Conroy plays down Telstra LTE threat to NBN

Feb 15, 2011 3:30 PM
Filed under Telco/ISP

Wireless complementary ... but fibre is better.

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has played down the impact that Telstra's LTE mobile network may have on uptake of services provided by the national broadband network.

While saying the technology was complementary to fibre, Conroy went on to claim internet users would need fibre connections to access services "like in-home specialist healthcare and rehabilitation services".

"Only fibre connections can deliver many of the new services that will increasingly be made available as the NBN rolls out," he said.

Conroy also talked up the speed benefits of fibre over wireless.

"A fibre-to-the-home connection delivers the speed it says it does," he said.

"There is no decline in speed or performance if more people are online, or if you are further away from an exchange."

Telstra's announcement overnight that it would upgrade parts of its Next G network with Long Term Evolution (LTE) technology raised fresh questions over whether a mixed 3G/pre-4G Next G network could prove an attractive alternative to NBN fibre for some households.

The threat posed by wireless broadband deployments to NBN take-up assumptions was also raised by corporate advisers Greenhill Caliburn in an assessment of the NBN Co business plan released yesterday.

Conroy plays down Telstra LTE threat to NBN

32 comments in this discussion

"advocate wrote: As usual I see the personal attack is trotted out again HC, the sign of a poster with nothing to say and all day to say it. Personal attack? Bit dramatic dont ya think? point ..."

By HubertCumberdale

Tags

stephen, conroy, telstra, lte, network, upgrade, nbn, broadband, fibre, threat, greenhill

