# National Broadband Network



## Aussiejeff (7 April 2009)

> THE Federal Government has announced the *"largest infrastructure decision in Australia's history" after deciding not to award the National Broadband Network contract to a company.*
> 
> Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said the Government would go ahead with plans to build a national *fibre-to-the-home* broadband network that was up to "100 times faster than what many people use now".



http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25301681-5005961,00.html

Well, well.

Just gotta wonder where this Pandora's Box is going to end up. Will Tel$tra still have the last laugh (IMO only possible IF they can get unwired G3 to 40MB or faster at competitive rates??)

Feel free to comment....


aj


----------



## gfresh (7 April 2009)

This is nice, but why do I need it? 

Unless I get 1000gb of transfer a month along with the speed, it's rather useless. What do I need to access in Australia requires a 100mbps connection to download effectively? I have 24mbps presently, and do not require that most of the time.


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (7 April 2009)

Aussiejeff said:


> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25301681-5005961,00.html
> 
> Well, well.
> 
> ...




Telstra are laughing now - what they were excluded from, they now have access to.  Whoever does Kev's grand plan, HAS to work with Telstra to get this done. Given the History between the Government and Telstra, do you think Telstra will act kindly towards them or put the boot in on every single contract it can?


----------



## MrBurns (7 April 2009)

This seems half smart, he must have pinched it from Liberal policy, get the broadband network going and create jobs.


----------



## waz (7 April 2009)

K Rudd's idea wont work.

Financially, logistically, technology wise it doesnt make sense.
Trust me, Im a telco engineer who installed fibre for Optus.

K Rudd's plan involves digging a new trench on every road in the city and laying a new cable. Think of those above ground Optus vision cables you see hanging from telegraph poles in the city, only underground to every home in every town.
Thats cable wont just go under the footpath, but also from the footpath to your house. To give you a speed which is 5x faster than what you get now.
Yes thats 5x faster than ADSL2+. The 100 times faster is a comparrision to dial up.

Whats funny is that ADSL2+ is fast enough. Also mobile carriers will be rolling out 4G before this thing is even built. 

The way I see it is like the govt. building a high speed train line from Sydney to Melbourne for $42 bil. Then charging passangers $200 for a one way trip, when the same trip can be done by Qantas and Virgin Blue for $70. What business sense does that make? none.

They will not be able to find a private partner for this project. There is no money to be made. Just votes from country folk who think the govt. is doing something for them.


----------



## MrBurns (7 April 2009)

waz said:


> K Rudd's idea wont work.
> 
> Financially, logistically, technology wise it doesnt make sense.
> Trust me, Im a telco engineer who installed fibre for Optus.
> ...




I knew it was too good to be true, just another grandstanding exercise by Rudd blowing our money.


----------



## Trembling Hand (7 April 2009)

long way to go but why would Telstra pitch in for less than half of something that they can roll out themselves which will fill in their already owned cable & wireless networks?

This is going to be friggin interesting. Is the gov going to legislate against Telstra to favour KRudds big idea??

In all that Krudd there was an announcement of a "comprehensive review of Telecoms Regulations."


----------



## MrBurns (7 April 2009)

Trembling Hand said:


> In all that Krudd there was an announcement of a "comprehensive review of Telecoms Regulations."




That should help their share price


----------



## Beej (7 April 2009)

waz said:


> Thats cable wont just go under the footpath, but also from the footpath to your house. To give you a speed which is 5x faster than what you get now.
> Yes thats 5x faster than ADSL2+. The 100 times faster is a comparrision to dial up.




I don't think that's right. It's meant to be based on FTTN (Fibre To The Node) which means they have to run optic fibre cabling from the exchanges to each street corner. The final service would then be delivered over your regular phone line using various forms of last leg delivery technology. Or if new cabling was required to the home it would replace the current phone line which is already hanging off a telegraph pole or in a tunnel under the ground and connected to your house anyway.

PS the key reason we have "slow" internet in Australia is under-investment in the actual core networks (especially Telstra's) that the ISPs must build. This network should provide ample opportunity for a decent core network to be built. Additional bandwidth capacity to the US etc can easily be turned on/enabled as when needed to address Gfresh's concern. The pathetic (or expensive) download limits etc most ISPs put on you are a result of the monopolistic wholesale pricing policies that Telstra currently has the power to maintain. A new network will fix this problem too.

Cheers,

Beej


----------



## Prospector (7 April 2009)

I think we totally over rate the importance of broadband speed.  Even for business the current technology is fine.  Slow?  Hell, not that long ago we were on dial-up.  No wonder we are all stressed, everything has to happen immediately.


----------



## Beej (7 April 2009)

Actually apologies to Waz - you are right re the fibre-to-the-home proposal! I just re-read the article and they have now changed the plan from the original FTTN proprosal. The logistics of building that out WILL be huge. I hope they replace the phone lines rather than running yet another cable to every house!

My other comments still stand though.

Cheers,

Beej


----------



## Trembling Hand (7 April 2009)

Prospector said:


> I think we totally over rate the importance of broadband speed.  Even for business the current technology is fine.  Slow?  Hell, not that long ago we were on dial-up.  No wonder we are all stressed, everything has to happen immediately.




Nah that's wrong. For video conferencing you need speed. for education, medical & biz etc

You have real speed you will make use of it.


----------



## Prospector (7 April 2009)

Trembling Hand said:


> Nah that's wrong. For video conferencing you need speed. for education, medical & biz etc
> 
> You have real speed you will make use of it.




Nup, maybe I am a luddite but there are so many more critical things we should be doing first.  Like, for instance, water - today they have announced that NSW, Vic and SA only have enough water in the system for 12 months for human needs.  But hey, who cares about that, we have fast broadband.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (7 April 2009)

gfresh said:


> This is nice, but why do I need it?
> 
> I have 24mbps presently, and do not require that most of the time.






waz said:


> Whats funny is that ADSL2+ is fast enough.




Congratulations. What about the rest of us who can't get faster than 1.5mbps?


----------



## Aussiejeff (7 April 2009)

waz said:


> K Rudd's idea wont work.
> 
> Financially, logistically, technology wise it doesnt make sense.
> Trust me, Im a telco engineer who installed fibre for Optus.
> ...




*Sniff*

_Phew-w-w!_ Something stinks here. Oh, I see. A *whopping great White Elephant* just stumbled into the room and started plopping everywhere! 

4G indeed.

But, maybe as others are already speculating, this new "Virtual Gummint Owned Cable Broadband Network" will be supported through new *ahem* "Fair Trade Broadband Spectrum Regulations" (my term). 

I must say, these Kruddites are seemingly clever enough to have already realised they can control everything now anyway. 

The opposition is dead in the water & various "World Crises" have given them the "moral authority" to push ahead with whatever populist pogrom .. oops ... I mean PROGRAM that they see fit to invent and fund with apparently "unlimited financial resources", to ultimately bolster the Party's image ad-infinitum. Poor Malcontent Turnbile. He is turning green around the gills. I can see why Costello doesn't want to come out of the shadows while this Mega Spendathon is underway. Ya just can't beat it while it has momentum.

Kevy Baby Rokz!
Swan-ee Soarz!!


----------



## Trembling Hand (7 April 2009)

Prospector said:


> But hey, who cares about that, we have fast broadband.




so telstra should be laying water pipes


----------



## Prospector (7 April 2009)

Trembling Hand said:


> so telstra should be laying water pipes




Ha, Funny, I am saying that if we are going to spend money on infrastructure lets spend it on something we really need rather than something we simply want.

Telstra blew their chances with their tender, they were not supposed to be involved in this at all.


----------



## prawn_86 (7 April 2009)

Obviously i havnt looked into it in detail (who has yet), but i like the idea at least.

I have always said that the gov lacks long term vision and is always held up by minorities, at least this shows that they are trying to get something done.

Of course there will be inefficiencies due to it being a gov project, but its better than nothing, or a bad private deal imo...


----------



## MrBurns (7 April 2009)

prawn_86 said:


> Obviously i havnt looked into it in detail (who has yet), but i like the idea at least.
> 
> I have always said that the gov lacks long term vision and is always held up by minorities, at least this shows that they are trying to get something done.
> 
> Of course there will be inefficiencies due to it being a gov project, but its better than nothing, or a bad private deal imo...




Submit your web links for free? , no wonder it's free



> This account has been suspended.
> Either the domain has been overused, or the reseller ran out of resources


----------



## prawn_86 (7 April 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Submit your web links for free? , no wonder it's free




LOL, technical issue im working on... Just a pet project to increase my coding and programming skills


----------



## MrBurns (7 April 2009)

prawn_86 said:


> LOL, technical issue im working on... Just a pet project to increase my coding and programming skills




It was working earlier today, good luck, always good to play around you learn more that way, 
the web is great isnt it ?


----------



## Aurum (7 April 2009)

waz said:


> K Rudd's plan involves digging a new trench on every road in the city and laying a new cable. Think of those above ground Optus vision cables you see hanging from telegraph poles in the city, only underground to every home in every town.




Surely the government owns the existing trenches?

Mike.


----------



## Beej (7 April 2009)

Aurum said:


> Surely the government owns the existing trenches?
> 
> Mike.




Unfortunately Telstra does. That was one of the big mistakes made when telecommunications were originally de-regulated and Telstra was privatised. They got to maintain a monopoly on the existing exchanges, last mile twisted pair copper cabling and the tunnels/access etc for said cabling. The only concessions made since then has been allowing competitors to put their own equipment in exchanges and gain direct access to the exchange end of the twisted pair copper - and Telstra had to be dragged kicking and screaming through the courts by the ACCC to even get to that point.

Did you know that we got ASDL in Oz 3-4 years later than in the US because of the above? Telstra initially refused to provide the service and no competitor could either because they were locked out of the exchanges and away from the twisted pair copper! Why? because Telstra had foolishly invested heavily in ISDN equipment and was trying to maintain revenue through their ridiculously expensive and obsolete ISDN access service.

This new project will in effect remove that monopoly from Telstra by building out completely new last mile infrastructure, and keeping it this time separate from the retail service providers. This should create an even playing field for access to that network for all players.

Cheers,

Beej


----------



## waz (7 April 2009)

For those who cannot get speeds faster than 1.5Mbps there is a reason for it.
It's not financially viable to give you anything faster unless your willing to pay for it.

In order for the project to succeed, the amount of revenue needs to be more than the cost of servicing the debt on these infrastructure bonds. 

The private sector (Telstra, Optus, Mac. Telecom, Powertel/AAPT, etc.) has already cabled the CBD's of Australia with FTTP (Fibre to the premise). This was done as they knew they could make money from it and get a return on their investment. i.e they would earn enough to pay their interest bill on their borrowings and still have money left over as profit. i.e positive EBIT (which some are yet to see)

So this new project will do nothing for them. 

Isolated areas were left out as no profit could be made from it. Regardless of who owned the network (private or goverment).

Keep in mind that isolated does not have to mean a country town in the middle of nowhere, you could be just 25km out of the city and still be considerd a remote location as far as technology goes.

Effectively what the government is doing is subsidising broadband. Taking from the city and giving to the country (where most National Party voters are).

Instead of building a new network, the govt. could have just as easily used that amount of money to build a house in the city for every country folk and told them to move.

Australia is a big country, you cant compare broadband speeds over here with what can be achieved in densly populated Asian countries. The laws of economics state that they have that advantage over us and we shouldn't bother trying to compete by using subsidies/protectionism.

God gave us Iron ore/coal/agriculture/vast open spaces. Thats where our advantage over other countries lies.

You win some, you loose some.

Broadband is where we loose. 

Yeah I know I've gone a bit of tangent. My point is that world class telecomunications is always going to be expensive and most likely unprofitable when the worlds 5th largest country (around that) is only populated by 21mil people.


----------



## nunthewiser (7 April 2009)

maybe slightly off topic but still intrested

years ago there was a mob that trialled running broadband through the powerlines in tassie ......... what ever happened to that idea and why didnt it work

i personally think it would have been a mighty viable idea IF it worked as no other main infastructure needed at time 

any ideas ?

p.s it was an ozzie listed co , anyone remeber who it was ?


----------



## CanOz (7 April 2009)

Canada, a somewhat more socialist country than Australia, made it a priority over a decade ago to have every home supplied with the option of high speed internet. Today it is still one of the fastest networks i have ever used. Even my small home town of 1000 people has access to this network.

At the time, the Telco was still state owned, and privatized after the network upgrade i believe.

Cheers,


CanOz


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (7 April 2009)

C'mon guys and girls,

Don't you know your history? Go look at what the American Government policy was in relation to telecommunications (and other infrastructure) has been during economic declines in the past.  The rise of Microsoft and the position of America as undisputed champions of software for manay many years go back to their efforts in the '70's and '80's and infrastructure spending during economic decline lead to massive economic gains. It resulted in hundreds of billions of dollars entering the american economy over decades. Which politician wouldn't want that eh?

Krudd is trying to use the same tactic. Of course he and his advisers seem to think that the way of the future is to run a *physical cable to every house* and don't seem to see the problem with this concept because hey it'll employ a bunch of people and it worked in the past right?

So big Kev  can you just answer me these questions about your policy to reassure me that it isn't a kneejerk reaction and an attempt to improve your popularity rating.

Questions on cable...

Do you expect that the population of Australia will increase? Coz won't continued building and increasing populations mean that ultimately you'll need to lay more cable in the future? And more cable in the future, and yet more cable in the future?  Are you trying to create jobs by suggesting cable should be the backbone of Australia's telecommunication needs going forward? Why is taking an approach that picks off one household at a time better than taking an approach that has an area effect and doesn't care how many people live within a certain patch of dirt?.

Satellites
Wouldn't spending 15 billions dollars on a whizz bang satellite that you *own*, that can cover those pesky rural voters, can cover those whiney city slickers, and maybe even (Shock horror) *make extra money* by selling excess capacity to New Zealand and South East Asia, and be able to be sold via all existing telecommunications providers in the country and still provide you with a tidy mark-up be a BETTER IDEA?

Every indication I have seen is that wireless will become more and more the focus and cable less and less. Why is it that when I set up a satellite connection recently, the satelitte I'm tuned into is somewhere over Asia?

 

Moronic policy 

Sir O


----------



## CanOz (7 April 2009)

nunthewiser said:


> maybe slightly off topic but still intrested
> 
> years ago there was a mob that trialled running broadband through the powerlines in tassie ......... what ever happened to that idea and why didnt it work
> 
> ...




I would have thought the noise insulation would make it cost prohibitive.

CanOz


----------



## nunthewiser (7 April 2009)

CanOz said:


> I would have thought the noise insulation would make it cost prohibitive.
> 
> CanOz




i cant remember the mechanics of it canoz, just wondering if anyone knew what happened with it


----------



## MrBurns (7 April 2009)

From Crikey - 



> Dear Sole Subscriber,
> 
> 
> The Government’s commitment to a new era of publicly-owned information infrastructure is historic and a radical shift in communications policy. But there are some significant issues to worry about.
> ...


----------



## Aurum (7 April 2009)

Sir Osisofliver said:


> Why is it that when I set up a satellite connection recently, the satelitte I'm tuned into is somewhere over Asia?




