stringent controls to Military spending would more than make up for the cost of the NBN.

I have to laugh at the proposal for expanded wireless in metro areas made by the Libs and other NBN opponents. The Telcos already lament the opposition to towers in some areas just for the purpose of improving Mobile phone systems, so what hope of no community opposition to more towers (on each corner according to some) generating more spread-spectrum RF than already for the purpose of the internet. heath fears will be rampant and don't forget their requirement for data feeds (Fibre?) and power. In any case RF will be useless where I live (outer metro in the Dandenong ranges).
I have a relative who is a leading light in some areas of IT and his only comment was "just fix up the existing infrastructure - why develop more?" (he only upgraded to ADSL from dial up after i did). Telstra saw the writing on the wall years ago when they started replacing copper with fibre between exchanges and were on track to extend this when Howard privatised them and the wheels fell of the upgrade path.

It is so much cheaper to upgrade everything to Fibre than to have hybrid systems. (reduced unit cost of interconnection hardware and uniform installation procedures leading to cheaper installation system procedures)

As for connection costs, some of the figures quoted are like Victorian Govt costs for projects they don't want to do- find the highest quote, multiply it by 10, then market it as the reason why it should't be done. How come Optus & Telsdtra/Foxtel could build duplicate HFC systems and install them in only a small percentage of metro homes and still do it at a fraction of the price of what is quoted for universal FTHome? That was new technology at the time and not a "standardised system". Already HFC is becoming obsolete and losing business to new FTA television and IPTV. FTH would once and for all finish the upgrade path for the foreseeable future (at least 50 years)

Existing services should be upgraded continuously till all finished and there you have it. A fibre NBN!
Comments have been disabled for this article.
 
 
Top Stories
ATO commits to complexity
Greater demand, fewer apps.
 
Photos: AusCERT 2013 day two
The second day of the Queensland security conference.
 
The illusion of cognitive computing
Opinion: IBM's Watson is a marketing success.
 
 
(Right) Patricia Webb, Smithton resident (still courtesy SBS TV)
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...

Latest VideosSee all videos »

Bankwest builds continuous delivery capability
Bankwest builds continuous delivery capability
To automatically deploy test/dev sandboxes by mid-year.
Veterans' Affairs sets sights on modernisation
Veterans' Affairs sets sights on modernisation
Data safe with Human Services, CIO says.
Citi Australia drops platform customisations
Citi Australia drops platform customisations
Technology chief shifts focus from building to leveraging systems.
VicRoads restructures IT team
VicRoads restructures IT team
Department moves to align with industry benchmarks.
Zurich Australia extends IT team offshore
Zurich Australia extends IT team offshore
Malaysian staff served from Australian data centres.
Leigh Berrell - Utilities CIO of the Year
Leigh Berrell - Utilities CIO of the Year
Yarra Valley Water CIO Leigh Berrell accepts his Benchmark Award for Utilities CIO of the Year.
Wayne McMahon - Retail CIO of the Year
Wayne McMahon - Retail CIO of the Year
Domino's Pizza CIO Wayne McMahon accepts his Benchmark Award for Retail CIO of the Year.
Inside Perpetual's ongoing IT transformation
Inside Perpetual's ongoing IT transformation
CIO Jenny Levy discusses how outsourcing will help the firm "simplify, refocus and grow".
Managing Complexity - Defence's Daniel McCabe
Managing Complexity - Defence's Daniel McCabe
Daniel McCabe, Assistant Secretary of Australia's Department of Defence, provides the audience at the iTnews Data Centre Strategy Summit with a deep dive into the organisation's data centre consolidation program.
How Facebook designed the data centre from scratch - Marco Magarelli
How Facebook designed the data centre from scratch - Marco Magarelli
The full keynote by Facebook data centre architect Marco Magarelli at the Australian Data Centre Strategy Summit. Magarelli details the design considerations behind the social network's Prineville, Oregon; North Carolina and Luleå, Sweden data centres.
Modernising Legacy Data Centres - Telstra's Jon Curry
Modernising Legacy Data Centres - Telstra's Jon Curry
Telstra general manager of managed data centres Jon Curry guides the audience at the iTnews Australian Data Centre Summit through the build of the telco's Clayton, Victoria data centre.
NSW Government launches NABERS data centre rating tools
NSW Government launches NABERS data centre rating tools
Matthew Clark from the NSW Department of Environment guides facilties managers through the details of the new NABERS data centre energy rating tool at the Australian Data Centre Strategy Summit.
NABERS launch panel: Australian Data Centre Strategy Summit
NABERS launch panel: Australian Data Centre Strategy Summit
Matthew Clark (NSW Dept of Environment), Greg Boorer (Canberra Data Centres), Glenn Allan (National Australia Bank), Mike Andrea (Strategic Directions) and Bob Sharon (Green Global Consulting) discuss the impact of the NABERS data centre rating.
Judges notes: Fortescue Metals [The Benchmark Awards]
Judges notes: Fortescue Metals [The Benchmark Awards]
iTnews' panel of judges discuss Fortescue Metals 'New World of Work" project, one of three shortlisted finalists for the Industrials category of the CIO Benchmark Awards.
Judges notes: Retail [The Benchmark Awards]
Judges notes: Retail [The Benchmark Awards]
iTnews' panel of judges discuss the shortlisted finalists for the Retail category of the CIO Benchmark Awards.
Judges notes: Pacific Aluminium [The Benchmark Awards]
Judges notes: Pacific Aluminium [The Benchmark Awards]
iTnews' panel of judges discuss Pacific Aluminium's lightning fast service desk refresh, one of three shortlisted finalists for the Industrials category of the CIO Benchmark Awards.
Judges notes: Domino's Pizza [The Benchmark Awards]
Judges notes: Domino's Pizza [The Benchmark Awards]
iTnews' panel of judges discuss Domino's Pizza's shift to hosted services, one of three shortlisted finalists for the Retail category of the CIO Benchmark Awards.
Judges notes: McDonald's Australia [The Benchmark Awards]
Judges notes: McDonald's Australia [The Benchmark Awards]
iTnews' panel of judges discuss McDonald's Australia's new self-service portal for employees, one of three shortlisted finalists for the Retail category of the CIO Benchmark Awards.
Judges notes: ING Direct [The Benchmark Awards]
Judges notes: ING Direct [The Benchmark Awards]
iTnews' panel of judges discuss ING Direct's 'Bank in a Box', one of three shortlisted finalists for the banking and finance category of the CIO Benchmark Awards.
Judges notes: Yarra Valley Water [The Benchmark Awards]
Judges notes: Yarra Valley Water [The Benchmark Awards]
iTnews' panel of judges discuss Yarra Valley Water's insourcing project, one of three shortlisted finalists for the Utilities category of the CIO Benchmark Awards.
Latest Comments
Polls
Do you prefer the Coalition's NBN policy?

   |   View results
Yes
  19%
 
No
  81%
TOTAL VOTES: 1738

Vote