Telstra upgrades metro Next G network to LTE

How ISPs will tempt you in the NBN era

Conroy feared giving Telstra $20bn war chest

Photos: Corning's NBN cable manufacturing facility

Breaking Stories

Hackett steps down from Internode

ACCC approves Optus NBN deal

Australia shares $2bn Square Kilometre Array

RIM to cut 2000 jobs

NSW retains right to veto data centre co-tenants

Comments: 32

spj Feb 15, 2011 4:51 PM	It turns out that Scotty was right: You can't change the laws of Physics. Wireless is great. Fibre is better. And how do we get back from the wireless location to the rest of the network: Fibre, right? This debate is starting to wear thin. Are we going to have to put up with this discussion for the next decade, or will there be a turning point where people realise that wireless can't do everything?
MerariSchroeder Feb 15, 2011 5:08 PM	"Fibre is better than wireless" Wrong. "Fibre is faster than wireless" "Fibre is more expensive than wireless" Correct. If people end up connecting to LTE services only and the NBN doesn't get over 50% connections, then it cannot be said that fibre is better than wireless. Who cares if you can bundle separate bit services over fibre - you can already do that - it's called the internet. Who cares if fibre can provide 1Gbps 1:1. That's not what people need. They want cheaper internet, and that will draw many away from expensive fibre toward a single cheap wireless service which does 95% of what they want. [SPJ] "And how do we get back from the wireless location to the rest of the network: Fibre, right?" Yes, but not FTTP. The amount of fibre required to service LTE, compared to servicing a full FTTP rollout is not worth mentioning. "will there be a turning point where people realise that wireless can't do everything?" No one has said that. Wireless can fulfill the needs of most people today. If businesses need more - eg. lots of people in one building sharing a single connection - then roll out FTTN or FTTP in the CBDs. LTE and LTE-A can certainly satisfy most citizens for the next 20 years. We should be looking to the more affordable FTTN to get us through the next 10, then upgrade to FTTP as required on savings rather than debt, resulting in continual reductions in subscription price (rather than the insane increases that are expected from good-ol' NBNCo)
Ace Feb 15, 2011 5:51 PM	"That's not what people need" @MerariSchroeder, if you had only made it clear from the start that you are in charge of what people need and don't need, you wouldn't get all the arguments! "Fibre is more expensive than wireless" Not correct if you compare apples with apples. "Wireless can fulfill the needs of most people today." I presume this is based upon some survey you have commissioned? "...affordable FTTN to get us through the next 10, then upgrade to FTTP..." That is sure sure-fire way to make the whole thing cost about double what it should cost. "...resulting in continual reductions in subscription price..." ...I want some of what you're eating! For a bit of real-world @MerariSchroeder, ask Vodaphone how much fun wireless is. They can't upgrade it fast enough to keep up with demand? But surely that's "what the people want"!
HubertCumberdale Feb 15, 2011 6:02 PM	MerariSchroeder wrote: Who cares if fibre can provide 1Gbps 1:1. That's not what people need. They want cheaper internet, With the NBN we get both, thanks for stopping by. btw how is that NoNBN.org site of yours going? have you managed to raise $43billion to stop the NBN yet?
Ezy2Confuze Feb 15, 2011 6:36 PM	The simple fact of the matter is we need both wireless and Fibre, wireless more so because of the proliferation of wireless devices such as smart phones, tablet's etc. Both have their pros and their cons but until we have a decent LTE deployment with thousands of connections to it then the arguments will continue.
realitybites Feb 15, 2011 6:41 PM	Just to put the 'Internet" to one side for a minute. When Telstra made everyone get new phones by dropping thew GSM network and going to 3G we were told it was the best thing since sliced bread. The reality for me was exactly the opposite, everything was worse, the coverage, the quality and reliability of calls etc. IS this new network going to actually give us better (shock horror) quality phone calls?
DazzaJ Feb 15, 2011 7:15 PM	30MBit fibre I can use in my home only , or 40 to 70 MBit I can use mobile, home, office ? (Ask Tas about there gigabit connections - ha ha ha!) People will never want to go MOBILE with internet so fibre cable and being stuck at home is definitely the way to go ! Lot easier to monitor, filter and keep track of people from home. Anyway whoever heard of using computers and phones etc modile, portable, away from home! Absurd idea! Will never work!
Ace Feb 15, 2011 11:27 PM	Exactly @DazzJ. Certainly in the future people will use wireless for more widely, but the bottom line is, mobile broadband usage is not a patch on fixed broadband useage, and will probably never be. Why? Because home is where people sit down to do homework, uni study, research, banking etc etc. It is the place that by far most people end up at the end of the day. Mobile usage will remain useful mostly for mobile workers and short duration sessions on-the-run. It would seem logical that outside of work hours, the bulk of mobile data users will be in the 18-30 year old segment of the population. It does not seem logical to base ones national broadband infrastructure on the usage patterns of this one small segment of users.
Gall of it Feb 16, 2011 8:44 AM	When did LTE become an acceptable accronymn ? it means nothing to the technolgy and is a markteting term. Stop encouraging its use call it 4G or 5G so we can unify all carriers interest in this ( including NBN ). Proprioity terms encourage companies not to use standards that are undertood .