Maybe because the only geostationary orbits are over the equator.

Mike.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (7 April 2009)

waz said:


> For those who cannot get speeds faster than 1.5Mbps there is a reason for it.
> It's not financially viable to give you anything faster unless your willing to pay for it.




I'm aware of that, and that wasn't my point. It was people stating that they don't need any higher speed because they already have decent speed. That's great for you. But it's insular for people to say "I won't get anything out of this because I already have high speed."


----------



## marcadrian (7 April 2009)

Argue all you like about whether it should be private or public, fibre or copper, to the node or to the bone... but please, please, don't talk about too much bandwidth being on offer.

Until you can switch on one pipe into your home running at 100Mb/s+ that provides cable TV, video telephony, true online gaming, educational services etc.... that's when we can finally start to see why this whole Internet thing was started in the first place. Until then we're just fumbling around in the dark.

I'll never forget using a 2400bps modem and thinking that a 1Mb/s connection would herald the ultimate user experience.


----------



## darnsmall (7 April 2009)

waz said:


> K Rudd's idea wont work.
> 
> Financially, logistically, technology wise it doesnt make sense.
> Trust me, Im a telco engineer who installed fibre for Optus.
> ...





$43b? up from what wasn't it $8 or $9b?
in 8 years?
so the govt is spending $35b on setting up a new consulting/contracting firm to outsource the work to everyone else?
This is an unbelievable result, but I guess the governments ignorance shouldn't surprise, they're in the business of buying votes.
I will piss myself if they end up trying to privatise the NBN when it's finished and it ends up going back to Telstra, or they create Telstra2. 
How the hell is the government going to build a broadband network in 8 years, or start it in 8 years, or bring it in under $100b? 
Wouldn't mind a job with the government in doing this, I'm up for wasting government/public money when I lose my current job


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (7 April 2009)

Aurum said:


> Maybe because the only geostationary orbits are over the equator.
> 
> Mike.




Point.

Perhaps I should have said however that I'm connected to a satellite owned by an asian country rather than an Australian one?  Does that make it better?


----------



## gfresh (7 April 2009)

nunthewiser said:


> i cant remember the mechanics of it canoz, just wondering if anyone knew what happened with it




I don't believe it lived up to it's promise of being able to offer fast and/or reliable speeds... another idea that died a quiet death.



marcadrian said:


> I'll never forget using a 2400bps modem and thinking that a 1Mb/s connection would herald the ultimate user experience.




300bps.. you had to turn the switches at the right point to connect, I win 



marcadrian said:


> Until you can switch on one pipe into your home running at 100Mb/s+ that provides cable TV, video telephony, true online gaming, educational services etc.... that's when we can finally start to see why this whole Internet thing was started in the first place. Until then we're just fumbling around in the dark.




The Internet was created as a failover communication network for military communication in the event of a nuclear war.. not for any of those things you talk about. They've come later by folk as to what the Internet _should_ be able to deliver. You can video conference, stream near-HD videos, stream full and all of these things with 10mbps speeds (or even lower), yet barely anybody uses those services now, and it is not due to speed. It is due to not that many local companies stepping up to the plate and developing these services which can be both profitable to them, and affordable to the consumer. Telstra offers "Bigpond movies" for download, but who here is using it? If not, why do people even want a superfast broadband network if you're not even using what is available presently? 

This is why I question the point of offering something 5 times faster without these services reaching critical mass, and everyday people requesting it. The underlying technology is there to develop these things right now, but the implementation is lagging, simply putting a large road in front of somebody doesn't mean it's going to be full of cars. Without money being spent on the services side of things then it's only half the equation.


----------



## Trembling Hand (7 April 2009)

Sir Osisofliver said:


> Point.
> 
> Perhaps I should have said however that I'm connected to a satellite owned by an asian country rather than an Australian one?  Does that make it better?




Satellite is to slow. Way too much latency.


----------



## nulla nulla (7 April 2009)

Internet connection speeds between two connections are determined by whichever one has the lowest connection speed.  The connecting cable inbetween may be capable of running at 40 megabytes per second but if connection "A" only has a 10 megabit modem/router and connection "B" has a 100 megabit modem/Router speed, the download/upload connection will only operate at maximum of 10 megabits per second. 
Many local area networks are set up to run inhouse at 1 Gigabit per second (Routers, Switches, and Network Interface Cards) and they will run full duplex 1000 megabit (equals 1 Gigabit) speed for traffic between the server and the work station. However as soon as they connect the same network to the internet, through the standard 10 megabit modem/router, you guessed it, the fastest they will ever run (accessing the internet) is 10 megabits per second. 
Rolling out broadband is only part of the solution, to faster communications. You also need to upgrade modems/routers to allow the end user to fully take advantage of network speed cababilities. There is also the issue of shared band-with in your street/area which determines how fast your cable connection runs. The more people connected, the more the band-with is shared (diluted) and the slower your connection.


----------



## marklar (7 April 2009)

Interesting... of course I expect it will have a great big frickin' firewall in front thanks to Senator Conroy :007: and we'll be back to dial-up speeds!

m.


----------



## Aussiejeff (7 April 2009)

marklar said:


> Interesting... of course I expect it will have a great big frickin' firewall in front thanks to Senator Conroy :007: and we'll be back to dial-up speeds!
> 
> m.




Meh.

Got 8 years to chew the fat??

Or more likely 10+ if things don't work out as planned. The chances of this puppy being "on time, on budget" is going to be remote as hell.

Oh well, I'll be 68 by then and past caring....

LOL


----------



## marklar (7 April 2009)

Aussiejeff said:


> Or more likely 10+ if things don't work out as planned. The chances of this puppy being "on time, on budget" is going to be remote as hell.



Yeah, I do this kind of stuff for a living, just wondering if I'll get some work out of it at any stage over that next 10+.  I like my chances 

m.


----------



## Uncle Festivus (7 April 2009)

What they should do, if they are going to start digging up the streets, is to also do a complete underground conversion for all services, mainly getting rid of death trap electricity power poles. But that would be an afterthought no doubt, requiring the same bit of street to be dug up again 6 months later . Let's get it right for a change, we now have the opportunity?


----------



## CanOz (7 April 2009)

Uncle Festivus said:


> But that would be an afterthought no doubt, requiring the same bit of street to be dug up again 6 months later




LOL! Sounds like China.

CanOz


----------



## Stan 101 (7 April 2009)

This is an excellent initiative from our government. previous posters in this thread have questioned its use and lack of enterprise in the use of current broadband speeds. 100mbit pipe to the home opens up endless possibilities that will, in time, come to the fore. Build and they will come!

This is a major step forward for our next generation and their next generation. We may only see the potential by our twilight years but the future will make good use of this major infastructure.

With all the bleating hearts raving about greenhouse gasses and the like, imagine this: 
-Diminished need for the daily interstate business traveler because of the 3d hologram interactive video conferencing. 
-Centrally located specialist surgeons offering real time advise to the local surgeon when things turn pear shaped on the operating table.
-Instant blood test analysis over broadband for remote residents.

20 years ago basic video conferencing to the masses was science fiction. Let your imagination run wild at what the potential holds for such a communication vehicle.

It probably wouldn't be my first choice in national infastructure but I'm just glad a government finally has some foresight to start on something truly worthwhile for our future generations.


cheers,


----------



## So_Cynical (7 April 2009)

Stan 101 said:


> This is an excellent initiative from our government. previous posters in this thread have questioned its use and lack of enterprise in the use of current broadband speeds. 100mbit pipe to the home opens up endless possibilities that will, in time, come to the fore. Build and they will come!




At last a poster that gets it....so much misinformed opinion in this thread. 

I find it amazing how every time my quota and or line speed goes up i always find 
something to do with it....back in the day i used to struggle to use my 3 gigs a 
month, now i gobble up 15 gigs.

100mbit means no need for FTA or cable/sat TV...no need for normal phone lines, 
everything's video and on demand, watch one HD channel while recording another 2

Gaming in 300+ player servers (FPS) with no lag or ping issues...proper global gaming 
on a massive scale...imagine streaming news...pressing the blue button to get the live 
feed from the riot.


----------



## waz (7 April 2009)

The Country town that wanted fast broadband

Woop Woop is a town in the middle of nowhere with poor telco services. It has 100 houses and Life on the land is tough, many people have considered making a seachange.

One day, Mr Big Spender comes along and tells them if they vote him at the next election, he will provide them with cheap fast internet services. The towns people rejoice and vote him in at the next election thinking that this guy cares about people in bush, he tells them warm and fuzzy stories about 'working families' and how he is going to build a nation.

A few months later Mr Big Spender comes back to Woop Woop to tell about his new plan. He going to spend $2mil to employ 10 people to build this super fast internet service. The town's people jump up and down, hooray !!!

One smart guy steps forward and says 'Where is this $2mil coming from?'
Mr Big Spender says he doesn't have the money, what he will do is borrow $2mil from people who want to make a risky investment, in return he will pay them interest at the rate of 6% a year.

Our smart friend does some quick mental arithmetic and works out that the interest bill is going to be $120,000 a year. 'How are you going to pay back that interest Mr Big Spender?'

Mr Big Spender waves his right hand about and explains 'Simple, that $120,000 must be split between all the towns people'

'Well there are only 100 houses in this small town of ours, so that means that we each must pay $1200 a year or $100 per month per household for this fancy new service. That assumes that we all join this service. What if only half of us take up this offer?, then it would cost $200 per month per household, that's not very cheap, I may aswell stick to what I have right now and not even bother using your fancy infrastructure'

Mr Big Spender replies back 'Dont worry about it, it's going to take 8 years to build, by then you will be more than happy to pay $200 a month for it. Just make sure you vote for me again in the next two elections '.


PS. I do support high speed broadband, It would do wonders. My problem is that we have no idea if this proposal will make a profit. Without a profit, it would be hard to find a private partner, also, whats to say that there are willing buyers of these bonds, and who is going to purchase the wholesale network and for what price in a few years time. One thing that is for sure is that Labor is doing very well at making nice to bush voters.


----------



## Prospector (7 April 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> Gaming in 300+ player servers (FPS) with no lag or ping issues...proper global gaming
> on a massive scale...imagine streaming news...pressing the blue button to get the live
> feed from the riot.




Well, your gaming speed makes it all worthwhile then, doesnt it!   We got through 25gig last month, so it cant be all that slow!


----------



## Stan 101 (7 April 2009)

Waz, I see your point but take into consideration if anyone with vision was beaten down with your perspective. There have been hordes willing to shout down initiatives well before Edison lied and deceived the public against Tesla and there will be more in the future.

So_Cynical, you bring up a good point about free to air TV. at 12mbits for a hi def signal and 6-8 for an SD one, how much airwave space would it free up to not be broadcasting. What future technology could take over that bandwidth?

Toddlers to teens of today will have a vision to dream in years to come with a fresh mind on what a roll out like a national broadband scheme will offer. They'll be able to think in a way free of the current generations' preconceived notions of past and current technology. The next generation's entreupenuers to take this to the next level. Current CEOs with savvy will know this. 

I see that many have an emphasis on a payback deadline. How long did the Sydney Harbour bridge take to be repaid? How did it change the face of the harbour city, likewise the gateway in Brisbane. The gateway opened up the south east corridor to the gold coast and massive investment followed.

Again, I'll reiterate. I'm  proud someone in power has taken the long view initiative to build something truly great that will change the face of this country. The last one I can think of is the snowy river hydro scheme. I bet there were plenty of neigh sayers on that call, too.


BTW, who was in power when the Snowy River Hydro scheme was approved?


cheers,


----------



## MrBurns (7 April 2009)

Just watching Stephen Conroy on lateline (ABC)

What an idiot, I can tell you now this thing is doomed , Rudd has just invented this after too many tax payer funded sherries.


----------



## Stan 101 (7 April 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Rudd has just invented this after too many tax payer funded sherries.




Do you think this is a ridiculous idea, Burnsie?


----------



## gfresh (7 April 2009)

marklar said:


> Yeah, I do this kind of stuff for a living, just wondering if I'll get some work out of it at any stage over that next 10+.  I like my chances




I'm sure there would be plenty of work stemming in this area *if* there was the encouragement/incentives to businesses to really make the most of it. 

Let us hope the Government also uses the opportunity to lead the way in providing new ways to access Government services via the new network. As previously stated, a network without content is just a few billion dollar wires. 

One day I'd like to be able to vote, do my next census, interact with government departments over video link, be able to do video study courses from home or business, never have to visit the transport office ever again to register a vehicle, and be able to access all council services via the Internet. It would be nice if I never had to ever pick up a phone, press 3, 5, 2, 8 simply to talk to anybody in a government department ever again. Instead I simply wait in a que online, and when it was my turn the video of the person comes up and I can interact with that department over video conferencing without ever leaving home. There are uses I can see, but without a wholistic approach to both the network and the content side, it is going to be a lot of hot air. 

The ABC and SBS has already led the way in Australia by offering television on demand over broadband, most episodes available online, discussion forums and the like. You would think the likes of the commercial channels would be fully into it by now, but of course they won't do it unless there is extra dollars to be made, so they need a kick in the pants somehow.


----------



## MrBurns (7 April 2009)

Stan 101 said:


> Do you think this is a ridiculous idea, Burnsie?




No it's a good idea but they'll never be able to achieve it, not enough expertise.
Just saw Nick Minchin he seems just as bad, thought they were talking about phone lines ??? then backed off as fast as he could.

Watch that get picked up by the media tomorrow.

Telstra with Govt backing could do it but the Govt couldn't organize a chook raffle on their own so I'm not at all optimistic.


----------



## Stan 101 (7 April 2009)

MrBurns said:


> No it's a good idea but they'll never be able to achieve it, not enough expertise.
> Just saw Nick Minchin he seems just as bad, thought they were talking about phone lines ??? then backed off as fast as he could.
> 
> Watch that get picked up by the media tomorrow.
> ...




I'm sorry I asked..Ever critical, never constructive..


Cheers,


----------



## MrBurns (7 April 2009)

Stan 101 said:


> I'm sorry I asked..Ever critical, never constructive..
> Cheers,




I said Telstra should be involved thats constructive.

If you expect this Govt to get this off the ground you're dreaming......
they thrive on unfullfilled promises and this is the daddy of them all.....so far...

Yes and I'm sorry you asked too as it seems your motive was just to critisize, very unproductive of you, not constructive at all.


----------



## Trembling Hand (7 April 2009)

MrBurns said:


> I said Telstra should be involved thats constructive.
> 
> If you expect this Govt to get this off the ground you're dreaming......
> they thrive on unfullfilled promises and this is the daddy of them all.....so far...




many more studies and committees and all sorts to go yet.


----------



## MrBurns (7 April 2009)

Trembling Hand said:


> many more studies and committees and all sorts to go yet.




No problem with the committees and studies and reports and talk fests no problem at all there, it's actually getting it done is where the problems will start.


