NBN critics misunderstand wireless: NetComm

By Nate Cochrane on Feb 28, 2011 3:00 PM
Filed under Telco/ISP

But optical fibre will outpace wireless for the foreseeable future.

The chief executive officer of Australia’s oldest modem maker has added his voice to those backing fibre for the National Broadband Network, saying there was room for it and wireless to coexist.

But the public misunderstood wireless services, said NetComm chief David Stewart.

“Fixed wireless broadband, a lot of people don’t understand what that means as far as the NBN goes,” Stewart told a Gold Coast conference today.

“The concept that the NBN has here is that it’s going to be a fixed wireless technology that will deliver a guaranteed bandwidth to a fixed location and a base station will serve a handful of people [seven percent of Australians].

“The advantage is those people will have a permanent connection at a constant speed.

“It’s quite unlike mobile wireless broadband we all know today with 3G.”

Stewart drew distinctions between optical fibre cables, mobile wireless such as long-term evolution (LTE) or 4G and fixed wireless services.

He said it was wrong to pitch the three technologies as competing because they would co-exist -- as landline connections to the internet and mobile 3G coexist today.

“There’s been a lot of discussion around LTE and NBN and whether wireless technologies will supersede or make fibre obsolete – we don’t think so,” he said.

“While its true great leaps have been made in connection speeds on wireless mobile technologies, continual evolution and speed increases will apply with fibre.

“Wireless and fibre each have advantages and limitations and depending on users’ requirements users may choose one or the other or both.”

Stewart pointed to NetComm’s manufacturing of dial-up modems today for automated teller machines and industrial applications as proof that technologies may coexist with faster solutions.

“Fixed wireless and mobile wireless are capable of high speed internet access. The difference is the NBN fixed wireless provides guaranteed bandwidth but at the sacrifice of mobility,” he said.

“The key point is the technology for mobile wireless, fixed wireless and fibre all have their place and will continue to improve.

“We see the broadband coexisting in three categories – we see the fibre broadband as per the NBN, fixed wireless broadband as per the NBN and mobile wireless technology as per Telstra 3G network and others.”

NetComm provided equipment to households connected to Internode and Primus on the Tasmanian NBN and was looking at an upgrade market of 6 million devices as it rolls across the mainland, Stewart said.

The vendor launched a LTE device at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona last month and recently signed five international carriers, he said.

NBN critics misunderstand wireless: NetComm

Wireless is good but fibre is better, says NetComm CEO.

40 comments in this discussion

"Ace wrote: I have PSTN at my house. And it's not Telstra wiring. Hmmm, how could that be? So who does the PSTN copper in Telstra ducts to the Telstra pillar/RIM then on to the Telstra ..."

By advocate

Tags

nbn, national broadband network, fibre, lte, long term evolution 4g internet, access david