Bob Feb 16, 2011 9:31 AM	Wireless is here and now. It is a reality. Look around a train on the way to work. 3 out of 4 have iPhones and are watching Sunrise, using Facebook, Twitter and generally on the Internet while listening to the iPod. I use Google Earth regularly to research locations and it works in most places I need it with Telstra Next G. The government put up a roadblock to fibre by legislation 15 years ago and the telcos went around it. Now most people don't really want fixed access. Even with my ADSL connection at home all of the computers are connected by wireless. It's a mobile world.
rycrozier Feb 16, 2011 9:39 AM	@Gall of it: I think you'll find LTE is not 4G. Leaving it out was a deliberate attempt not to perpetuate further misuse of the term.
umbria Feb 16, 2011 10:33 AM	@MerariSchroeder, you cannot say that fibre is dearer than wireless. Universal wireless without fibre would be unthinkably expensive for a flaky service that suffers from congestion, electrical interference and latency. The cheapest way to provide UNIVERSAL 12 Mbps broadband to ALL Australians is to first lay fibre to large towns. Universal wireless will then work properly, with less congestion and cheaper data (which won't need to be rationed). It will also require fewer wireless towers. It makes me laugh to see folks extrapolate from a reported 100+ Mbps signal being propagated to 75 km range. How many premises lie within a 75 km radius? Hmm, that's not much shared bandwidth each, is it? The cost-effective technology mix was clearly worked out in the May 2010 NBN Implementation Report. Large towns get fibre (93% of premises at 2020), leaving just 7% of Australians on inferior technologies. Those with NBN fibre can buy 1000/400 connections now (some in Tassie already use it), because the fibre laid once can support any speed we ever ask of it. And of course anyone with fibre will share it locally using Wi-Fi, getting the best of both worlds. The current record for one fibre strand is 69,100,000 Mbps sustained over 240 km on 25 March 2010 in Japan. But it will improve, while wireless spectrum will just choke unless we support it with fibre to premises. @Merari, your wireless products will also be useful, but wireless alone will simply not work. Telstra is simply cherry-picking some high value pockets as it did with HFC. The rest of Australia needs the NBN.
Maxxi2 Feb 16, 2011 2:18 PM	Dear Bob of the Coalition or Wireless Operator? Nice mktg sentiments mate, but pray tell good man, just how are you getting that connection to your house today? Oops... Wired? Hmmmm.... Wireless, especially WLAN, is FANTASTIC as a natural and foreseen extension of wired (fibred in the future I guess...) connections. WiFi/WLAN/Remote areas/satelite coverage areas: All great. But Bob, that home WIFI you have is great because you can duplicate the wireless spectrum a million times in a million sites. Thus the Google folks were able to globally wardrive. (just an example folks, just an example... lol). Try that now with WTTH or WTTP? Whoops, breeeaaakkkdddooowwwnnnn....clunk! No chance, not enough physical spectrum and capabilities to make that work. So Telstra, bless their little hearts, and other players, can announce all the whamdiddlywhumbumwonderful world changing wireless networks they like, and we all welcome that cos it is just a great extension of the primary cabled infrastructure, but their whamdiddlywhumbumwonderful wireless networks are NOT supplying major WTTP infrastructure for whole populations anywhere on the planet today. Please (!) save us the example of Bingowaddanuiville with 1000 users in LaLaLand that have this. Let's talk a million households plus a million offices in a major city? whamdiddlywhumbum...crumplestilttsskinboingboingcrunch!!! (sound of overloaded wireless WTTP network towers falling over in a city...) Does not work - and even 1000 press releases do not make them work. Vivid Wireless failed to live up to anywhere near their vaunted press releases in Perth in 2010. Severe performance issues... The other examples of WTTP that bear no relevance to Australia are those vastly overcrowded cities where the laying of cable of any sort is simply not possible due to the incredible mismanagement of their city growth to date. (Bombay / Delhi city centres etc) But then again they can live with a tower every 200-400 meters as they have no choice... BIG wireless business exists in extending and complementing fixed access services, and I use that continually as well, but it still does not have the physical capabilities to replace fibre based services. (edit - fat finger typos and rushed typing...) Edited by Maxxi2: 16/2/2011 02:22:32 PM
advocate Feb 16, 2011 3:54 PM	HubertCumberdale wrote: With the NBN we get both, thanks for stopping by. Wow HC another 'scoop', you have exclusive advanced notice of NBN retail plans in front of you? - don't be shy, copy and paste tell us all about these 'cheaper' NBN plans relative to current ADSL, ADSL2+ and Naked DSL plans. btw how is that NoNBN.org* site of yours going? have you managed to raise $43billion to stop the NBN yet?* Ahh yes, the predictable attempt to a off-topic diversion of complete irrelevance, much like the NBN rollout will be by 2018.