----------



## drsmith (7 April 2009)

For $43 billion the government could buy back Telstra for around $3.46 per share based on 12.4bn outstanding shares. Could it not then use Telstra's existing infrastructure as a starting point it's cashflow to roll out the broadband network over the 8 year time frame.

In reality the government would need to offer more and some of the $43bn figure could be in future dollars (less than $43bn in todays dollars offset by the future fund TLS holding). A higher price could potentially be offered if the government enticed shareholders with a combination of cash and government bonds.

After today's announcement who knows what the future might hold.


----------



## Uncle Festivus (7 April 2009)

....or buy Optus back off Singtel, if they still own it? Expand on their network?


----------



## So_Cynical (8 April 2009)

Telstra and Optus have old networks...all the hard wired stuff is old technology, both 
there cable (TV) networks are around 15+ years old...Telstra has some interstate
fibre....turns out the Tasmanian s already have some too.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/tasmania-a-step-ahead-of-the-rest-20090407-9zoq.html

Whirlpool has all the details

http://whirlpool.net.au/news/?id=1843&show=replies


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 April 2009)

nunthewiser said:


> maybe slightly off topic but still intrested
> 
> years ago there was a mob that trialled running broadband through the powerlines in tassie ......... what ever happened to that idea and why didnt it work
> 
> ...



Aurora Energy ran a broadband over powelines (BPL) trial at Mt Nelson (suburban Hobart). 

It did work but wasn't as good as hoped and was discontinued.

Aurora has since been building a fibre optic communications network and this is now in operation for non-household customers.

Aurora and the Tas Govt were behind the only state submission for the National Broadband Network (NBN) and for this reason Tassie is in front as far as Rudd's plans are concerned with construction works to extend the network to start later this year. No other state lodged a submission - worth noting in that context that the Tas premier was, before politics, an IT guru and has been personally involved with the submission (so I'm told).

Aurora is Australian but is not listed on the ASX. It is 100% owned by the State of Tasmania and was set up in 1998 with the primary functions of electricity distribution and retail, taking over those roles from the Hydro-Electric Corporation which is also 100% state owned.

Aurora: 

Distributes electricity in throughout Tas.

Retails electricity and on a much smaller scale gas primarily in Tas but also interstate.

Has a communications network that forms the basis of its NBN plans. This network is already in use. 

Attempted to build a natural gas distribution and communications network in Tas but was stopped on the basis of competion / ACCC concerns. Another privately owned company susequently built a much smaller, more expensive gas network which includes some empty conduit over a limited part of the route for future communications cable installation.

Purchased a partly built gas-fired power station from Babcock & Brown in a "fire sale" when that company hit financial trouble last year. The plant has commenced initial production in the past few days with completion later this year.

Has developed a unique household electrical safety device for household use that will very soon be sent free to everyone in Tas. Looking at broader marketing opportunities for this. http://www.auroraenergy.com.au/powerline_network/cablepi/

Also has activities in insurance, sports stadiums, runs a football tipping competition open to the public and recently launched a local TV program focussed on sustainability etc (somewhat ironic given the history of Tas politics and the power industry...).


Hydro:

Owns and operates 28 hydro power stations in Tasmania. Also owns and operates wind farms in Tas and South Australia. These account for about 50% of Australian renewable electricity generation and virtually all electricity generated in Tas. Also has an old gas-fired plant recently (last week) mothballed.

Generally acknowledged as a global leader in cloud seeding technology with routine (permanent) operations in Tas.

Has a consulting division operating internationally which employs about half the total staff.

Although it does not own the pipe or cable, was financially involved in bringing natural gas to Tas (2002) and is very heavily involved with the Basslink power and optical fibre cable, the communications aspect of which forms part of Aurora's NBN plans.


----------



## Aussiejeff (8 April 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> At last a poster that gets it....so much misinformed opinion in this thread.
> 
> I find it amazing how every time my quota and or line speed goes up i always find
> something to do with it....back in the day i used to struggle to use my 3 gigs a
> ...




At what cost?

What if that service ends up costing the equivalent of $200 to connect (modem etc) plus a further $200mth IN TODAYS DOLLAR$? I want to see WHAT THE LIKELY COST OF THIS SERVICE is likely to be before I wave my hat and dance for this.

Crikey mate, you'd be lucky to get 30% connections at that rate? I know I wouldn't be able to afford it! In which case the cost to householders _would have to be subsidised by the gummint, possibly forever_ to encourage a sufficient % of households to connect to the service in order to cover the massive ongoing maintenance and service costs?

I'll say it again.

WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY WIRE UP 98% OF HOMES AT +43$BILLION - BUT ONLY 30% OF HOUSEHOLDS TAKE UP THE OFFER? Would the resulting "business" then be a massive loss making enterprise?

Would the gummint then have to legislate to make it mandatory that all Australians use the service? 

Senator Conroy says the gummint will own the company for at least the next 13 years (8 years proposed build + 5 years after that)! 

What if (due to unforeseen major advances in other broadband technologies that may prove cheaper in the timeframe - 4G etc) THIS TURNS OUT TO BE A TOTALLY UNECONOMICAL WHITE ELEPHANT? HOW WILL THE GUMMINT THEN SELL THEIR UNDESIRABLE SHARES? 

Well, sure to be sure I might be pushing up daisies by then, but these are also big concerns for future generations to worry about.

The Snowy scheme, railways, roads etc were always going to be a pretty good bet to be of GREAT benefit to most of Australias population.

This scheme is already looking to be based on little more than a pipe dream. 

No certainty of funding.
No certainty of takeup.
No certainty of buyback.
No certainty of lack of competition from alternative technology.

Can we save the champagne until some certainty and actual budget estimates come to fruition?


----------



## Stan 101 (8 April 2009)

MrBurns said:


> No it's a good idea but they'll never be able to achieve it, not enough expertise.




And just where does your expertise in this field lie, Burnsie? Care to enlighten us all so you can validate your "expert" opinion.




> Just saw Nick Minchin he seems just as bad, thought they were talking about phone lines ??? then backed off as fast as he could. [\QUOTE]
> 
> Last time I looked, fiber optics are used for telephony. What's your point? That's the whole debate here. Telephony. I would expect a minister to discuss the situation at hand.
> 
> ...


----------



## Trembling Hand (8 April 2009)

Can this thing actual make money? or pay of itself? By the time this thing is rolled out there will be some 8 million households (from a google search) and at a guess another 2 million business (guess).

*What will the take up rate need to be for this to pay for its self?* My very rough back of the envelope calculations tells me its a Big gamble. And bureaucrats have a very poor record picking winners. Its a very big gamble considering that many homes are actually not going to need a wired phone.

I reckon this is a dud. As much as I would like everyone in Oz to instantaneously have a 100 meg cable at their door now I suspect by the time this gets to your door 300 meg wireless to your mobile, that you will be taking with you everywhere, will be the standard.


----------



## MrBurns (8 April 2009)

Stan 101 said:


> No, I asked the question to get some specifics. I thought that maybe on this occasion you would actually have some substance, facts or understanding of the subject to make an informed decision and open up debate on facts of the technology and roll out potential. Clearly you do not. It's just a rant.
> Sad, really.
> Cheers,




I dont know where to start to address your latest post of nonsensical nasty rubbish, so I won't.

Your posts are worthless drivel, if you're running such a vibrant company what are you doing on forums during business hours ROFL......


----------



## Prospector (8 April 2009)

Trembling Hand said:


> I reckon this is a dud. As much as I would like everyone in Oz to instantaneously have a 100 meg cable at their door now I suspect by the time this gets to your door 300 meg wireless to your mobile, that you will be taking with you everywhere, will be the standard.




On Page 1 you were a great believer.  What happened?


----------



## MrBurns (8 April 2009)

Trembling Hand said:


> I reckon this is a dud. .




To cut to the chase, you're right, if Telstra couldnt put this together the Keystone Cops in Canberra have no hope . they will spend a $billion$ on the feasibility drop the project and hand the bill to us..............as usual.


----------



## Trembling Hand (8 April 2009)

Prospector said:


> On Page 1 you were a great believer.  What happened?



 No I am on letting the commercials role out whatever they can get investors to put money up for. If it needs a couple of billion from the gov to get it going well I think on balance that's a good use/wise use of tax $'s. But 40 something billion of tax dollars that will take forever and very likely to be steamrolled by coming technologies. Well I am with you. Spend it on something more important. 



MrBurns said:


> To cut to the chase, you're right, if Telstra couldnt put this together the Keystone Cops in Canberra have no hope . they will spend a $billion$ on the feasibility drop the project and hand the bill to us..............as usual.




Lets look at what we do know. The gov is saying all the real proposal they got *didn't work.* From people who actually costed it and have enough expertise in the industry and were going to get part gov money.  So there answer to that was what?? Throw a **** more at it and make it the biggest ever project on what basis. I want to see why. Don't believe all the people cheering this. All the anti telstra companies and that's most the nation will cheer this cause there is something very big for them to gain, billions!!

This is not the snowy or rail roads. When the snowy was built we weren't about to get any new tech in a very long time and same with rail that was it for a very long time. This will be different.


----------



## Prospector (8 April 2009)

Trembling Hand said:


> No I am on letting the commercials role out whatever they can get investors to put money up for. If it needs a couple of billion from the gov to get it going well I think on balance that's a good use/wise use of tax $'s. But 40 something billion of tax dollars that will take forever and very likely to be steamrolled by coming technologies.  * Well I am with you.Spend it on something more important. *.




Cool! :  And  that it wont be spent (by the Taxpayer/Govt) on something else we need more.


----------



## Beej (8 April 2009)

So much negativity! Amazing. People have been asking for infrastructure - this is 21st century infrastructure.

Nick Minchum has NO idea - going on about "telephone companies". That's not what this is about - he has absolutely no clue. Most people commenting on this do not seem to understand the difference between a telecommunications network and a data communications one. This new network will be a pure, high bandwidth, optical fibre based data communications network. 

To a large extent it will be future proofed, as one of the great things about fibre optics is that you can pick and choose how much bandwidth you gain from each fibre based on the cost/technology used in the media layer equipment that you connect it to. A single fibre can be used cheaply to transmit at speeds of 100Mbs, or for more $$$ several 10Gbps channels can be utilised (via technology like division wave multiplexing WDM etc). Over time the higher bandwidth technologies get cheaper, allowing the networks to evolve and provide more and more bandwidth at a similar cost point over time. Wireless based solutions that some suggest as the "future" can never match this future scalability.

As for the concerns that the government lacks the expertise etc - well Conroy is a muppet - no doubt. If Rudd is smart he will re-shuffle that portfolio quit smart and put someone more capable of running the big picture in there. Regardless, these types of projects are not really done by the government, their departments etc - they will of course invite tenders for the design, supply of equipment, build out etc etc which will all be handled by appropriate private sector expert organisations. As long as the over-all plan remains sensible and the scope doesn't keep changing it will be built successfully IMO. There are risks, it may be delayed etc etc, but then something this big/visionary does not come without risk, but the outcome will be well worth it.

Personally, I also see great opportunities being created by this scheme. 

Cheers,

Beej


----------



## moXJO (8 April 2009)

Aussiejeff said:


> At what cost?
> 
> What if that service ends up costing the equivalent of $200 to connect (modem etc) plus a further $200mth IN TODAYS DOLLAR$? I want to see WHAT THE LIKELY COST OF THIS SERVICE is likely to be before I wave my hat and dance for this.




I agree with this. What will be the cost of such a service? And by the time it does get rolled out, will there be a more cost effective alternative. Considering how big Australia is how much will the cost of building this blow out?

I suppose we should look to other countries that have this (or something similar) already and see what benefits it brings.


----------



## Trembling Hand (8 April 2009)

Beej said:


> Personally, I also see great opportunities being created by this scheme.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Beej




Yes $50 billion worth of opportunity. That will make anyone in the industry see the benefits


----------



## shiftyphil (8 April 2009)

Aussiejeff said:


> At what cost?
> 
> What if that service ends up costing the equivalent of $200 to connect (modem etc) plus a further $200mth IN TODAYS DOLLAR$? I want to see WHAT THE LIKELY COST OF THIS SERVICE is likely to be before I wave my hat and dance for this.




For a rough guide, look at what FTTH costs right now for those who can get it.
The government plans use the same technology, so they could hit the same price targets.
In current deployments, the developer paid for the fibre to be laid (and rolled it into the land costs)...in the new NBN, the government pays. End user costs should therefore be comparable.

Example:
Opticomm FTTH via Internode - (Minimum $50 per month, $99 setup cost)
(Sorry, can't post links).


----------



## moXJO (8 April 2009)

Was this plan tied in with the backhoe tax deduction? Was it in preparation of digging a lot of trenches


----------



## MrBurns (8 April 2009)

Name one project of this magnitude completed successfuly by any Fed Govt - *EVER *

It's just politics , a good scheme for Rudd because he wont have to deliver on it..........as usual AND can take the credit in advance.


----------



## S73417H (8 April 2009)

I think some people are failing to see the bigger picture on this one. A lot of people may not NEED faster internet right now, but in 5 to 10 years time the rest of the world is not going to slow down and wait for Australia to catch up. It would be a terrible disadvantage to Australia if our broadband infrastructure stagnates for another several years. I liken this to electricity. I bet many people back in the day believed that they did not NEED electricity.

There are many benefits to be had by providing faster broadband services. I suspect the media sector will especially see huge business opportunities as this technology will make it possible to deliver 100% on-demand media - for example. But of course, the benefit to all businesses will be huge. 

The question should not be why do we need it now but rather what will happen if we do not have this in the future? This must happen if Australia wants to maintain a successful economy for the future. 

Is this a waste of money? Long-term, certainly not. But yes, the figures are staggering and admittedly scary.


----------



## Beej (8 April 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Name one project of this magnitude completed successfuly by any Fed Govt - *EVER *
> 
> It's just politics , a good scheme for Rudd because he wont have to deliver on it..........as usual AND can take the credit in advance.




Heard of the Snowy Mountains Scheme?? People like you probably harped on about what a waste of money that was, how it would never work etc etc back in the late 40s....

Also what about the creation of the original national telephone system? That was all done by the commonwealth government.

At least they are trying to do something. Your heroes sat there for 11 years and did SFA! M inchum - who was Communications Minister, still thinks that it's all only about a telephone company 

Beej


----------



## MrBurns (8 April 2009)

Beej said:


> Heard of the Snowy Mountains Scheme?? People like you probably harped on about what a waste of money that was, how it would never work etc etc back in the late 40s....
> 
> Also what about the creation of the original national telephone system? That was all done by the commonwealth government.
> 
> ...




I didnt mean projects that were undertaken to provide basic infrastructure, I meant something of this ilk. this is desirable but not life and death.

It's complicated and takes an organization of talent and expertise everything that Rudd and his lackeys aren't

Snowy mountain scheme was easy compared to this and Labor politicians weren't smarmy wimps like they are now.

People like me??????????? what about people like you ! Go spend spend spend, run to the letter box, get a handout, go for it it wont fall back on you will it, and this scheme .........what a pity Rudd's involved, watch it fall over but HEY  what the hell, he gets short term popularity doesn't he, thats what this is all about.