Missing data in Turnbull's second-best NBN

NBN Co approaches $900m in Telstra liabilities

Future NBN Co tasked with meeting Coalition's speed pledge

NBN Co defends rollout costs with new data

Breaking Stories

Alacer Gold turns ERP refit project to Australia

NSW Govt bids for self-service analytics

NSW Police take aim at 3D-printable guns

Google faces new federal antitrust probe

US ISP to rip out Huawei equipment

Comments: 40

schneider Feb 28, 2011 4:37 PM	This is an example of why the people who DON'T believe the NBN will work are SO frustrated. The reason we point at wireless is a few reason and NONE are covered here. 1. Mobility is KEY in the modern age 2. It's cheaper to install and cheaper to run 3. It's cheaper to upgrade (in most cases as there is less physical infrastructure to change out) 4. It's fast enough (notice the enough) To understand our point of view you need only to look at the service that will run over the NBN Telemed. Look at the easiest implementation rolling a device in with the internet is a lot easier then dealing with an ISP every time you move the device. The Next G network has the bandwidth. Smart Grid (really you need a fibre for bytes of data a second) Media Streaming.. Um I already do this over my Next G connection... What is the 43Billion going to deliver if I can already get it cheaper and easier? Speed? As an IT professional I wouldn't be able to fill 100Mbps so what is my grandmother going to do with it? This is being pushed by "I Want" not I need it. We NEED better School Funding We NEED better Roads We NEED better Hospitals We NEED so much more important things then fibre! What a waste of tax payers dollars!
singo79 Feb 28, 2011 4:56 PM	@schneider - Another typical anti-NBN comment! This is getting old. With more and more industry professionals and industry players getting behind the NBN and stating the bleeding obvious regarding fibre being the dominant player with the coexistence of wireless, you would think that common sense would prevail and you would stop wasting your time flogging a dead horse. It is like this, the NBN is going ahead whether you like it or not! Build a bridge and move on with the job of making sure that the NBN gets built in the most cost effective manner, your arguments against the NBN are simply futile! Need better roads, see your state government. Need better schol funding, see your state government. Need better hospitals, tell your state government to get on board with the new federal scheme. Need to get a life and stop whining about things that are predominantly handled by your own state government,
singo79 Feb 28, 2011 4:58 PM	And yes, the misspelling of school was deliberate! It was a tounge in cheek comment.
anonymous Feb 28, 2011 5:30 PM	@singo79, and no doubt also deliberate was your tongue in cheek comment about schol ;-) But it does seem there are still some people who for political or commercial reasons will say and do anything to discredit NBN. This includes saying things that are so ludicrous it's impossible to take them seriously, which makes them just a waste of time and space.
Psychaotix Feb 28, 2011 5:35 PM	Just a simple question. People say we need the NBNCo like we need a boil on our rear. I wonder if people 50-100+ years ago said the exact same thing about the Electricity grid and PSTN service, when they were first talked about. I'd love to take one of those people and show them just how much, and how far our society has come from these two grids. There's no reason to think the NBN won't do the same to Society as Electricity or the Public Phone Network.
Ace Feb 28, 2011 5:40 PM	Sadly @schneider, you seem to be (like other) assuming that your experience is the template that shpould be applkied to fulfill all Australian needs. If you were 65 and retuired, I would be quite suprised to hear you say 'mobility is KEY..'. You'd probably be suprised to hear yourself to say that too I imagine, because for most people under 12 and people over 40, mobility is not 'KEY'. I am very pleased to hear that your current broadband speed is 'fast enough' for you. However, I am not so narrow-minded that I believe it's fast enough for everyone. Or that even I'd be happy with todays speeds 10 years from now.
pedron Feb 28, 2011 5:41 PM	@schneider - Mobility is definitely king in this day and age. However the nature of wireless technology is such that the bandwidth is shared among users. The more of them you have the slower it gets! In dense areas, to give everybody high speed Internet you would have to have a cellular tower on each house, each of which is connected back to the core network with fibre cables. So you might as well connect every house with fibre which is capable of 100Gbps and you don't share the 100Gbps with anybody. Its all yours!!