advocate Feb 16, 2011 4:33 PM	umbria wrote: Universal wireless without fibre would be unthinkably expensive for a flaky service that suffers from congestion, electrical interference and latency. We have universal wireless today, interesting you think that the NBN rollout will take the load of wireless demand, so everyone is waiting for FTTH so they can throwaway their Iphones, Ipads, HTC Desires etc are they? The cheapest way to provide UNIVERSAL 12 Mbps broadband to ALL Australians is to first lay fibre to large towns. Err what? do you mean backhaul here? Universal wireless will then work properly, with less congestion and cheaper data (which won't need to be rationed). It will also require fewer wireless towers. So you have analysed the current congestion problems and concluded it is a fibrebackhaul problem not tower contention, how have you managed this analysis? - are you the Head of all wireless development for all the private networks in Australia? It makes me laugh to see folks extrapolate from a reported 100+ Mbps signal being propagated to 75 km range. How many premises lie within a 75 km radius? Hmm, that's not much shared bandwidth each, is it? Which 'folks' have done this? The cost-effective technology mix was clearly worked out in the May 2010 NBN Implementation Report. Well you can definitely leave out the term 'clearly' here. And of course anyone with fibre will share it locally using Wi-Fi, getting the best of both worlds. Well people share Wi-Fi today on ADSL1 and ADSL2+ and HFC cable and at McDonalds, schools and their local library, don't try and insinuate that FTTH suddenly allows 'Wi-Fi sharing'. But it will improve, while wireless spectrum will just choke unless we support it with fibre to premises. So those countries that have higher population densities than Australia now and Australia will ever have are 'choking' because they don't have FTTH nor do they plan to rollout FTTH on the scale this Labor Government has planned? Perhaps you should offer the likes of European and USA cities a consulting service to show them the way to 'wireless contention' enlightenment? @Merari, your wireless products will also be useful, but wireless alone will simply not work. I read his post, he never said 'wireless alone' is the solution. Telstra is simply cherry-picking some high value pockets as it did with HFC. You mean like Optus did with their HFC,and all those ISP's rolling out DSLAM's into selected exchanges based on ROI on population densities and the exchange areas where their customers live? The rest of Australia needs the NBN. No it doesn't, you and others have not established a case for 'need' at all!
HubertCumberdale Feb 16, 2011 4:57 PM	advocate wrote: Wow HC another 'scoop', you have exclusive advanced notice of NBN retail plans in front of you? - don't be shy, copy and paste tell us all about these 'cheaper' NBN plans relative to current ADSL, ADSL2+ and Naked DSL plans. Do you enjoy looking like a fool on this forum? Seems you are unaware that the NBN has already been rolled out in some areas here are some plans http://www.iinet.net.au/nbn/ there is nothing "exclusive" or "advanced" about it. advocate wrote: Ahh yes, the predictable attempt to a off-topic diversion of complete irrelevance, much like the NBN rollout will be by 2018. It's totally relevant, didn't you know merari has an agenda? Also once again please learn how to quote properly.
advocate Feb 16, 2011 5:09 PM	@HubertCumberdale You avoided the question 'how they are cheaper bit', you are also quoting plans that are heavily subsidised because they are the first pilot areas, but then you know that. Of course NBN promoters don't have an agenda, only critics of the NBN have agendas!
HubertCumberdale Feb 16, 2011 5:16 PM	advocate wrote: @HubertCumberdale You avoided the question 'how they are cheaper bit', you are also quoting plans that are heavily subsidised because they are the first pilot areas, but then you know that. Are you even able to do maths? Currently I pay $99.95 for ~1mbps upload if I was on NBN now I'd be getting more than 40 times that speed for the same price, if you cant see the better deal in that well then nothing more needs to be said about you maths and reasoning skills. Even if the speed goes down to 5mbps after 06/11 as indicated I'd still be getting a better deal than what I have now. advocate wrote: Of course NBN promoters don't have an agenda, only critics of the NBN have agendas! This is possibly the first sensible thing you said on this forum. Edited by HubertCumberdale: 16/2/2011 05:17:03 PM
MerariSchroeder Feb 17, 2011 8:55 AM	What a fiasco. The whole internet industry thought that Conroy was finally going to cap Telstra. Now they're getting $11bn (approx.) so they can leap ahead of their competition yet again and build the best 4G network. How ironic that it will be able to undercut NBNCo, the very people paying for their success! [HubertCumberdale] "Currently I pay $99.95 for ~1mbps" "upload... on NBN now I'd be getting more than 40 times that speed for the same price" Let's forget you argued upload - it's a mute point (the average Australian benefits from downloading). Now back to the price. NBNCo themselves have admitted it will be more expensive. The market is price sensitive (http://nbnoptions.org/Research.aspx), therefore the value of the product to the average user, isn't just speed (something that technical people drool at), mobility is a huge draw card, and superfast and supercheap wireless is definately going to erode NBNCo marketshare. Why have a mobile phone bill with a 1Gbps LTE connection AND a fibre connection? It simply wont happen (generally).
Ace Feb 17, 2011 11:40 AM	So @MerariSchroeder, I assume you believe a Liberal government would have removed Telstra's infrastructure ownership via legislation, and without compensation? Interesting. You'd only believe this was a 'fiasco' if you believed wireless was somehow better than fibre. I'm betting that if Australia found itself in some kind of recession, the first bill people will cut is their wireless data usage bill. I think we all know that for the majority of users, it is a 'nice to have', not a necessity.