----------



## Aussiejeff (8 April 2009)

shiftyphil said:


> For a rough guide, look at what FTTH costs right now for those who can get it.
> The government plans use the same technology, so they could hit the same price targets.
> In current deployments, the developer paid for the fibre to be laid (and rolled it into the land costs)...in the new NBN, the government pays. End user costs should therefore be comparable.
> 
> ...




The gummint plan is to roll out first into the tiny island state of Tasmania, where connection distances are comparatively miniscule. Then they can say "See? It only cost the ave Tassie Devil $xx". Maybe even affordable for some (but the West Coast of Tassie might test them...).

Can you tell me what FTTH will cost to roll out across the VAST expanses of WA?

Will WA country town folk get the service at the same cost as inner Hobartians?

Detail, detail....


----------



## prawn_86 (8 April 2009)

Normally im the last to defend any politician but I think some people here will dislike every gov decison, no matter what it is.

I think at least this decison is nation building and has actaul value. The least they can do is try and figure out if it will work and if not at least they tried (obviously it wont be as efficient as private industry, but thats something you have to put up with).

With some members here its damned if they do, damned if they dont...


----------



## S73417H (8 April 2009)

Aussiejeff said:


> The gummint plan is to roll out first into the tiny island state of Tasmania, where connection distances are comparatively miniscule. Then they can say "See? It only cost the ave Tassie Devil $xx". Maybe even affordable for some (but the West Coast of Tassie might test them...).
> 
> Can you tell me what FTTH will cost to roll out across the VAST expanses of WA?
> 
> ...




Unlikely to be FTTH or even FTTN. However, the plan does make up for this with provisions for Satellite broadband technology improvements. OK, it might have relatively high latency, but it will still be very fast. I'm sure everyone would love a nice high-speed cable to their house, but realistically this just isn't an option.


----------



## prawn_86 (8 April 2009)

The conspiracy theorist cynic in me wonders if the gov has decided to go ahead with it so they can implement filtering at the base infrastructure level....


----------



## Temjin (8 April 2009)

I don't think anyone can rule out that newer technologies that is capable of meeting the "broadband" needs of most individuals and businesses in 8-10 years MAY exist at a lower cost and efficient than current fibre-optical technology. 

If anyone say so, then it's no different to saying it's impossible to construct a heavier-than-air flying machine back in the early 1800s. 

The biggest problem with a broadband network infrastructure is the fact that Australia has a very unique geographic and demographic features in comparsion to other "highly broadband-advanced countries". That is, we have a small population living in a vast area. 

It gives me the impression that trying to maintain the same level of broadband service provided by densely populated countries like Hong Kong / Japan / South Korea is unrealistic both from a practical and commercial sense. Obviously, they could do it because it's much simplier to install fibre-optical cables between high rise buildings than constructing hundred of kms between cities. 

I don't know what technologies would be better suited for our type of environment, but spending $42 billion, and potentially more given the history of government's lack of efficiency in infrastructure spending, in this current climate is totally irresponsible. 

It's no different to Japan who tried to get out of their depression by building roads and bridges to no where in order to "stimulate" their economy. 

Someone should answer my question why the privte tender bids were REJECTED by the government? My initial source tells me it did not produce the "value" the government wants.

So what then? The government then a new company and confidently believe they would be able to do a MUCH BETTER job than what the private industry can offer? What make them believes they could better use the resource than those from the private industry? 

The lack of private investors willing to put up for half of the $42 billion plan has clearly illustrated that the investment is simply not viable from an economic perspective. 

And I don't agree that we should put up with something less efficient. Our tax money should be better spent elsewhere, but that's just me. I'm always against every government decision to intervene the free market.


----------



## Trembling Hand (8 April 2009)

prawn_86 said:


> Normally im the last to defend any politician but I think some people here will dislike every gov decison, no matter what it is.
> 
> I think at least this decison is nation building and has actaul value. The least they can do is try and figure out if it will work and if not at least they tried (obviously it wont be as efficient as private industry, but thats something you have to put up with).
> 
> With some members here its damned if they do, damned if they dont...




If the gov, labor , lib or bloody commi comes up with a plan to spend 40 BILLION dollars I want to see HOW its going to work and how they got to that plan. I want public discussion and ALL the pros and cons and costings. i want to see input from all sides. Not a friggin surprise announcement to cover a hastily put together election promise used as a tactic to one up the other party that has now shown to be not feasible. 

In oz there is far too much power in a few hands (basically a couple of ministers) with far to few questions asked of there decisions.


----------



## waz (8 April 2009)

Since the most obvious comparrison is the Snowy Hydro Scheme, how about some facts taken from wikipedia:
The Scheme was managed by the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority, now called Snowy Hydro Limited, and took 25 years to build, from 1949 to 1974,[4] at the cost (at that time) of AUD$800 million; a dollar value equivalent in 1999 and 2004 to AUD$6 billion.[5] [6] It employed over 100,000.


The magic fact there is $6bil. 

Close to 100% of the materials used in construction were Australian made.
Maybe a few things were imported from the USA. Like the actual generators.
There were no competitiors
There was no new technology to compete with
It was properly budgeted
It was built during an economic boom period, before the oil shocks.

The opportunity cost of $6bil, we could have just built 3 coal power stations for the same cost. 

I think a better comparrison is not the Snowy scheme rather the Three Gorges Dam in China which cost US30bil.


hehe, just found this at the end of the wikipedia article:
Recent developments

In late 2005 there was a proposal by the NSW government that the federal and state governments should sell their shares in Snowy Hydro Limited. The proposal was abandoned in 2006 after the federal government refused to agree with the proposal.[15]

In 2007, due to the recent drought in Australia, water levels in the scheme were their lowest on record.[16] Credit rating agency Moodys downgraded Snowy Hydro's outlook from stable to negative within one month.


nuff said

I dont think anyone on this forum has a problem with super fast internet. We are all in agreement that this is something that we want. The only issue we are discussing is at what COST do we go ahead (thanks AussieJeff). Is the project even VIABLE. Regardless of who is in power, Labor or Liberal, can we afford this project?? What is the opportunity cost? What is the risk?


----------



## alphaman (8 April 2009)

Cost can be kept to a realistic level if we only cover the big cities. But of course such a policy would be political suicide.


----------



## metric (8 April 2009)

prawn_86 said:


> The conspiracy theorist cynic in me wonders if the gov has decided to go ahead with it so they can implement filtering at the base infrastructure level....





the conspiracy theorist in me, wonders what doubts they have over the future, or suitability of satellites.....?


.


----------



## Trembling Hand (8 April 2009)

metric said:


> the conspiracy theorist in me, wonders what doubts they have over the future, or suitability of satellites.....?




Satellites are of no use for true broadband. You are better on ADSL.


----------



## metric (8 April 2009)

Trembling Hand said:


> Satellites are of no use for true broadband. You are better on ADSL.





i wonder what sort of improvement in satellite tech 5 billion would make? add a few billion more (chicken feed eh..?) for the actual improved satellites, and it would be a quicker, easier exercise....and you could sell the tech...


----------



## Trembling Hand (8 April 2009)

metric said:


> i wonder what sort of improvement in satellite tech 5 billion would make? add a few billion more (chicken feed eh..?) for the actual improved satellites, and it would be a quicker, easier exercise....and you could sell the tech...




No you have latency problems that cannot be overcome. If you can get the speed of transmission to say 300 meg wireless then its always going to be faster to then transmit that to a local nodes 5 k's away rather than 200 k's in the sky and back.

Too slow.

But then again you never know what 10 years will bring in this sector which is I guess the biggest problem.


----------



## MrBurns (8 April 2009)

I've got absolutely no problem with the idealogy behind the project just the people who are presemtly charged with the implementation of it, I'm a swinging voter but have no faith in Rudd and company at all.

And $40B ???? did he just pull that out of a hat ?


----------



## shag (8 April 2009)

im no elec engineer, but it doesnt seem too hard, just put in the pipes(fibre optic cable) to the main parts, hell all u do is trench a 50mill bit of tube or a few of em. then adsl(existing copper) the small parts or other technologies. 
off the subject, the snowy hydro scheme was a awesome piece of eng, not like this simple project, just like manapouri etc in nz, but the three gorges dam is an acident waiting to happen and its crude.


----------



## shag (8 April 2009)

most of it is manual labour too, elec engers for a little design, and a few tadies to fit a few things. done, simple. just give me 40 bill and i'll 'give it a red hot go'....


----------



## waz (8 April 2009)

Hi Alphaman

The exisiting telcos already want to cover the areas such as cities where they can make a profit. As an example, in Sydney, most of the CDB and smaller CDB's such as Parramatta, Chatswood, North Ryde (i.e places with the density of Taiwan/Japan/Hong Kong) are already covered and will continue to be upgraded. Why?, because the private sector can make money from it.

Someone mentioned earlier:
Opticomm FTTH via Internode - (Minimum $50 per month, $99 setup cost)
Yes thats a nice price, however thats in the city where its economically viable. Thats not the country cost.

Another comparrison you can make on ambitious projects is the EuroTunnel between England and France. Below taken from Wikipedia:

Shares in Eurotunnel were issued at £3.50 per share on 9 December 1987. By mid-1989 the price had risen to £11.00. Delays and cost overruns led to the share price dropping; during demonstration runs in October 1994 the share price reached an all-time low value. Eurotunnel suspended payment on its debt in September 1995 to avoid bankruptcy.[37] In December 1997 the British and French governments extended Eurotunnel's operating concession by 34 years to 2086. Financial restructuring of Eurotunnel occurred in mid-1998, reducing debt and financial charges. *Despite the restructuring The Economist reported in 1998 that to break even Eurotunnel would have to increase fares, traffic and market share for sustainability.[38] A cost benefit analysis of the Channel Tunnel indicated that the British economy would have been better off if the Tunnel had not been constructed*.

The eurotunnel is like FTTH, its a pipe from central london to central Paris. Which allows trains to travel at a very high speed. 
The alternative is to use existing airports on the edge of the city and fly onboard private planes between the two points. Market forces of supply and demand dictate the capacity between the two cities and provide a price where supply matches demand. 

People who travel between London and Paris have a choice, not all of them are using the fancy new tunnel.


----------



## Buster (8 April 2009)

waz said:


> PS. I do support high speed broadband, It would do wonders. My problem is that we have no idea if this proposal will make a profit. Without a profit, it would be hard to find a private partner, also, whats to say that there are willing buyers of these bonds, and who is going to purchase the wholesale network and for what price in a few years time.




It'll have to make a profit.. if it doesn't they won't be able to 'privatise' it, like they did with Telecom/Telstra.. Wonderful money making machine that was for the taxpayers years ago, making 2Bil profits that presumably reduced our income tax and helped pay for infrastucture.. But sell it they did.

Surely 'they' (or the next government) would do the same with this venture eventually, then they can regulate the bejesus out of it, trash it's value (despite selling it to their very own constituents) and pump money into another country's economy in the name of competition.. 

Cynical I may be, but I've been around long enough to read between the lines..

I too BTW am in favour of the NBN, and also in doing it right from the get go, regardless of cost.. as others have pointed out there are massive benefits to future generations (that will simply take it for granted, and probably make 'Discovery TV' documentaries about the fuss surrounding the build.. ) There is nothing more frustrating than paying good money to build something only to realise that it was half the required job upon its completion. 

Those of us who live in Perth  know what I mean, just consider the Kwinanna FWY, and those in NSW Paramatta Rd, two lane projects that by the time were completed required three..

Regards,
Buster


----------



## Uncertain Times (8 April 2009)

Waste of money digging holes and filling them back up again but its what they did in the depression to keep people busy.

Technology will make this obsolete by they time they get it in the ground. Much more efficient to build a good wireless network to tack onto the exisiting poles in the ground. The wireless technology will improve over time and it is much easier and faster to drive around to all the poles and replace the equipment on them than dig up all the holes again.

Most young people don't even have a landline anymore they rely entirely on mobile phones. This generation is also taking up mobile internet at a rapid pace.

The $43 billion they are spending on this is a waste of money and not the sort of project the government should be looking at.

KRudd you are so 1980's


----------



## shiftyphil (8 April 2009)

Uncertain Times said:


> Waste of money digging holes and filling them back up again but its what they did in the depression to keep people busy.
> 
> Technology will make this obsolete by they time they get it in the ground. Much more efficient to build a good wireless network to tack onto the exisiting poles in the ground. The wireless technology will improve over time and it is much easier and faster to drive around to all the poles and replace the equipment on them than dig up all the holes again.




That's the wonderful thing about PON based fibre. You don't have to ever dig it up to do an upgrade. Just upgrade the exchange and the customer equipment. The fibre and the passive splitters will outlast you, and don't require the power, cooling and constant maintenance of a FTTN solution.

PON scales to 1Gbit with current equipment, and 10G with the next standard (later this year).


----------



## Temjin (8 April 2009)

Here an extract from another excellent newsletter from Money Morning.

This is exactly how I feel about this as well. 



> It seems as though the Australian government has adopted a new theme song:
> 
> _"Anything you can't do, we can't do better..."_
> 
> ...




That is why this is a total waste of taxpayer money. An investment with a break even return over close to fifty years! Unlike defense spending or public road / transport, a 100 Mbits broadband network is not a CRITICAL infrastructure over existing one. 

Yes, we are definitely falling behind in terms of broadband connectively compared to the rest of the world. But like I said before, it's simply not fair to compare Australia (vast land, too little population) with others with better infrastructure.


----------



## nulla nulla (9 April 2009)

Temjin said:


> Yes, we are definitely falling behind in terms of broadband connectively compared to the rest of the world. But like I said before, it's simply not fair to compare Australia (vast land, too little population) with others with better infrastructure.




For a population of 20 million, do we really need to stump up the costs now to be world leaders in a technology that will be redundant before the role out is complete. 
The rule of "lowest Common Denominator" will still apply. Even if we have the latest whizz bang speed internet facility at our end, if we are accessing a site in Europe, Japan or the USA, our download/upload speed will be reduced to the speeds of the equipment at the other end. 
Why not put the money where it could do something useful for the community like: Hospitals; Roads; Railways; and even education. Some money invested in education could uncover some bright spark with the nous to develop something even faster and cheaper.


----------



## MrBurns (9 April 2009)

Saw the CEO of AAPT , said the Govt has no chance of doing this there is no return and it doesn't stack up. 

He was refreshingly down to earth unlike Rudd who is becoming more on the nose each day.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/business/items/200904/s2538992.htm


----------



## Trembling Hand (9 April 2009)

heres a good one from the age,
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/ot...-harebrained-scheme-20090408-a0y4.html?page=3



> National broadband can be rolled out more cheaply using the existing network.
> 
> KEVIN Rudd is a political genius, but can the nation afford him as Prime Minister? *Instead of announcing that Senator Stephen Conroy and whoever advises him on communications policy are duds who should be sacked*, he has set off a $43 billion hare designed to last long enough to carry his Government through the next election.
> 
> If we can take Rudd seriously, this will be the biggest public-private partnership in the world, which will, if required, be fully financed by the Government and then sold back to the private sector after it is completed in eight years. So we have moved from a failed policy involving expenditure of $15 billion to $20 billion to bring optic fibre to the end of the street in favour of a more ambitious policy designed to bring fibre to the home through a wholesale only network for $43 billion.