HubertCumberdale Feb 28, 2011 6:29 PM	schneider wrote: We NEED better School Funding Why cant the private sector deal with it? Why are tax payers dollars getting wasted on this? schneider wrote: We NEED better Roads Why do we need better roads? they will obsolete in a few years due to future wireless matter transportation technology so why waste tax payers dollars? schneider wrote: We NEED better Hospitals People shouldn't get sick and if they do they should pay for it themselves. Not waste tax payers dollars. schneider wrote: What a waste of tax payers dollars! If you think about it so are all the things you listed, why are my tax payers dollars being spent on things like roads, this is just a toy for people that want to go on holidays. schneider wrote: We NEED so much more important things then fibre! We NEED to upgrade our communications infrastructure.
frogg11 Feb 28, 2011 10:18 PM	At least Netcomm's David Stewart has shown some commonsense here, unlike some of the anti-NBN commenters here who make the ludicrous assumption that their own personal usage of the web is a valid template for families everywhere. The sheer ignorance of the anti-NBN trolls is staggering.
schneider Mar 1, 2011 10:13 AM	Interesting how you fight fact with fiction. I make a statement and you take a few words from it twist it and make a comment, great! You're a hero. The only people I hear commenting on how good it would be could substitute "good for Australia" with "good for the business I work for" Netcomm is an example of this. They will benefit from the NBN in that people will need new equipment. I know in part it is going a head but the more people I can get to understand the floors in the argument the more likely it is that the NBN will stop at the next election. Note: Other then juvenile comments about roads, schools and hospitals everyone has stayed away from my comments. I can only guess because they can't actually come up with a good rebuttal. Sorry other then pedron. I understand what you are say pedron but unfortunately it's incorrect. Unlike everyone on your side of this argument I will give you reasons. 1) The more subscribers the more money to spend on the required infrastructure (one begets the other) 2) Wireless is moving quickly a head LTE is only the first evolution look up "LTE advanced" (which is currently being finalised) Looking at how far we have come in wireless over the passed 10 years I can't see how anyone can discount it's abilities into the future 3) LTE advanced allows for PICO cells this means in area of huge subscriber levels (apartments) they can have dedicated cells (and therefore huge bandwidths and low sub levels) I'm not saying fibre is not a better technology just that it has it's place. It's place is in backhual. Connecting to business and government agencies. If the fibre was to be run to all business parks and government agencies (and possibly high rise apartments) I would be all for it. It's the fibre to home that I don't think our government can afford to do.
Ace Mar 1, 2011 11:35 AM	I'm interested in where this 'fact' is @schnieder. Your post seems more like a political rally speech than anything factual. Also, I believe it was you who went on about schools, roads and hospitals, which really have no relevance in the NBN conversation except as an attempted distraction from the hard facts of the topic. It's the kind of FUD bandied about by people who are pursuing some alternate agenda. I know it, you know it, and most readers here know it. You won't find many of your SMH readers here, so the attempted diversion won't work. You're going to have to argue facts.
HubertCumberdale Mar 1, 2011 12:10 PM	schneider wrote: Note: Other then juvenile comments about roads, schools and hospitals everyone has stayed away from my comments. I can only guess because they can't actually come up with a good rebuttal. Generally my posts work on the GIGO principal, you come up with spurious arguments that have nothing to do with the NBN and you'll get spurious arguments back, you should really stick to comments about wireless stuff if you truly are genuine about debating this... schneider wrote: 2) Wireless is moving quickly a head LTE is only the first evolution look up "LTE advanced" (which is currently being finalised) Looking at how far we have come in wireless over the passed 10 years I can't see how anyone can discount it's abilities into the future I'm not saying fibre is not a better technology just that it has it's place. It's place is in backhual. Sorry my mistake, we are back to the spurious arguments again. I'm not saying wireless is a totally useless technology just that it has it's place. It's place is in microchipped wombats.