anonymous Feb 17, 2011 11:53 AM	@Schroeder "it's a mute point". Fair enough, since all your points appear to be mute (silent, say nothing). In fact it's a moot point as to whether you, Bob and advocate are even able to consider facts that do not fit in with the NoNBN.org fantasies. None of you seem to have any knowledge, or any desire to gain some, about the tech reasons why a wireless-based national network is impracticable, for reasons that have been patiently explained to you a number of times on various sites.
HubertCumberdale Feb 17, 2011 2:33 PM	MerariSchroeder wrote: What a fiasco. blah blah blah The only fiasco here is you and your NoNBN.org website. MerariSchroeder wrote: Let's forget you argued upload No let's not forget it. People against the NBN and wirelesstards would like to forget it because they know it just cannot compete. Upload is important and will become even more so in the future. MerariSchroeder wrote: (the average Australian benefits from downloading). You dont know the average Australian wants your ignorance is just too overwhelming. MerariSchroeder wrote: and superfast and supercheap wireless LOL MerariSchroeder wrote: is definately going to erode NBNCo marketshare LOL MerariSchroeder wrote: Why have a mobile phone bill with a 1Gbps LTE connection AND a fibre connection? LOL MerariSchroeder wrote: It simply wont happen (generally). You are right it wont happen because I doubt too many will be willing to pay the exorbitant prices for such a pitiful quota on such a plan or tolerate the poor quality of the service when they can get a more reliable 1Gbps fibre connection for a lot less. btw I posted a link to the fibre plans at iiNet a few posts up, someone care to point me to the comparable wireless plans??? Edited by HubertCumberdale: 17/2/2011 02:43:05 PM
umbria Feb 17, 2011 3:29 PM	@advocate, you are not well-informed on the NBN in detail, are you? Please go and read the NBN Implementation Report. It's been out nearly a year now and you obviously haven't bothered. Most contributors here appear to at least be familiar with the technology choices and the rationale for their respective proportions in the final mix. Let me summarise, but please do read it. A government-built NBN must provide: - universal broadband of at least 12 Mbps bandwidth, as measured at the premises; - equal competitive access for all retail providers to every customer on an equal cost basis, regardless of their geographic location and the last-mile technology; - a modest return on investment, sufficient only to ensure that lenders will finance it. The Howard Government tried to do this with OPEL, but it was found that the $4-6 billion envelope was vastly inadequate to deliver service to all areas. The Rudd government then tried with the $4.7 billion NBN Mark I, but a $15 billion package of extras would have been needed. So six years of research finally revealed in May 2010 that to deliver 12 Mbps or better broadband to ALL Australians, the best mix is achieved by laying fibre to large towns, providing 12 Mbps wireless where fibre won't reach until it too becomes prohibitive, and launching two redundant satellites to provide 12 Mbps to up to 300,000 premises wherever other services don't reach. Thanks to an $8 billion direct saving due to Telstra cooperation, this will require $27 billion to be borrowed to build it, to be repaid from wholesale revenue from commercial providers. We all get better internet and free phone calls for less than we pay now for line rental and ADSL. Smartphone users will roam to WiFi in buildings 99% of the time, with low latency allowing jitter-free VoIP and video calls. They will only need wireless broadband for a tiny fraction of their data when not near a building with WiFi.
advocate Feb 18, 2011 2:17 PM	HubertCumberdale wrote: Are you even able to do maths? Currently I pay $99.95 for ~1mbps upload Nice one HC, you quote a Rolls Royce plan as if that is the typical price that people pay for fixed line BB, where in reality the median price is around the $25-$39 mark, it's all very fine parroting the FTTH speeds as if everyone will need it just because you do, but the real world speeds of ADSL1, ADSL2+ and HFC cable and even wireless BB and don't forget many are still on dial-up by choice as well and it is what most end users are satisfied with. That's the motivation behind the NBN marketing hype, you NEED FTTH speeds because we have to justify its existence and we will tell what you need.
advocate Feb 18, 2011 2:33 PM	umbria wrote: Most contributors here appear to at least be familiar with the technology choices and the rationale for their respective proportions in the final mix. You mean as long as a post is pro-NBN it therefore follows that they are 'familiar with technology choices', if you disagree with the NBN it's because you don't agree with the NBN implementation report, is the NBN implementation report something that cannot be disagreed with? - because? The Howard Government tried to do this with OPEL, but it was found that the $4-6 billion envelope was vastly inadequate to deliver service to all areas. No the OPEL project was canceled by Conroy when Labor won the election from Howard because it was not Labor policy, if it was Labor policy it would have been rolled out. The Rudd government then tried with the $4.7 billion NBN Mark I, but a $15 billion package of extras would have been needed. What '$15 billion package of extras' are you on about here, are you making this up as you type? So six years of research finally revealed in May 2010 that to deliver 12 Mbps or better broadband to ALL Australians, the best mix is achieved by laying fibre to large towns, providing 12 Mbps wireless where fibre won't reach until