> If the high-speed broadband is run out as part of the normal development of the network, beginning with the institutional and business customers who can benefit immediately, and the copper loops are gradually replaced with with fibre as they rot, the urgent high-speed network could be provided sooner.
> 
> This is better than persevering with Rudd's hare-brained scheme, and the rest of the network could be upgraded out of retained earnings and a moderate increase in telephone charges.
> 
> ...


----------



## dombat (9 April 2009)

I just can't understand these objections and those arguements that place a mere dollar value  on this great national project....how can you value a project like this without considering or being able to value the immense impact it will have not only on our education system but health and business not to mention efficiency gains on the home front and even travel....tell me one other project that could effectively improve the living standards of every Australian.  I work in health and I can assure you if this does not proceed you will be sorry as you get older....we desperately need this technology to improve services and to keep them within a reasonable cost limit.  This advancement will enable the declining numbers of the health profession to be able to service and assist people to remain in their home (just one small benefit such a project will bring).
Even optus who lost the bid stated that though it was bad for the company IT was by far the best soloution for the nation.  I for one will vote Rudd out if he backs down on this decision and I will mourn for all Australians and Australia if we do not proceed.


----------



## Trembling Hand (9 April 2009)

dombat said:


> ....how can you value a project like this without considering or being able to value the immense impact it will have not only on our education system but health and business not to mention efficiency gains on the home front and even travel....



Because we don't live in fairyland. Things have to be paid for and have to make money. 



dombat said:


> tell me one other project that could effectively improve the living standards of every Australian.



 What about our collapsing food production areas. It will be nice for the farmer to have a virtual session with his shrink for depression over 100 meg fiber so they can talk about the lake of water in the Murry/Darling irrigation system. 



dombat said:


> I work in health and I can assure you if this does not proceed you will be sorry as you get older....we desperately need this technology to improve services and to keep them within a reasonable cost limit.  This advancement will enable the declining numbers of the health profession to be able to service and assist people to remain in their home (just one small benefit such a project will bring).



 Why so you can pay as a pensioner $200 per month to up load your blood sugar levels to your doctor on a fiber cable  This solution will price out the very people you think its there to help.



dombat said:


> I for one will vote Rudd out if he backs down on this decision and I will mourn for all Australians and Australia if we do not proceed.



 Really? How will you even know? This is a 8 to 10 year project. He will be gone by the time this, if it even starts, will be able to be judged.


----------



## MrBurns (9 April 2009)

I've got no complaint with the speed now to be honest.

Build a pipeline from North Qld to Vctoria if you want to do something useful, we're running out of water and the brains trust that is the Vic Govt are useless.


----------



## drsmith (9 April 2009)

MrBurns said:


> I've got no complaint with the speed now to be honest.



1km from the exchange I get 14mb/s. That's on Telstra's copper network.

Paying $100 per month (double what I pay now) for 100mb/s is not something I would regard as value for money.


----------



## MrBurns (9 April 2009)

drsmith said:


> 1km from the exchange I get 14mb/s. That's on Telstra's copper network.
> 
> Paying $100 per month (double what I pay now) for 100mb/s is not something I would regard as value for money.




I just tested at 33 sounds slow but it's pretty fast really.

They should patch the system where it's needed such as your problem and just get on with something more useful, most Labor voters cant tie their own shoelaces let alone use faster broadband properly, the slower they doownload their pr0n the better anyway


----------



## Aussiejeff (9 April 2009)

Trembling Hand said:


> heres a good one from the age,
> http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/ot...-harebrained-scheme-20090408-a0y4.html?page=3






> In Rome, the emperors offered the mob "bread and circuses". *Our little emperor reckons he can get away with circuses alone*.




Even worse, _the emperor has no clothes!!_


----------



## MrBurns (9 April 2009)

That was a good article, some would say he's being negative !!! I say he 's spot on the money


----------



## Aussiejeff (9 April 2009)

MrBurns said:


> That was a good article, some would say he's being negative !!! I say he 's spot on the money




Without some "waves of negativity" to balance out the pounding "waves of optimism" currently crashing on the shores of Oz, we would all be floating off on a giant Pink Bubble with the faeries...


----------



## badger41 (9 April 2009)

Back in the 1960s, pretty much the entire aviation industry thought faster aircraft (think supersonic) was the future. So the Concorde as developed and built.

Then along came the 747, with operating costs just a fraction of the Concorde's. And the customers voted with their feet (and wallets).

The rest is history!


----------



## Prospector (9 April 2009)

badger41 said:


> Back in the 1960s, pretty much the entire aviation industry thought faster aircraft (think supersonic) was the future. So the Concorde as developed and built.
> 
> Then along came the 747, with operating costs just a fraction of the Concorde's. And the customers voted with their feet (and wallets).
> 
> The rest is history!




And then the Concorde crashed.


----------



## Julia (9 April 2009)

Trembling Hand said:


> Why so you can pay as a pensioner $200 per month to up load your blood sugar levels to your doctor on a fiber cable  This solution will price out the very people you think its there to help.



Exactly so.   I heard an enthusiast for the scheme joyfully proclaiming that with this magical system a worried mother would be able to 'have a visual conversation' with a practice nurse about her child who has a temperature.
The nurse would then be able to tell the anxious mother that she should give the child paracetomol.   What the ***** do they think has been happening via telephone for decades???

I can see a case for an inexperienced surgeon having visual contact with a specialist in the process of an operation, but if I were the patient I'd prefer the money to be spent on sending me to the specialist in the first place.






MrBurns said:


> I've got no complaint with the speed now to be honest.
> 
> Build a pipeline from North Qld to Vctoria if you want to do something useful, we're running out of water and the brains trust that is the Vic Govt are useless.



Completely agree on both counts.  Include South Australia in the pipeline.




drsmith said:


> 1km from the exchange I get 14mb/s. That's on Telstra's copper network.
> 
> Paying $100 per month (double what I pay now) for 100mb/s is not something I would regard as value for money.



Me neither.


----------



## dombat (9 April 2009)

Why so you can pay as a pensioner $200 per month to up load your blood sugar levels to your doctor on a fiber cable  This solution will price out the very people you think its there to help.

Well no, of course that is not what this is about - you will be able to do a basic check up...but the point is in the future the cost of health will escalate and is escalating beyond belief...this project would enable us to stop the process of multiple repeat and i do mean repeated tests, it would unify the health system.  Next you will all complain about the cost of health in the future....you bag this initiative but don't give an alternative.  The cynism here is appalling.  I agree will still need to consider both water and power, particularly in Victoria where Brumby has just gone on ignore mode.  The deaths resulting from the heatwave should have prompted action together with the rolling blackouts...but no ...still no policy regarding the lack of power in this state.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (9 April 2009)

Its the best idea the Ruddmeister has come up with.

I may even vote for the pigeon toed one eyed little sob in the next election.

In NQ we have been plagued by poor internet connections.

gg


----------



## dombat (9 April 2009)

Julia and Trembling Hand the initiatives you guys are talking about is because of lack of knowledge in the field....the examples just show what little idea you have  in this area...this project would allow people with severe complaints to go home and be monitored very closely...for example someone with a cardiac problem to be monitored via a 3 lead ecg...saving thousands in unnecessary hospital visits and ambulance call outs.  To be able to get an accurate health status check on someone without even visiting their homes...the increased efficiencies would be enormous.  You both show a lot of cynicism and an extraordinary ability to complain....gee I would like to employ you  Where is your vision?  Just out of interest do you believe in climate change?  Either of you?


----------



## drsmith (9 April 2009)

If this is so visionary where was the idea 12 months ago when the financial environment was much better ?


----------



## waz (9 April 2009)

Also, if this is so visionary, why doesn't every country in the world do it????

If this is so visionary and can't go wrong, why wasn't it made an election promise? Chances are if so many people like it so much, Labor would have got more votes.

If this is so visionary, why bother wasting the last 9 months on the 2nd best solution, when we could have picked this solution ages ago?

If this is visionary, why bother asking for a private partner to help?

If this is visionary, why try and sell it in a few years time? 

Dombat, I take it you have knowledge in the field of health services. There are also people on this forum who have knowledge in the field of water, electricity, finance, social equality, project management and telecomunications, we can even go as far saying geography.

While I agree with your benefits, those benefits will not happen if we run out of water to survive, have no electricity to run this medical equipment you talk about, we all die in a nuclear war, or if the planet warms so much that we all fry to death or drown in the floods. Yes Im being extreme, but Im a visionary, I can't help it.

Yes it is a great project, however there is an OPPORTUNITY COST, everything in life has an opportunity cost whether you like it or not.

The more money we spend on NBN, the less money/resources we have to spend on other things (which may be more important to the survival of our species).

Im such a visionary that my *broad* mind knows that the world faces many problems, this is just one of them. The solutions to its problems are also many.

For eg. if so many people are suffering from cardiac issues, why not spend $42bil on cash hand outs and force these people to join a gym and exericse. You may think its a silly solution and doesn't solve the problem, but hey, at least I can call it visionary. With all these people now walking/cycling to work, I have also reduced car usage, thus reducing pollution. Also, instead of having 37,000 people employed to lay cables, these people will now work on a cure for every cancer known. Im assuming that 37,000 people exist that can be trained to do whatever task we give them.
Looks like I have solved three problems, health care, greenhouse emissions and cure for every cancer , all with the one visionary project.

Are we understanding the concept of Opportunity cost now???


----------



## nulla nulla (9 April 2009)

dombat said:


> I just can't understand these objections and those arguements that place a mere dollar value  on this great national project....how can you value a project like this without considering or being able to value the immense impact it will have not only on our education system but health and business not to mention efficiency gains on the home front and even travel....tell me one other project that could effectively improve the living standards of every Australian.  I work in health and I can assure you if this does not proceed you will be sorry as you get older....we desperately need this technology to improve services and to keep them within a reasonable cost limit.  This advancement will enable the declining numbers of the health profession to be able to service and assist people to remain in their home (just one small benefit such a project will bring).
> Even optus who lost the bid stated that though it was bad for the company IT was by far the best soloution for the nation.  I for one will vote Rudd out if he backs down on this decision and I will mourn for all Australians and Australia if we do not proceed.





Yep, i can see it now. "Trust me, I'm a doctor, it is perfectly safe and your privacy is protected. Now if you would just disrobe young lady, in front of your pc-cam, i will perform a mamogram". 
Yeah right. Medicine over the internet, telephone etc etc. This would be fantastic for doctors bulk billing patients through medicare. They could hook up 5-6 pcs with multiple screens each and consult with 10 - 20 patients per 15 minutes, 40-80 patients per hour, 8hrs per day, 5 days per week 1600 - 3200 patients bulk billed per week. Yeah right. We really need this.


----------



## Julia (9 April 2009)

waz said:


> Also, if this is so visionary, why doesn't every country in the world do it????
> 
> If this is so visionary and can't go wrong, why wasn't it made an election promise? Chances are if so many people like it so much, Labor would have got more votes.
> 
> ...



Excellent summary.  Says it all for me.


----------



## dombat (9 April 2009)

Waz - it was part of the election platform (where have you been?)
Nulla- 'Yep, i can see it now. "Trust me, I'm a doctor, it is perfectly safe and your privacy is protected. Now if you would just disrobe young lady, in front of your pc-cam, i will perform a mamogram". 
Yeah right. Medicine over the internet, telephone etc etc. This would be fantastic for doctors bulk billing patients through medicare. They could hook up 5-6 pcs with multiple screens each and consult with 10 - 20 patients per 15 minutes, 40-80 patients per hour, 8hrs per day, 5 days per week 1600 - 3200 patients bulk billed per week. Yeah right. We really need this. 

So Nulla what is your soloution I would love to hear it -- you clearly have no idea of the declining numbers in the health profession...if you don't like the soloution you will have the choice of face to face contact --but I promise you it will cost you a fortune.  At least this way the marjority of Australians will maintain a reasonable standard of health service at a reasonable cost.  The opportunity cost to this (WAZ - looking right back at you honey)- you simply will not get a health service or be able to afford it .  Again give me one national project that will benefit all Australians to this degree - as for this food bowl business of the murray darling - well maybe we need to relocate the food bowl up north a bit.  It was on this very forum that someone worked out that a pipeline from here to queensland was unfeasible - cheaper to ship the water down.


----------



## waz (10 April 2009)

Again give me one national project that will benefit all Australians to this degree.

Since Im not educated in the field of health, I've been lucky to gain some insights into some of the problems, this is what my honey told me:

# It appears that there is a massive shortage of health professionals in this country.

# The cost of health care is going up to a level that most people cannot afford and in years to come they will be complaining about it.

# There are unnecessary hospital visits and ambulance call outs.

# There are 37,000 people who are looking for work.

# Our hospital system is so overcrowded that people with severe complaints are sent home even though they need to be monitored very closely.

# We have an health system which is not unified.

Golly gosh, it appears Australia's health system is screwed and is in need of urgent repair. Shouldn't this be our number 1 priority right now. I think so, Im not be sarcastic, I actually agree with you dombat. You do realise we are on the same side right  I really dont care for the Labor vs. non-Labor talk that gets into nearly every thread on govt policy.

With 42bil, we could provide training for 37,000 people to join the healthcare system, build more hospitals, provide enough places so that people who need close monitoring are not sent home, build simple health clinics so that people do not waste the resources of our hospitals Emergency departments, the fed gov can take hospital management away from the states, our ambulance service can finally get the budget it deserves, PBS can be expanded, people employed in the industry can get a pay rise, encouraging more people to join the industry, etc... this was the type of opportunity cost I was alluding to.

Dombat, you forgot to answer my other question. Why aren't other countries building this network if it's so great?
One reason may be that they have prioritised healthcare above telco infrastructure and will aim to tackle the root cause of health care issues instead of treating the symptoms as a bolt-on benefit of another project, such has sending people home as there are not enough beds and telling them to sit in front of their computer (we are assuming that people who are struggling to afford healthcare can afford a computer and whatever monitoring equipment they need).

The water from QLD to VIC is a very good analogy (Building a pipe over just shipping water). Why bother spending mega bucks to build an unfeasible FTTH when its cheaper to just build hospitals and everything else I mentioned above.

The only way to know if it is feasible is to come up with the figures for both scenarios. Which has not been done. So what information does the House of Reps and Senate have to make this decision. None, just dreams.

In conclusion, there are many ways to spend $42bil, is a FTTH project the best way to spend it, or are there more important, urgent projects such as health care where we do not have to worry about out of date technology, competition, private funding and providing compensation.


----------



## GumbyLearner (10 April 2009)

I think it is a sensible plan, shame towns like Ross miss out!

Hopefully, the Federal Government will take time and respond from the community from their plans (funded by tax-payers Australia Nation-wide of course) to know if it delivers.

Hopefully, Tassie and it's small geography plays a role to succeed in the process. There has been plenty for the State to miss out on, hopefully this will be done right for the benefit of all Australians. 