RaTTyRaTT Mar 1, 2011 12:32 PM	Ironically, from just chatting with people I know on the ground, there's very little excitement about the NBN. Even more funny are the people who work in the Federal Government who are not toe'ing the party line and think the entire NBN is a waste of time. Pretty worrying really, I've decided to just wait & see myself, but with attitudes as I see it in senior places - it's a bit sad. Rank & file are not behind this, no matter that Industry or Business, or 16 yr old Billy who wants is DOWNLOAD speed blazing - so he can torrent more... Quite funny really.
schneider Mar 1, 2011 1:59 PM	Hubert, Why do you continue to embarrass yourself I'm pretty sure I have tried a few times to have this debate with you but instead of actually reading and vetting the other side of the argument you just jump on little comments. Spurious = not genuine, authentic, or true; not from the claimed, pretended, or proper source; counterfeit. Ok So you say that Wireless technology has NOT moved foward is that a lie? Or is it the LTE advanced that you believe doesn't exist. What is it you believe is Spurious about that statement? And why don't you tell me why while you're at it. Hubert, In your statement you say wireless doesn't have a place (basically microchipped wombats kind of points to that). These are the kind of juvenile statements I'm talking about. You don't have a mobile phone? Never used a smart phone? or even a wifi hotspot? Sorry I do a VERY large percentage of my work on the road so excuse me if I don't hold your view on that!
HubertCumberdale Mar 1, 2011 3:19 PM	schneider wrote: Hubert, Why do you continue to embarrass yourself Remind us who exactly is embarrassing themsleves, I was not the one who posted the whole "NEED NEED NEED" spiel here. schneider wrote: I'm pretty sure I have tried a few times to have this debate with you Nonsense. The only thing you've ever done here is regurgitate the same tired lines that we could very well read in The Australian if we really wanted to. schneider wrote: Spurious = not genuine, authentic, or true; not from the claimed, pretended, or proper source; counterfeit. http://www.tfd.com/spurious wrote: 1. Lacking authenticity or validity in essence or origin; not genuine; false. Sums up your first post in this thread nicely... your point? schneider wrote: Ok So you say that Wireless technology has NOT moved foward is that a lie? Or is it the LTE advanced that you believe doesn't exist. What is it you believe is Spurious about that statement? And why don't you tell me why while you're at it. Actually I didn't say anything about LTE advanced at all the comment of yours I said was spurious was the 'It's place is in backhual." line. Are you saying this was a valid statement? If yes then you really cant be taken seriously in this debate anymore and responses to your comments will reflect that. schneider wrote: Hubert, In your statement you say wireless doesn't have a place (basically microchipped wombats kind of points to that). These are the kind of juvenile statements I'm talking about. So you admit your comments are spurious?
RB Mar 1, 2011 3:40 PM	From the opening post schneider has asked a number of questions about the NBN and has been branded "anti-NBN" but there is a distinct difference between being anti-network infrastructure and being anti-NBN. Those that support the NBN see it as a fantastic improvement to the communications infrastructure of Australia. Those that don't support the NBN are mostly just asking "is there a better way?". A large part of the division has come from the lack of transparency. Even now there is debate around the legislation that underpins the NBN. The economics of it are still based on a number of debatable assumptions. So what if there was more transparency? Would the NBN get more support? or would the transparency reveal aspects to the project that showed it's faults? I read with amusement the comments above citing "facts". Unfortunately the lack of transparency on the NBN makes "facts" difficult to include in this debate. I definitely want to see a National Broadband Network in Australia but I'm yet to be convinced that the NBNCo version of it is the best way to do it and best use of taxpayers money.
Psychaotix Mar 1, 2011 3:41 PM	You know, I can't believe the attempts at trying to discredit the NBN. People equating money spent on the NBN to the amount of hospitals, schools, roads etc that are now not built. In my house, I can tell you that we need the NBN, solely for the infrastructure upgrade that it brings with it. When it rains, we lose our ADSL. When it rains, we lose our already poor 3g signal. It takes as long as a week for our ADSL to fully restore itself to 6,000kbit/s. Sometimes it doesn't even get that fast. And we have 6 people trying to use the net at that speed. Country Australia needs the NBN, to help regulate costs, and provide services equivalent to what the city gets.