it too becomes prohibitive, and launching two redundant satellites to provide 12 Mbps to up to 300,000 premises wherever other services don't reach. Thanks to an $8 billion direct saving due to Telstra cooperation, this will require $27 billion to be borrowed to build it, to be repaid from wholesale revenue from commercial providers. Yes thanks for the marketing campaign regurgitated over and over, I assume you think the more times you parrot the same old hyperbole the more chance you have of believing it! We all get better internet and free phone calls for less than we pay now for line rental and ADSL. Really? - none of the current NBN plans marketed by the four ISP's include FREE phone calls, where are you getting this 'factual' information from? Smartphone users will roam to WiFi in buildings 99% of the time, They will?? how do you come to this totally fanciful and amazing conclusion,and what has it got to do with the NBN rollout anyway?
HubertCumberdale Feb 18, 2011 3:23 PM	advocate wrote: Nice one HC, you quote a Rolls Royce plan as if that is the typical price that people pay for fixed line BB, where in reality the median price is around the $25-$39 mark, Incapable of reading as well as maths? you asked for: Quote: tell us all about these 'cheaper' NBN plans relative to current ADSL, ADSL2+ and Naked DSL plans. I provided exactly what you wanted and apparently it's not good enough now, because "the median price is around the $25-$39 mark" which 1. I would question and 2. there is a $29 NBN plan and a $29 ADSL2+ plan listed on iiNet's site. advocate wrote: it's all very fine parroting the FTTH speeds as if everyone will need it just because you do, but the real world speeds of ADSL1, ADSL2+ and HFC cable and even wireless BB and don't forget many are still on dial-up by choice as well and it is what most end users are satisfied with. So there is no problem then, those that are satisfied with their lowest speed on ADSL2+ can be happy with their lowest speed on the NBN plans (which in many cases will be higher) really this stuff is not rocket science, even someone like you can figure it out. advocate wrote: That's the motivation behind the NBN marketing hype, you NEED FTTH speeds because we have to justify its existence and we will tell what you need. Marketing hype? but isn't that what they are supposed to do to sell their services? if ISP's didn't market their services they wouldn't sell them and actually yes we do need the faster speeds. Just because you dont want the higher speeds is meaningless NBNco have 12/1mbps options for people like you and the filthy poors lol.
HubertCumberdale Feb 18, 2011 3:40 PM	Also still waiting for that list of comparable wireless plans, I think it's only fair considering this thread it titled "Conroy plays down Telstra LTE threat to NBN" I mean we wouldn't want to attempt to a off-topic diversion of complete irrelevance now would we?
advocate Feb 20, 2011 1:14 PM	I will give you a 'comparable plan', the wireless networks are not bankrolled by the taxpayer and I can choose if I want to use them or not, the NBN is 100% bankrolled by the taxpayer, the ever increasing consumer base that is on a total wireless solution for voice and BB and of which Telstra LTE will only accelerate that growth should be asking where their tax refund is for FTTH.
HubertCumberdale Feb 20, 2011 3:42 PM	You can can still make that choice, if you want you can still get your wireless service that according to the wirelesstards is faster and much better than fibre, what would anything NBNco is doing stop you from doing so? Really once again this stuff isn't rocket science advocate or are you the type of person that still lives with mummy and she picks out your clothes for you in the morning? So I take there really are no comparable wireless plans available? Want to try again or go for the off-topic diversion option?
advocate Feb 21, 2011 10:50 AM	As usual I see the personal attack is trotted out again HC, the sign of a poster with nothing to say and all day to say it. The rocket science which you conveniently ignore is that wireless BB is booming and taking customers away from fixed line BB and telephony, this is a world wide trend that has been happening well before the multi billion dollar Labor NBN rabbit was pulled out of that magic political face saver hat. It doesn't matter about having 'comparable plans', customers buy wireless anyway, having FTTH will make not one bit a difference to that ever accelerating trend.
Ace Feb 21, 2011 12:15 PM	Unfortunately @advocate, your assertion that 'wireless BB is booming and taking customers away from fixed line BB and telephony' is not backed up by actual statistics. At least, not in Australia. Can you provide a link to your research?
HubertCumberdale Feb 21, 2011 3:37 PM	advocate wrote: As usual I see the personal attack is trotted out again HC, the sign of a poster with nothing to say and all day to say it. Personal attack? Bit dramatic dont ya think? point out where in my post I personally attacked you or are you imagining things again like that other thread? oh wait you went with the off-topic diversion option after all, good for you... advocate wrote: The rocket science which you conveniently ignore is that wireless BB is booming and taking customers away from fixed line BB and telephony Booming? So those comparable plans are not far off then? advocate wrote: It doesn't matter about having 'comparable plans', customers buy wireless anyway, No? suddenly they are irrelevant? advocate wrote: having FTTH will make not one bit a difference to that ever accelerating trend. Yes, you can still get a wireless service if you have a fibre connection. We established that a few posts up. Thanks for stopping by advocate.