From the little things big things grow not to steal from Paul Kelly or Kev Carmody.

But it makes sense to start on a small place geographically and plan from there


----------



## metric (10 April 2009)

MrBurns said:


> I've got no complaint with the speed now to be honest.
> 
> Build a pipeline from North Qld to Vctoria if you want to do something useful, we're running out of water and the brains trust that is the Vic Govt are useless.




talking sense, as usual.


----------



## MrBurns (10 April 2009)

dombat said:


> Julia and Trembling Hand the initiatives you guys are talking about is because of lack of knowledge in the field....the examples just show what little idea you have  in this area...this project would allow people with severe complaints to go home and be monitored very closely...for example someone with a cardiac problem to be monitored via a 3 lead ecg...saving thousands in unnecessary hospital visits and ambulance call outs.  To be able to get an accurate health status check on someone without even visiting their homes...the increased efficiencies would be enormous.  You both show a lot of cynicism and an extraordinary ability to complain....gee I would like to employ you  Where is your vision?  Just out of interest do you believe in climate change?  Either of you?




Thats marvelous... but until a State Govt (as least) can make trains run on time I hold very little hope for that piece of science fiction.


----------



## Dowdy (10 April 2009)

I think it's a great idea. 

And for the people who are saying - i don't need it that quick blah blah blah. 

Well the people who invented the laser didn't know what to use it for and now it's used in all multimedia devices.

Just because we can't think of a use for it now doesn't mean we dont need it. People were saying the same thing with blu-ray when the idea came out - what are you going to do with 50GB?


----------



## Nyden (10 April 2009)

Dowdy said:


> I think it's a great idea.
> 
> And for the people who are saying - i don't need it that quick blah blah blah.
> 
> ...




Completely agree. The truth is that the Internet is only going to become more, and more enmeshed into our lives; heck, it's even on fridges nowadays!

15 years ago, who knew we'd all be downloading songs instantaneously at-will, or watching foreign TV shows on live-streams? Frivolities, yes, but business has become more dependant on it than ever as well.

The current broadband network in Australia really is a joke, and it's gotten to the point where it isn't even funny anymore, as to just how far behind we are in comparison to some of our western peers. Folk in America would burst into laughter if they realised how much we pay for such little bandwidth, and such pathetically minuscule download-limits.

$60 for a Cable connection, with 12GB on-peak? I could go through that in one day!

The bottom line, is that if Australia wishes to remain competitive Internationally, we need this infrastructure.


----------



## nulla nulla (10 April 2009)

dombat said:


> Waz - it was part of the election platform (where have you been?)
> Nulla- 'Yep, i can see it now. "Trust me, I'm a doctor, it is perfectly safe and your privacy is protected. Now if you would just disrobe young lady, in front of your pc-cam, i will perform a mamogram".
> Yeah right. Medicine over the internet, telephone etc etc. This would be fantastic for doctors bulk billing patients through medicare. They could hook up 5-6 pcs with multiple screens each and consult with 10 - 20 patients per 15 minutes, 40-80 patients per hour, 8hrs per day, 5 days per week 1600 - 3200 patients bulk billed per week. Yeah right. We really need this.
> 
> So Nulla what is your soloution I would love to hear it -- you clearly have no idea of the declining numbers in the health profession...if you don't like the soloution you will have the choice of face to face contact --but I promise you it will cost you a fortune.  At least this way the marjority of Australians will maintain a reasonable standard of health service at a reasonable cost.  The opportunity cost to this (WAZ - looking right back at you honey)- you simply will not get a health service or be able to afford it .  Again give me one national project that will benefit all Australians to this degree - as for this food bowl business of the murray darling - well maybe we need to relocate the food bowl up north a bit.  It was on this very forum that someone worked out that a pipeline from here to queensland was unfeasible - cheaper to ship the water down.




I can't see how having a national broadband network is going to encourage people to become nurses or doctors, unless they are motivated by greed and can see the scope of oportunity to milk the medicare system. As for face to face visits with health professionals, we have health insurance (for those than can afford it) and the public health system for those that elect not to have health insurance or can't afford it.

Recommending virtual medicine, as a viable replacement to face to face examinations/doctors visits, is naive at best and stupid at worst. I can't see a woman getting a reliable breast examination across the internet or a male getting a reliable prostrate examination by pointing his backside at a web cam.

The real points of contention in respect of the NBN are:
1. The technical redundancy that isn't being factored in;
2. The senseless duplication of existing infrastructure; 
3. The projected monthly costs for anyone taking up connectivity versus their existing costs; and
4. The complete waste of money that could be better used funding new nursing staff, doctors, hospital beds, basic hospital equipment and research.


----------



## Julia (10 April 2009)

waz said:


> One reason may be that they have prioritised healthcare above telco infrastructure and will aim to tackle the root cause of health care issues instead of treating the symptoms as a bolt-on benefit of another project, such has sending people home as there are not enough beds and telling them to sit in front of their computer (we are assuming that people who are struggling to afford healthcare can afford a computer and whatever monitoring equipment they need).



This is a very relevant point in that the greatest level of healthcare is needed by the elderly, many of whom have either no interest in computers, can't afford them, and/or would find it impossible because of diminished mental state.

Another point which probably isn't being considered is that for many old people a visit to their doctor is as much a social contact as a medical requirement.   It's reassuring to them and reduces the sense of isolation.


----------



## Solly (10 April 2009)

Just my 2 cents worth,

The old copper access network is old technology and isn't in good shape everywhere. 

Speeds are slower, old twisted copper pairs don't always like the higher voltages etc.  You've still got slower overall speeds with the aggregated points even on a VHDSL back haul.

Migrating over to FTTH/P is probably a good thing in the 21st Century.
This will be upwardly scalable especially as faster Dense Wave MUXs are developed. A jump from 100mbs to a Gig wont be all that hard in the future.

Then there's LTE/4G coming as well.

I say it's time to start the move off copper.

I like to fly, and now especially in the IP world.:


----------



## So_Cynical (10 April 2009)

They should do it like Pay TV...run the fibre down the road, so it would be FTTP 
"Fibre to the pole" and then have "installers" do the connection into the home 
as new customers sign up....same a cable TV.

Would create thousands of jobs that way.


----------



## Trevor_S (10 April 2009)

Dowdy said:


> I think it's a great idea.
> 
> And for the people who are saying - i don't need it that quick blah blah blah.




I am another that doesn't need it that quick, what I do need is MORE DATA...  I chew through my 80GB allowance from Internode now (I access it using ADSL1 + speeds) in double quick time and that doesn't include my unmetered content like iview etc.  At that sort of speed I would out be looking for a 1TB data allowance and that, we won't see.  Where is the massive upgrade needed to get data to/from the rest of the world ? 

To my mind it's the ubiquity that is pointless, lots of people can be served by ADSL 2+ (not me) and via Telstras new cable rollout.  

I still think there would be better uses for that amount of tax payer money... that and anything he Government touches will be cocked up, so no doubt the budget will blow out by 25% and it will be a decade late.

What about some investment in solar / geothermal baseload power generation, revamping the electrical supply system to carry that power long distances via DC transmission, what about some of the more basic stuff like water supply etc


----------



## Julia (10 April 2009)

Question:  would it be feasible to move overhead power lines to underground at the same time?


----------



## MrBurns (10 April 2009)

Trevor_S said:


> I still think there would be better uses for that amount of tax payer money... that and anything he Government touches will be cocked up, so no doubt the budget will blow out by 25% and it will be a decade late.




My thoughts exactly,except I dont think it will even get off the ground, the Libs and minor parties will block it and Rudd will claim hero status without having to deliver.


----------



## So_Cynical (10 April 2009)

Julia said:


> Question:  would it be feasible to move overhead power lines to underground at the same time?




Now that really would cost big money....the NBN cable is about 1 cm thick (i think) and very light.


----------



## dombat (11 April 2009)

Julia and Nulla - WAKE UP -private health insurance in the future will become for most Australians completely unaffordable particularly for those on pensions.  A level of affordable health care will be the best option and that option will require the baby boomers (who are somewhat more familiar with technology) to utilise it. But if you don't accept it this as a near certain reality thats ok....just keep up your ever rising health insurance.  Australia just simply does not attract enough health professionals to be able to cope with the future demand...sorry that is the reality.


----------



## dombat (11 April 2009)

Oh yeah - just because you guys really need a wake up call - if you do not or cannot cope with the technology option of remaining in your own home in the future (10-15 years) then if you are a candidate for dementia (and that appears to be a possibility) you will be placed in a hostel or nursing home.  These places will NOT have a qualified health profession in their staff as they will be run completely by unqualified staff.  This is happening now and this IS the future...so the techno option will become I promise you more and more an attractive option.  At least then you will get to talk and be cared directly by a qualified health practitioner.  You talk about naive - wow that is rich - you have no idea what is coming your way..none.


----------



## nulla nulla (11 April 2009)

dombat said:


> Julia and Nulla - WAKE UP -private health insurance in the future will become for most Australians completely unaffordable particularly for those on pensions.  A level of affordable health care will be the best option and that option will require the baby boomers (who are somewhat more familiar with technology) to utilise it. But if you don't accept it this as a near certain reality thats ok....just keep up your ever rising health insurance.  Australia just simply does not attract enough health professionals to be able to cope with the future demand...sorry that is the reality.






dombat said:


> Oh yeah - just because you guys really need a wake up call - if you do not or cannot cope with the technology option of remaining in your own home in the future (10-15 years) then if you are a candidate for dementia (and that appears to be a possibility) you will be placed in a hostel or nursing home.  These places will NOT have a qualified health profession in their staff as they will be run completely by unqualified staff.  This is happening now and this IS the future...so the techno option will become I promise you more and more an attractive option.  At least then you will get to talk and be cared directly by a qualified health practitioner.  You talk about naive - wow that is rich - you have no idea what is coming your way..none.




It would appear rather than us needing to wake-up, you need to get out a bit more and be less obsessive about the Health System (or lack of it) in Australia. For all it's weaknesses, if I ever get sick and need health Care, I would much prefer to be treated in Australia than any where else in the world for two reasons:
1. Our Doctors are among the best in the world; and
2. The Australian system of public health/private health (with insurance) is one of the least expensive in the world.

A national broadband network *will not*:

a. Encourage more people to become doctors or nurses;
b. Make Private Health Care or Public Health Care any less expensive;
c. Make treating patients in their own homes any more viable than treating them at hospital;
d. Reduce Doctor's visits by the sick, turning to "virtual" consultations over a computer is not a viable alternative (many elderly patients would have little understanding of using computers); and
e. Will not make one iota of difference to the commercial manner in which nursing homes are run.

The money projected as being committed for the NBN ($43 billion) plus the eventual cost blow out, would be far better being invested in schools to train more doctors and nurses as well as hospitals to employ them.


----------



## Trembling Hand (14 April 2009)

dombat said:


> Julia and Trembling Hand the initiatives you guys are talking about is because of lack of knowledge in the field....the examples just show what little idea you have  in this area...this project would allow people with severe complaints to go home and be monitored very closely...for example someone with a cardiac problem to be monitored via a 3 lead ecg...saving thousands in unnecessary hospital visits and ambulance call outs.  To be able to get an accurate health status check on someone without even visiting their homes...the increased efficiencies would be enormous.  You both show a lot of cynicism and an extraordinary ability to complain....gee I would like to employ you  Where is your vision?  Just out of interest do you believe in climate change?  Either of you?




Domdat you really are living in fairyland. If it takes 50 odd billion to role out the fibre just to the door please with all your wisdom and business sense tell us the next step.

Tell us how much your new fairyland medical network will cost to put continually updated computers in ALL these homes.
How much will it cost to educate all the pensioners on how to turn these things on and use them?
How many people will it take to run this medicine to the home network? would they not be better employed as nurses etc actually IN the health system rather than setting up web cams in a house 

This look like the "computer to every kid" election promise. Sounds good at the time of the announcement but as they start rolling it out the States and Schools kicked up a stink because the actual cost of keeping and connecting a computer are far greater than the initial purchase.

As for being clueless about health delivery I have a little insight into it because my partner works for one of the big telcos in funding/subsidising health initiatives to remote indigenous communities. And the reason they want such a services is not because its their first option. its just a very poor second choice.


----------



## orr (14 April 2009)

Peter Cox the media writer for 'Crikey' has some useful analysis on this topic in today's issue, for those interested in a broader take on the possibilities and a bit of back catalogue on how a universal service obligation has served us well in the past. Don't be scared to subscribe, but for those that are there's a 21 day free trial on offer at the moment.


----------



## dombat (15 April 2009)

Nulla and TH, I give in - you are both right - of course generation x or y and not to forget z are going to want to spend the vast sums required to deliver to the baby boomers a labour intense health service....I think not.  As to attracting people to nursing - well each year the score for nursing has declined and yet still no takers....if they come to nursing they basically do not stay - the attrition rate is horrendous.  The government is aware of the difficulties and has been for the last decade.  The average age of the nursing population will be around 46 this year....nurses are retiring and there is no-one to replace them and this trend is reflected in all western nations.  I quote from a 2008 study on the Australian Health workforce:

"It is not a simple matter to reconcile a growing demand for high quality health services with financial constraints and a shrinking workforce," he said.

"New thinking on how to achieve improved productivity, innovation, workforce management, stakeholder collaboration and resources will be required if Australia is to successfully address Australia's predicted workforce issues."

But finally I am in favour of this initiative because it will benefit every Australian regardless of their age or occupation.


----------



## waz (15 April 2009)

Below is a very good article, before posting I checked that it is free content.

Keep in mind that we are all on the same page here, we all want faster broadband and a better healthcare system. i.e The dabate between myself, TH, Nulla, and dombat wasnt really going anywhere as we are all on the same side. 

We all agree that health care is a higher priority over broadband. The real issue is, should the government take money away from healthcare,education, infrastructure and spend it on NBN in its current proposal? Some say yes, fast internet is great and *the current proposal is flawless*, some say yes , fast internet is great, although *the proposal needs a lot more work to be feasible*....

We are not debating NBN, we are debating the *proposal* and what changes need to be made before it can be passed by parliament.


Stephen Bartholomeusz

*Hard choices for infrastructure*

    When Kevin Rudd, Stephen Conroy and Wayne Swan triumphantly announced the demise of their $4.7 billion National Broadband Network and its displacement by a $43 billion scheme, the 11 members of Infrastructure Australia may well have let out a collective groan.

    The group of illustrious Australians, headed by Sir Rod Eddington, who are the members of the body established to develop a blueprint for modernising the nation’s transport, water, energy and communications infrastructure, have been beavering away for nearly a year considering the nation’s infrastructure needs and then sifting through the mountain of submissions from the states looking for a slice of the tens of billions of dollars once on offer.

    Unhappily, however, even as the number of hopeful projects has grown, the dollars to fund them have been shrinking as the impact of the global financial crisis, the recession, and the massive stimulatory packages announced by the Rudd government has carved into its promised flow of funds.