HubertCumberdale Mar 1, 2011 4:28 PM	RB wrote: I definitely want to see a National Broadband Network in Australia but I'm yet to be convinced that the NBNCo version of it is the best way to do it and best use of taxpayers money. Yes yes, I'm yet to be convinced too and other great pearls of wisdom from the great impartial sages of the internet, taxpayers money etc, we've heard it all before. Your "point" about taxpayers money though the NBN is actually a good use of it. For once there is a project that every Australian can benefit from.
anonymous Mar 1, 2011 4:48 PM	@RB: "Those that don't support the NBN are mostly just asking 'is there a better way?'." Sadly, it seems that most (more than half) of the blog opponents of NBN are almost completely motivated by a corporate/political/shareholder mindset that the NBN project must be opposed and if possible eliminated. There ARE a number of people with well based questions and issues about the project, which is good, but there do not seem to be very many people like that, with open minds.
Ace Mar 1, 2011 11:55 PM	Indeed @anonymous. In fact 'is there a better way' would be a far more interesting question, and one that there could be debate about. I have seen almost no-one remotely qualified to argue the merits of value for money. Unfortunately, the anti-NBNers who argue 'its too expensive' do not seem to have the slighest idea of how it is being funded. Now I'm no expert in this area either, but it doesn't take a great deal of common sense to realise that spending less money on the NBN does not mean there is more money for hospitals etc. The fact the opposition doesn't even use these arguments should be a clue. No-one argues the technology, and it seems that FTTH is a very safe bet in terms of delivery. You can look at DSL to verify this. Wireless is somewhat risky as it has inherent shortcomings that will mean varying quality throughout the network. This is regarded as acceptable (to a certain degree) to smartphones and other small portable devices, but it's only a portion of how people use internet connectivity. And it's not the portion where bandwidth is used. There is not a graph in existence that shows internet connectivity, bandwidth or users leveling off. Yet there are those who would argue that we 'have enough bandwidth' now. I'm betting these very same people would shudder at the thought of returning to year 2000 levels of connectivity and bandwidth. Why is 2011 the year when usage plateau's? It just seems highly unlikely. If quantum entanglement could be implemented as a solution for a mere $2billion, then everyone would be happy. And we could power the whole thing with nuclear fusion. Cool! While there is a slight problem with the timeline, I expect we will have invented a time machine in about 200 years that could deliver the aforementioned technologies by about mid-2011. Now THERE's a better way! Edited by Ace: 1/3/2011 11:56:57 PM
Technicial Mar 1, 2011 11:59 PM	And what kind of cable is going to connect up all these numerous wireless base stations?
jaysblueaus Mar 2, 2011 12:45 AM	I have to say in many cases wireless technology has a long way to go, until i would call it even 45% reliable. Wireless ,may be more reliable in larger cities such as Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, but in the case of smaller capitals it is woeful at the best of times. NBN will be good for places like Tasmania.
advocate Mar 3, 2011 12:41 PM	The key piece of that totally 'objective' comment in the lead article is this: NetComm provided equipment to households connected to Internode and Primus on the Tasmanian NBN and was looking at an upgrade market of 6 million devices as it rolls across the mainland, Stewart said. Nothing new here people - move along. Edited by advocate: 3/3/2011 12:42:37 PM
advocate Mar 3, 2011 1:23 PM	frogg11 wrote: unlike some of the anti-NBN commenters here who make the ludicrous assumption that their own personal usage of the web is a valid template for families everywhere. The same applies for pro-NBN argument that makes the ludicrous assumption that a valid template for blowing $43 billion against the wall is that personal usage of the web is a expensive FTTH connection allowing multiple points in the home so that simultaneous IPTV and movie downloads can take place. The sheer ignorance of the anti-NBN trolls is staggering. It pales into insignificance relative to the pro-NBN argument trolling.
advocate Mar 3, 2011 1:27 PM	jaysblueaus wrote: NBN will be good for places like Tasmania.[ Well it seems so far in the areas that are active the majority who can get it don't want it, but yeah other than that it 'will be good for places like Tasmania'.
advocate Mar 3, 2011 2:01 PM	anonymous wrote: But it does seem there are still some people who for political or commercial reasons will say and do anything to discredit NBN. Of course it is just not possible that pro-NBN argument that will 'say and do anything' is motivated by political or commercial reasons is it? This includes saying things that are so ludicrous it's impossible to take them seriously, which makes them just a waste of time and space. You mean like your comments here?
advocate Mar 3, 2011 2:12 PM	HubertCumberdale wrote: Your "point" about taxpayers money though the NBN is actually a good use of it. For once there is a project that every Australian can benefit from. Of course that makes the assumption that every Australian actually wants it, even the ever increasing number who are ditching fixed line connections and have been for the last decade. But never mind you and the other armchair experts know what's best for 'every Australian'.
anonymous Mar 3, 2011 3:48 PM	It seems that somebody here must be getting paid by the word. Five posts in a row and nothing much in any of 'em except what sounds like some apparently deluded self-justification and biased opinion. :-(
Ace Mar 3, 2011 4:07 PM	Oops, sommeone forgot the party line doesn't push the "$43billion" FUD anymore, seeing it was a little inaccurate. Didn't you get the memo @advocate? I notice you're still pushing this notion of "the ever increasing number who are ditching fixed line connections", but simply refuse to back it up with any evidence. This baffles me a little. Are you thinking that if you repeat it enough it will become true?
HubertCumberdale Mar 3, 2011 6:14 PM	advocate wrote: Of course that makes the assumption that every Australian actually wants it, even the ever increasing number who are ditching fixed line connections and have been for the last decade. That means nothing in the grand scheme of things. advocate wrote: But never mind you and the other armchair experts know what's best for 'every Australian'. I cant speak for armchair experts but I can speak for myself since I am an actual expert. I knew what was best for every Australian 15 years ago. I am a visionary, in 10 years from now even someone like you wont be able to deny it... must really frustrate you that the NBN is going ahead and I'll be proved right yet again.
advocate Mar 4, 2011 11:09 AM	anonymous wrote: It seems that somebody here must be getting paid by the word. I wish. Five posts in a row and nothing much in any of 'em I noticed you passed as you always do to actually debate the points, and prefer the lazy option of a throwaway line containing no substance, anonymous by name and anonymous 'nothing' content.
advocate Mar 4, 2011 11:21 AM	HubertCumberdale wrote: That means nothing in the grand scheme of things. Cue Australian Flag waving in the breeze and sound bite Advance Australia Fair, brilliant, you should work in PR. I cant speak for armchair experts but I can speak for myself since I am an actual expert. I knew what was best for every Australian 15 years ago. This has to be satire HC. I am a visionary, Wait the satire gets even better. :) Ten years from now wireless will still be sucking revenue away from the NBN just like wireless in 2011 is sucking it away from ADSL, PSTN and HFC. Taxpayers will still be propping up this turkey 20+ years from now, hey HC I'm a 'visionary' as well but I prefer to call it a realist though.
HubertCumberdale Mar 4, 2011 11:29 AM	advocate wrote: blah blah blah Ten years from now wireless will still be sucking revenue away from the NBN just like wireless in 2011 is sucking it away from ADSL, PSTN and HFC. Sure it will lol. advocate wrote: Taxpayers will still be propping up this turkey 20+ years from now, hey HC I'm a 'visionary' as well but I prefer to call it a realist though. You are not a realist and certainly not a visionary, you still cant even quote properly.