    The projects earmarked by the members as national priorities were to be financed by the Building Australia Fund, established by the government in last year’s Federal Budget. Swan announced that $20 billion from the 2007-08 budget and from future surpluses would be devoted to the fund, which received its original capital from the winding down of the former government’s Communications Fund and $2.7 billion taken from the proceeds of T3.

    It is going to be some years, perhaps many, before the Federal Budget returns to surplus. The $80 billion of surpluses forecast in the budget over the next four years have evaporated.

    Today the Building Australia Fund has only $12.5 billion in it, including the $4.7 billion always set aside for the national broadband project. Except that it is no longer a $12 billion to $15 billion project with a $4.7 billion contribution from the taxpayers but a $43 billion project in which the government will retain at least a majority share.

    The debt component of its balance sheet will be handled through the issuance of ‘’Aussie Bonds,’’ leaving the taxpayer and the private sector to find up to $20 billion of equity. The commitment of federal funds has, therefore, probably at least doubled and, if there is no private sector appetite for the equity in what will be a relatively high-risk project, it could quadruple.

    Instead of having more than $15 billion to play with after the broadband funding was subtracted, the members of Infrastructure Australia now have less than $8 billion. NSW’s proposed new metro rail system alone would cost substantially more than that. One Brisbane toll-way project alone is costing nearly $5 billion – the $7.8 billion available in the Building Australia Fund isn’t going to go far.

    That is, of course, assuming that the fund isn’t tapped to help finance the rest of the government’s commitment to the fibre-to-the-premises network, in which case its funds would be completed accounted for.

    There is an expectation that the initial short-list of priority projects will be announced either within or close to the May Budget. It would be surprising if they didn’t run to well over $10 billion, or even twice that amount. It is unclear how the government proposed to bridge the gulf that has opened up between the states’ wish-lists of infrastructure projects and its own financial capacity.

    As a stand-alone concept the new NBN is a dazzling project; a 21st Century piece of national building.

    While there is considerable scepticism about its economics, at least if it is to be a public-private partnership rather than heavily taxpayer-subsidised but publicly-owned infrastructure, there is little doubt that it has excited a lot of imaginations.

    However, is it more worthy than investment in water infrastructure, or transport or energy? There are some looming critical decisions – and heavy spending -- to be made on energy, for instance, if we want to keep the lights (and the computer screens that will plug into the broadband network) on.

    With the budget in heavy deficit in the near to medium term, where will the funding for investment in infrastructure other than the NBN come from and do we need to spend $43 billion to gold plate the NBN network? Are there more modest projects that could deliver higher broadband speeds to most Australians at a lower cost and that therefore don’t completely crowd out the other needy projects?

    The Building Australia Fund wasn’t, of course, the only fund announced in last year’s budget. The government also established the $11 billion Education Investment Fund and the $10 billion Health and Hospitals Fund.

    The Education Investment Fund was seeded with the $6 billion (now $6.5 billion) the Howard Government had injected into the Higher Education Endowment Fund managed by the Future Fund. The Health and Hospitals Fund was supposed to get its funding from the 2007-08 and 2008-09 surpluses, while the Education Investment Fund was going to be topped up from those same surpluses, with the potential for more from the same source in future years.

    Thus there is considerable demand for funds from a source that no longer exists, on top of the need to service the heavy government borrowings that will be required to finance the government’s deficits over the next few years, or longer.

    Roads, rail, energy, water, ports, university buildings and hospitals may not be as exciting as a national broadband fibre-to-the-premises project, but if they may be crowded out of the government’s spending priorities as a result of the NBN, there does need to be some discussion of their relative merits, importance and economic and social impacts.


----------



## Happy (15 April 2009)

$43 billion for internet right now when everything else is crumbling looks like irresposnible economy.

As mentioned above, KR will be hero and will not have to deliver, as good people will block this nonsense (hopefully).


----------



## Trembling Hand (16 April 2009)

I missed this one over the weekend but its a sad read about how little investigation, discussion and planing has gone into the lucky countries biggest ever project. 

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/when-...n-was-up-in-the-air-20090410-a2sd.html?page=1


> On Monday night, Rudd hosted a dinner for his cabinet at Kirribilli House. He briefed them on the final plan for a special purpose company, owned 51 per cent by the Government, to spend up to $43 billion over eight years building a national fibre-to-the-premises broadband network






> But the Foreign Minister, Stephen Smith, wanted to know about the cables that would need to be installed in every street. Would it cause the same sort of environmental ruckus that the fat, ugly Foxtel cables had stirred years ago?
> 
> The cabinet met formally at 7 am the following morning in Canberra to endorse the plan. To reassure Smith, Conroy arrived with two lengths of cable. One was the current legally allowable cable with a 12 millimetre girth. The other was a fibre-optic cable, 18 millimetres around. Conroy's point was that the light-speed wire was thicker, but not by much. The point was taken but lost in the mirth. As Conroy produced his cables, his cabinet colleagues chided him to put the leashes and restraints away: "We don't want to know what you were doing last night, Conroy!"
> 
> Conceived at lofty heights and born with low humour, the plan for the biggest single piece of infrastructure in Australia's history was approved.




Shame they cannot make such fast decisions on projects that they actually have researched


----------



## Bat_Ears (17 April 2009)

Good thing. I need a faster internet to download more pr0n and watch some movies online. TV has nothing good.

I don't think it will make me more productive though.


----------



## Buster (17 April 2009)

G'Day TH,



Trembling Hand said:


> I missed this one over the weekend but its a sad read about how little investigation, discussion and planing has gone into the lucky countries biggest ever project.




.. You almost sound genuinely surprised.. 

I'm no longer a fan of Krudd.  It seems the mob has lost the plot.. Can't  organise a 'internet filter' (personally a foolish endevour) yet with 43 Bil (of debt) we can get a NBN together.. Not to worry that all the corporates have walked away..

I don't trust him as far as I could throw him..

It's going to end in tears.. As taxpayers, they'll be our tears.. 

Cheers,

Buster.


----------



## Julia (17 April 2009)

Bat_Ears said:


> Good thing. I need a faster internet to download more pr0n




Hah, you can just forget about that once the esteemed leaders have their internet filter in place.


----------



## nulla nulla (19 April 2009)

Julia said:


> Hah, you can just forget about that once the esteemed leaders have their internet filter in place.




Yeah right, any filter the "esteemed leaders" come up with will be bypassed by some bored school kid who will then post the bypass details on the web. Not long after he will be employed by the "esteemed leaders" and fete'd by the media morning tv shows. This kid will design another impregnable filter which in turn will be bypassed by an even younger school kid. And so the circle of IT life will continue.


----------



## moXJO (19 April 2009)

Bat_Ears said:


> I don't think it will make me more productive though.




Are you kidding? Research shows masturbation will be up by 80% in under half the time. National figures show an improved trend in.... Oh wait you mean productive to society.


----------



## nulla nulla (20 April 2009)

With the theoretical roll-out of the NBN, has anyone stopped to consider the increased prevalance of scam emailing, phishing, viruses and worms with the resultant increase in Identitity theft and internet fraud that *will* occur?


----------



## Mr J (20 April 2009)

nulla nulla said:


> With the theoretical roll-out of the NBN, has anyone stopped to consider the increased prevalance of scam emailing, phishing, viruses and worms with the resultant increase in Identitity theft and internet fraud that *will* occur?




It's not an issue unless many people don't currently have access to the internet. Most of Australia's population is urbanised, so I'd think most the potential market is mostly saturated. There may be more problems with viruses if torrents become more widely used (due to the higher speeds).


----------



## Aussiejeff (3 February 2010)

Here we go... down the gurgler...



> *THE Rudd Government's $4.7 billion plan for a fibre-to-the-node (FTTN) national broadband network was unlikely ever to succeed due to a number of significant risks, a report has found. *



http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/br...-tender-cost-30m/story-e6frf7jx-1225826499331

Thankyou, Mr CONroy, you poncy ********. 

Go stick a fibreoptic node up yer a$$.

:angry: :angry:


----------



## moXJO (4 February 2010)

Aussiejeff said:


> Here we go... down the gurgler...
> 
> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/br...-tender-cost-30m/story-e6frf7jx-1225826499331
> 
> ...




Another line from the top thread



> The report should ring alarm bells for Australians about the failure of the Rudd Government to assess risk and ensure value for money, Mr Smith said.




Sums it all up


----------



## Trembling Hand (9 February 2010)

National Broadband Network staff rake in huge annual pay 



> The national broadband network may be some time from making its first connection, but the company established to build it is paying dozens of staff an average of nearly $400,000 a year.
> 
> NBN Co's wages bill for October last year was $1.5 million, it has been revealed to the Senate, meaning the 46 staff employed at the time were being paid an average $391,304 annually,




Sigh!!


----------



## drsmith (10 February 2010)

Where can I join ?


----------



## Wysiwyg (10 February 2010)

> NBN Co's wages bill for October last year was $1.5 million, it has been revealed to the Senate, meaning the 46 staff employed at the time were being paid an average $391,304 annually,




No doubt this is a pool of the most intelligent people available in the telecommunications field.


----------



## Ato (10 February 2010)

Truly disgusting.


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 February 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> I think it is a sensible plan, shame towns like Ross miss out!
> 
> Hopefully, the Federal Government will take time and respond from the community from their plans (funded by tax-payers Australia Nation-wide of course) to know if it delivers.
> 
> ...



Hydro and particularly Aurora have actually been building this for years (at very minimal cost - it's not as though they could afford to do otherwise) and already have a lot of cable in place and have customers connected as well as being for their own use. Hence it made a lot of sense that Tasmania would be the initial focus of the national scheme.

It's not "cheap" infrastructure though - we've got the highest capacity fibre in the Southern Hemisphere here in Hobart (at least it was when it was installed). But it was all done with a big focus on keeping costs down. Take a look around the streets - there's quite a lot of this already up Aurora's poles too as well as underground.

As for Ross, well it is a small town but it wouldn't be hard to simply use the Aurora poles back to the sub-station to run the fibre so it's physically not hard to do. It just depends on whether the $ are there now that it's under control from Canberra and is no longer an Aurora / Hydro / State Govt project.


----------



## Trembling Hand (26 February 2010)

Anyone see the proposed legislation about Conroys wholesale NBN?

Make it wholesale AND retail  FFS!! So he has the idea to break the structural monopoly of Telsta with 50 billion tax paid replacement with what? Another one. 

And even worse, legislate to compete with a private company that he is threatening to break up. I wounder what the "other" telco's are thinking in relation to having to compete with two Telstra's for lucrative contracts? lol

Viva el socialismo


----------



## bellenuit (26 February 2010)

Trembling Hand said:


> Anyone see the proposed legislation about Conroys wholesale NBN?
> 
> Make it wholesale AND retail  FFS!! So he has the idea to break the structural monopoly of Telsta with 50 billion tax paid replacement with what?




I think the ultimate plan is to create another Telstra. However, rather than buy back Telstra at market prices, they want to do it on the cheap.  Create a new company that is not to dissimilar to Telstra, then force Telstra to sell some of its assets to it at a huge discount, then destroy Telstra by competing against it in its most lucrative market (government). In fact it will not really be competing, as being the government, it is also the customer as well as supplier.

I think the only hope for Telstra's 1.3m shareholders is that this is an election year and the ALP may not want to alienate them.


----------



## Buddy (26 February 2010)

bellenuit said:


> I think the ultimate plan is to create another Telstra. However, rather than buy back Telstra at market prices, they want to do it on the cheap.  Create a new company that is not to dissimilar to Telstra, then force Telstra to sell some of its assets to it at a huge discount, then destroy Telstra by competing against it in its most lucrative market (government). In fact it will not really be competing, as being the government, it is also the customer as well as supplier.
> 
> I think the only hope for Telstra's 1.3m shareholders is that this is an election year and the ALP may not want to alienate them.




Right on the money, bellenuit.
They never wanted to sell Telstra in the first place. So they create a new one and destroy the old one. Then down the track the Libs will sell the new one again.  What a friggin mess!


----------



## Aussiejeff (26 February 2010)

Buddy said:


> Right on the money, bellenuit.
> They never wanted to sell Telstra in the first place. So they create a new one and destroy the old one. Then down the track the Libs will sell the new one again.  What a friggin mess!




Luckily we live in a "lucky country" eh?

Imagine the mess if, unluckily, we were living in an "unlucky country".


----------



## Calliope (7 May 2010)

Why is it that both the Coalition and Labor put idiots in the Communications portfolio?:dunno:


----------



## moXJO (7 May 2010)

Calliope said:


> Why is it that both the Coalition and Labor put idiots in the Communications portfolio?:dunno:




They always put their best and brightest of their party in the communications portfolio.


----------



## Aussiejeff (3 June 2010)

iiNet pricing for NBN.....

100MB is pretty pricey.

http://www.zdnet.com.au/iinet-confirms-nbn-pricing-339303556.htm

Fibre 3 is about what I would be prepared to pay. I'd have to see how the D/L quota worked out over a few months to see whether upgrading later to Fibre 4 would be worth it.

Anyway, will be decades before it gets to Wodonga...


----------



## Calliope (21 June 2010)

The expressions on the faces of these two rogues bodes ill for Telstra and it's shareholders. If they think they have had a win, then who are the losers?  Obviously it is the taxpayer. By the time that fibre replaces copper it will be subsumed by wireless.


----------



## Timmy (21 June 2010)

Where's Julia?


----------



## drsmith (30 July 2010)

Interesting piece on the rollout in Tasmania.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/29/2968068.htm


----------



## gav (30 July 2010)

drsmith said:


> Interesting piece on the rollout in Tasmania.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/29/2968068.htm




From the article above:

"The Premier David Bartlett has now indicated people could be *forced* to have fibre optic cable installed on their properties even if they don't want to use the National Broadband Network."

Unbelievable.


----------



## boofhead (30 July 2010)

Probably cheaper to do it now and later when people want to use it then it would be more convenient. A bit like the gas rollout here. Early adopters had free signup. As the copper will be decomissioned and connections will cost later I hope it is an education issue why they didn't have the fibre to their property connected. They don't have to use it and not pay line access fees until they have a valid service.

Two of the towns for the first phase will probably be cases of worst case scenarios for takeup. Both have had major employers close in the last few years, lower incomes than other areas of the state, remote and other factors. While the current PR looks bad, imagine setting up Sydney first in suburbs that may have high takeup and things don't go so well. Media splash! The Tassie towns wouldn't make much noise about it.


----------



## drsmith (30 July 2010)

gav said:


> From the article above:
> 
> "The Premier David Bartlett has now indicated people could be *forced* to have fibre optic cable installed on their properties even if they don't want to use the National Broadband Network."
> 
> Unbelievable.



There was also an interview on the ABC24's Afternoon Live program today regarding the NBN. In it there was some interesting financial discussion. For example, the return of 6% on $43bn required an 80% takeup rate.


----------



## DB008 (31 July 2010)

How to bypass the filter;
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2010/07/why-the-filter-wont-work-a-technical-story/



> *Why The Filter Won’t Work, A Technical Story*
> The proposed filtering technique is based on exact HTTP URLs, not IP addresses nor domain names. URLs (Uniform Resource Locators) are the full address that you might type into your web browser’s address bar. For example: http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2010/07/the-evolution-of-labor-internet-filter-policy/
> 
> This URL can be broken down into sections thus:
> ...