advocate Mar 4, 2011 12:07 PM	Ace wrote: Oops, sommeone forgot the party line doesn't push the "$43billion" FUD anymore, Really - does that include the Labor Communications Department own party line? http://www.nbn.gov.au/content/nbn-key-questions-and-answers-faqs#q7 The links don't paste properly in here, it states: Q7 How much will the NBN cost? A On 7 April 2009, the government committed to investing up to $43 billion in the NBN. I notice you're still pushing this notion of "the ever increasing number who are ditching fixed line connections", but simply refuse to back it up with any evidence. From the latest Telstra Financial Report: http://www.telstra.com.au/abouttelstra/investor/calendar/half-year-results-announcement-4.xml Reporting Period H1 2010 - H1 2011: Total mobile revenue up 10%, PSTN -8.4%, Fixed Retail Broadband 0.4% and there were 44,000 Fixed Line cancellations. Consider yourself un-baffled. Edited by advocate: 4/3/2011 12:15:33 PM
DougM Mar 4, 2011 1:16 PM	I just wonder who is paying advocate for all the time he spends on here spruiking the party line. I wonder whether he was around to object just as vociferously when the PSTN moved on from 'Party Line'. (Remember those?) And for the Telstra report, retail broadband up (hmm.. fixed internet .. ) and I wonder how many of those fixed line cancellations were to move to an alternative ADSL/ADSL2 provider? And why don't you quote the answer to Q7 in full.. NBN Co Limited's Corporate Plan confirms the capital expenditure for the project is estimated to be $35.9 billion. Of which, the Australian Government's contribution will be $27.5 billion in equity in the project. But of course $27.5 Billion over several years isn't nearly so scary as $43 Billion right now is it?
Ace Mar 4, 2011 3:46 PM	Ah yes, I am less baffled now thanks @advocate. I see you have some problems with comprehension. And you seem to believe there is only one phone company. And you don't seem to know what PSTN is for (I'll give you a clue - it's not broadband). And re the 2009 document you found, I am a little embarrassed for you there. The party should have forwarded you the latest updates. Will Abbott ever get these communications sorted out properly?
advocate Mar 4, 2011 6:12 PM	@Ace The so called 'phone company' as you label it is of course Telstra the monopoly supplier of the fixed exchange line to the house, you have some other 'phone companies' in Australia in mind that we should be looking at? Yes I know it's PSTN, the point is still the same as new fixed line BB connections have virtually flat lined, anyone who wants fixed line BB already has it, all ISP's can do now is try and poach fixed line customers off each other. Those special pro-NBN filtered glasses are put on when you see the phenomenal growth in wireless figures from all the providers, are you pretending there is NO growth in wireless and it is NOT at the expense of fixed line connections and services? It will continue whilst the NBN is being rolled out up to when it is finished (2018?) and beyond. And re the 2009 document you found, I am a little embarrassed for you there Not as embarrassed as you are at still being able to read that link eh? - it's STILL on their website. The tap dancing on figures came later when they had to provide some smoke & mirrors cover stories as they were getting too much flack from critics. Here are some more $43 billion links. http://www.invest.vic.gov.au/020710Melbournethenewhomefor43billionNationalBroadbandNetwork Victoria has secured a major technology investment coup, with the National Operations and Test Facility for the $43 billion Australian National Broadband Network (NBN) to be based in Melbourne. From the Liberals own website: http://www.liberal.org.au/Latest-News/2010/11/23/NBN-Transparency-Bill.aspx A Bill to enable appropriate scrutiny of the Gillard Government's proposed $43 National Broadband Network (NBN) has been introduced in the Senate today by Senator Simon Birmingham. Edited by advocate: 4/3/2011 06:23:31 PM
advocate Mar 4, 2011 6:40 PM	DougM wrote: I just wonder who is paying advocate for all the time he spends on here spruiking the party line. It's my own 'party line', the Coaltion is not that good. :) I wonder whether he was around to object just as vociferously when the PSTN moved on from 'Party Line'. (Remember those?) Haha - very witty the link is a bit forced don't you think? - but not bad. And for the Telstra report, retail broadband up (hmm.. fixed internet .. ) and I wonder how many of those fixed line cancellations were to move to an alternative ADSL/ADSL2 provider? Do you have the figures? or is merely stating that premise enough to prove that 44,000 customers immediately signed with other ISP's and changed their fixed line from Telstra - it is interesting as I wonder which fixed line supplier other than Telstra the sole supplier of fixed line copper you have in mind here? And why don't you quote the answer to Q7 in full.. I gave the link so all could read Q7 answer in full, the point is the figure is still $43 billion, breaking it up into 'feel good sub groups' to try and take the spotlight off that massive total is good spin but that's about all.
Ace Mar 5, 2011 1:40 AM	advocate wrote: @Ace The so called 'phone company' as you label it is of course Telstra the monopoly supplier of the fixed exchange line to the house, you have some other 'phone companies' in Australia in mind that we should be looking at? I have PSTN at my house. And it's not Telstra wiring. Hmmm, how could that be? advocate wrote: Yes I know it's PSTN, the point is still the same as new fixed line BB connections have virtually flat lined, anyone who wants fixed line BB already has it, all ISP's can do now is try and poach fixed line customers off each other. Ah, so you were making up the 44,000 line cancellations? advocate wrote: Those special pro-NBN filtered glasses are put on when you see the phenomenal growth in wireless figures from all the providers, are you pretending there is NO growth in wireless and it is NOT at the expense of fixed line connections and services? It will continue whilst the NBN is being rolled out up to when it is finished (2018?) and beyond. Time and time again I have posted a link to ABS stats showing a great increase in mobile BB connections. It is abundantly clear from the stats that people are getting mobile data connections to supplement their fixed line connections. It is abundantly clear that despite some 35% of BB connections being from mobile devices, that 35% is responsible for only 8.5% of the data downloaded. advocate wrote: Not as embarrassed as you are at still being able to read that link eh? - it's STILL on their website. I can't see any sign of the NBN costing $43b...oh hang on, I didn't realise you thought 43b budget was the governments actual cost. Oops, you can't just cherry-pick a number from an article or report where it suits your argument. You'll end up sounding like a politician! advocate wrote: The tap dancing on figures came later when they had to provide some smoke & mirrors cover stories as they were getting too much flack from critics. Here are some more $43 billion links. http://www.invest.vic.gov.au/020710Melbournethenewhomefor43billionNationalBroadbandNetwork Victoria has secured a major technology investment coup, with the National Operations and Test Facility for the $43 billion Australian National Broadband Network (NBN) to be based in Melbourne. From the Liberals own website: [snipped to save @advocate further embarrassment][/snip] Gwafff! lol. http://data.dbcde.gov.au/nbn/NBN-Implementation-Study-complete-report.pdf (about page 365) Links to news and advertising web sites is, well, sub-optimal to put it mildly. In fact it's difficult to find anywhere that says the governments investment will go beyond about $28 billion. Why don't you argue that $26billion is too much? ps: I know someone else bought it up once, but it would be really great if you learned how to use the quoting thing.
advocate Mar 5, 2011 11:17 AM	Ace wrote: I have PSTN at my house. And it's not Telstra wiring. Hmmm, how could that be? So who does the PSTN copper in Telstra ducts to the Telstra pillar/RIM then on to the Telstra exchange link belong to then? Ah, so you were making up the 44,000 line cancellations? No, it was in the Telstra Financial Reports, I gave the link, if you cannot be stuffed reading it that's not my problem. Time and time again I have posted a link to ABS stats showing a great increase in mobile BB connections. It is abundantly clear from the stats that people are getting mobile data connections to supplement their fixed line connections. It is abundantly clear that despite some 35% of BB connections being from mobile devices, that 35% is responsible for only 8.5% of the data downloaded. It also abundantly clear that more and more customers are canceling their fixed line connections and going mobile only, mobile telephony and wireless data is totally adequate for many customers needs, why a have a fixed line connection for telephony when you also have a mobile capped plan? Just because FTTH is available to them won't mean they will cancel their mobile/wireless data plan and go back to fixed line! Links to news and advertising web sites is, well, sub-optimal to put it mildly. Oh I see when it's figures you don't want to see it as classified as a 'news and advertising web site' and sub optimal, even the Victorian Labor Governments announcement on the data center location. BTW Read this especially the table on Page 29, add the two figures together and tell me what you get. http://www.nbnco.com.au/wps/wcm/connect/main/site-base/main-areas/publications-and-announcements/latest-announcements/nbn-co-business-case-summary Is this a 'news and advertising' website as well? Edited by advocate: 5/3/2011 12:43:17 PM