----------



## bellenuit (31 July 2010)

Australia begs residents to accept free fiber connection

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...residents-to-accept-free-fiber-connection.ars


----------



## drsmith (31 July 2010)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/29/2968068.htm



> *Phone line phase out*
> 
> It has now been revealed that those people who don't sign up now for connection to the NBN could end up paying to do so.
> 
> ...



For the government and the NBN, the more that opt out now to be forced to pay later, the less the upfront cost is.

It will be interesting to see if mainland households are charged for connection, assuming the ALP is returned to office.


----------



## Smurf1976 (31 July 2010)

boofhead said:


> Probably cheaper to do it now and later when people want to use it then it would be more convenient. A bit like the gas rollout here. Early adopters had free signup. As the copper will be decomissioned and connections will cost later I hope it is an education issue why they didn't have the fibre to their property connected. They don't have to use it and not pay line access fees until they have a valid service.



In many ways it's basically a 21st Century repeat of the way in which state-run electricity replaced the various local supplies once provided by the Hobart Gas Co, Launceston City Council, Mount Lyell M&R Co and many others.   

Many didn't connect at first and there were widespread predictions, including from the Australian Government, of financial and/or technical disaster with the then revolutionary idea of a state-wide electricity system. 

Fast forward a few years and electricity and industries which depend heavily on it had became the dominant economic, and eventually political, force in Tasmania. They still dominate the state's overseas exports to this day.

But now in 2010, the state faces much the same dilemma it faced a century earilier. That of heavy reliance on low-value service and primary production industry that has historically not worked well economically. But this time there is no sustainable opportunity to gain an advantage from technology no matter what the Premier might say. It just won't take the other states 40 years to compete for business as they did with electricity. At best, the advantage will last a year or two. But at least it beats being left behind.

I don't doubt for a moment that the NBN is a massive gamble in exactly the same manner as the establishment of electricity supply was not without massive risk. But the internet now is much like electricity or the motor car a century ago - in limited use already but set to dominate the future absolutely. Those who worried about transmission lines and highways whilst advocating the benefits of gas lighting were at most delaying the inevitable, a point Telstra seems to have understood very well in this century with its' progressive running down of the copper network.

A gamble certainly. But if we're going to throw money around anyway then it beats using it to buy plasma TV's and dodgy insulation as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Calliope (11 August 2010)

Smurf1976 said:


> I don't doubt for a moment that the NBN is a massive gamble in exactly the same manner as the establishment of electricity supply was not without massive risk. But the internet now is much like electricity or the motor car a century ago - in limited use already but set to dominate the future absolutely. Those who worried about transmission lines and highways whilst advocating the benefits of gas lighting were at most delaying the inevitable, a point Telstra seems to have understood very well in this century with its' progressive running down of the copper network.
> 
> A gamble certainly. But if we're going to throw money around anyway then it beats using it to buy plasma TV's and dodgy insulation as far as I'm concerned.




Smurf, as a Tasmanian I imagine you are familiar with with the Scottsdale NBN rollout. Perhaps you can provide a few details of what the take up of the offer  provides you with apart from the 100 mps speed.

. Can you opt out?

. How much is the line rental?

. Is this just a base rate or is it a fixed charge?

. do you then require an ISP and have to pay their charges depending on how 
  many Gigs you download (or upload) per month?

. If you have a home phone will you just have to pay the cost of calls?

Sorry to be nuisance. But, as a jack of all trades, you usually know the answers.


----------



## boofhead (11 August 2010)

Opt out? Currently it is an opt in system.

Internode and some others have released plans for internet. Various speeds including fixed price with speed crippling (like many ADSL plans.)

I haven't read of any phone only annoucements but the ISPs offering VoIP have support for it. The initial rollout areas had the line rental set at $0 which I assume is to reduce prices for ISPs to retail to drive uptake.

It appears the retailer factors in line rental like the ISPs that handle your voice needs.

From memory iiNet, Internode and one other offer something.

http://www.internode.on.net/news/2010/06/184.php has some information although note it is a trial as it lists next year when the wholesaler looks set to price how it expects to operate.

iiNet have some information at http://www.iinet.net.au/nbn/faq.html


----------



## IFocus (11 August 2010)

Smurf1976 said:


> In many ways it's basically a 21st Century repeat of the way in which state-run electricity replaced the various local supplies once provided by the Hobart Gas Co, Launceston City Council, Mount Lyell M&R Co and many others.
> 
> Many didn't connect at first and there were widespread predictions, including from the Australian Government, of financial and/or technical disaster with the then revolutionary idea of a state-wide electricity system.
> 
> ...




Listen to a tech head the other day who spoke about the fiber uses beyond PC's logging on to higher speed which seem to dominate most the debate I have seen so far. 
He talked about how the main uses would actually be devices that would plug straight into the fiber for absolutely mind boggling applications.


----------



## moXJO (11 August 2010)

IFocus said:


> Listen to a tech head the other day who spoke about the fiber uses beyond PC's logging on to higher speed which seem to dominate most the debate I have seen so far.
> He talked about how the main uses would actually be devices that would plug straight into the fiber for absolutely mind boggling applications.




Yep would be nice to have. The talk about the ability to decentralizing work offices and having smaller hubs in suburbs to reduce traffic congestion in major cities was also interesting.
It's the actual fiber optic cable capability, against the old copper network.


----------



## trainspotter (11 August 2010)

Ummmmmm why are we laying more cable in the ground when wifi is the answer? Telstra has the 3G network capabilty right now. We have HDMI capability NOW.

Can someone please explain the advantage of fibre optic cable?

Has anyone considered that the problem with technology today is it is obsolete in 12 months time?


----------



## drsmith (11 August 2010)

boofhead said:


> Opt out? Currently it is an opt in system.
> 
> Internode and some others have released plans for internet. Various speeds including fixed price with speed crippling (like many ADSL plans.)
> 
> ...



Iinet's NBN5 (down/up speed: 50/4 Mbps), (peak + offpeak quota: 50GB + 50GB) is $100pm. To use the line for voice calls, iiTalkpack is also required ($10pm). Total cost $110pm.

The equivelent naked ADSL2+ plan in terms of quota (Naked Home 3) is $70pm and includes iiTalk. 

Their top speed NBN plans (down/up speed: 100/8 Mbps) start at $130pm.

*Some sums based on 8 million homes (connections):*
   Average $70pm ($840py) = $7.1bn or 16.4% of $43bn.
   Average $110pm ($1320py) = $10.6bn or 24.6% of $43bn.

On those figures, what would be the return after wholesaler operating costs (NBN Co) and retailer costs/profit margins are deducted ?


----------



## newbie trader (11 August 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Ummmmmm why are we laying more cable in the ground when wifi is the answer? Telstra has the 3G network capabilty right now. We have HDMI capability NOW.
> 
> Can someone please explain the advantage of fibre optic cable?
> 
> Has anyone considered that the problem with technology today is it is obsolete in 12 months time?




I don't claim to know anything about this, however, wireless (well at least in its current state) with many carriers can be somewhat unstable and many appliances such as tv's, phones etc effect the wireless but I think this can be negated if you put certain frequencies into your router. It's also pretty expensive when you compare it to conventional ADSL2+ and cable plans. I have both wireless and wired in my house. I use wired for most things and wireless if I want to sit down on the couch.


----------



## moXJO (12 August 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Ummmmmm why are we laying more cable in the ground when wifi is the answer? Telstra has the 3G network capabilty right now. We have HDMI capability NOW.
> 
> Can someone please explain the advantage of fibre optic cable?
> 
> Has anyone considered that the problem with technology today is it is obsolete in 12 months time?




Best to get answers here

Bit on wireless vs cable



> In any wireless broadband network, the user receives a differing experience regardless of distance from the base station. Similarly to ADSL2+, connection quality and inherent downstream/upstream speeds decrease the further a user is from each cell. While overlapping base stations and wireless coverage, as well as leaps in technology, certainly help to remedy this potential issue, the problem never quite goes away. This especially becomes an issue for those living on the edge of a cell, or in areas where there are only two or three base stations to a given community. Live on the edge of the coverage area, and chances are your Internet speeds are vastly inferior to those at the centre.
> 
> For fibre, this is no issue: data travelling down fibre is as fast at point A as it is at point B, with line degradation (or failure) and interference from devices along the network being the largest obstacles in continued, committed speeds.
> 
> More importantly, the 100Mbps speed proposed under the NBN is just the starting point for a FTTH network. Look to service provider AARNet and you'll see speeds of up to 10Gbps already in operation, and vision to move to 8Tbps and beyond in the future. A single pair of fibre is capable of 1Gbps and greater, and if the NBN is constructed properly, the use of multiple fibres makes scaling up capacity even easier.


----------



## overhang (12 August 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Ummmmmm why are we laying more cable in the ground when wifi is the answer? Telstra has the 3G network capabilty right now. We have HDMI capability NOW.
> 
> Can someone please explain the advantage of fibre optic cable?
> 
> Has anyone considered that the problem with technology today is it is obsolete in 12 months time?






> The national broadband network will enable speeds of one gigabit per second on its fibre optic network, 100 times faster than originally planned, the company building the network will announce today.



http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/nbn-to-announce-huge-increase-in-speed-20100811-11zqj.html

As you can see fibre is fully upgradable, its not the cable that needs to be altered and speeds of 1/Terabyte have been achieved in labs.
To answer your question the biggest problem with wireless is its a shared medium, to maintain a consistent speed in high traffic we would need that many towers we would practically be living in a microwave.  That and the technology isn't in place to bring wireless up to par with fibre and I doubt ever will be.


----------



## trainspotter (12 August 2010)

Thanks newbie trader, moxJO and overhang for the explanation.

Isn't there already a fibre optic cable circling the whole of Australia already? I have a vague recollection about 10 years ago of one being laid? I am unsure as to who actually owns it? 

I know there is one as there are several places in WA where right out in the middle of nowhere there are signs saying "DO NOT DIG ! Fibre optic cable below"


----------



## Mofra (12 August 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Isn't there already a fibre optic cable circling the whole of Australia already? I have a vague recollection about 10 years ago of one being laid? I am unsure as to who actually owns it?
> 
> I know there is one as there are several places in WA where right out in the middle of nowhere there are signs saying "DO NOT DIG ! Fibre optic cable below"



There's trunk cable between major metropolitan centres, sometimes with a surprising lack of redundancy. Oct 08 "Trevor in his backhoe" cuts through a fibre-Optic cable, and large parts of Qld were left without Optus service (including a huge swathe of metro Brisbane).

Fibre to the home does have the potential to be a game changer in terms of future communications - within a generation we may be talking about the strange old days of needing antennas for TV reception, having to go to a store to rent movies and waiting for internet pages to load when simply downloading documents.

Potentially freeing up spectrum for other uses would be an added bonus.


----------



## trainspotter (14 August 2010)

Amazing bit of journalism in The West Australian today by Murrray Stevens asking WHY the NBN in Australia is costing us $2000 per person when similar conduits have cost other countries a lot less. Korea is only $25 per head? Admitteldy there are a lot more Koreans than Australians. Apparently most of it was privately funded. Also points out that a lot of schools and hospitals already have high speed internet etc so why duplicate? Went on to say that that the cost went from 6 billion to 25 billion now 43 billion but is sceptical of this being a capped price ? Great that you are going to get these radical speeds BUT YOU WILL PAY FOR IT THROUGH THE NOSE !

Hmmmmmmm ... how may hospitals and schools or roads could be built for this kind of money ? All to deliver us what again? Faster pr0n? Quicker ASF ? Shiny baubles for the punters again.


----------



## bellenuit (14 August 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Amazing bit of journalism in The West Australian today by Murrray Stevens asking WHY the NBN in Australia is costing us $2000 per person




The figure is staggering. $43B divided by 21.5M people. That's $2K per head. If we assume an average household of 2.5 that becomes $5K per household. Cut out all the households that pay little or no tax (unemployed, pensioners etc.) and you are probably close to $10K per tax paying household. And if we assume the average household taxable income of tax paying households is just under $80K, $10K is more than half the total tax take ($17,550) of the tax paid by that household if it has only one tax payer. It would be a bigger fraction if the $80K is spread over multiple tax payers in the household. I know it won't be in the same year, but it puts a dimension to the sums involved.  

Of course that is just the cost side, the income side of the NBN will reduce that. 

But no matter what the cost is, they are trying to sell it on things like educational and medical facilities it will make available. The kids who aren't paying attention in the oversized classrooms today still won't pay attention no matter what gee whiz thing is on their computers. Having access to the world's knowledge of medicine in your bedroom isn't going to be of any use if there isn't a doctor or nurse there to administer or make sense of it. 

The same amount of money spent on schoolteachers and nurses would probably create many more jobs as that being touted by the NBN advocates for the NBN rollout.

I am all for fast internet, but the market will deliver what is required to those willing to pay.


----------



## IFocus (14 August 2010)

bellenuit said:


> But no matter what the cost is, they are trying to sell it on things like educational and medical facilities it will make available. The kids who aren't paying attention in the oversized classrooms today still won't pay attention no matter what gee whiz thing is on their computers. Having access to the world's knowledge of medicine in your bedroom isn't going to be of any use if there isn't a doctor or nurse there to administer or make sense of it.
> 
> The same amount of money spent on schoolteachers and nurses would probably create many more jobs as that being touted by the NBN advocates for the NBN rollout.
> 
> I am all for fast internet, but the market will deliver what is required to those willing to pay.




Just on the health thing you would have devices stuck to you to monitor vital signs plus back to a facility so you could stay at home rather than clogging up hospitals. Real time voice / video would allow for remote analysis 

Plug your car in for diagnostics rather than go to a service center.

With video / voice real time stay home rather than commute for a large percentage of city workers either increase efficiency or spend more time with the family.

List is endless

For critical infrastructure involving the county's future its not a market environment or business based proposal. An example would be the highway that links Perth to the north of the state it was build long before all the mining / oil and gas booms. Those that say wait because there is better tech
around the corner will never build any thing because there will always be some thing better just around the corner.


----------



## So_Cynical (14 August 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Amazing bit of journalism in The West Australian today by Murrray Stevens asking WHY the NBN in Australia is costing us $2000 per person when similar conduits have cost other countries a lot less. Korea is only $25 per head? Admitteldy there are a lot more Koreans than Australians







bellenuit said:


> The figure is staggering. $43B divided by 21.5M people. That's $2K per head.




Australia land area = 7,617,930 square kilometers - population of 22 million.   
Sth Korea land area = 99,392 square kilometers - population of 50 million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korea

Australia has 77 X the land area of South Korea with less than half the population, and you 2 don't get how the price is 80 X more than the Koreans paid.


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> Smurf, as a Tasmanian I imagine you are familiar with with the Scottsdale NBN rollout. Perhaps you can provide a few details of what the take up of the offer  provides you with apart from the 100 mps speed.
> 
> . Can you opt out?
> 
> ...



1. Connection is voluntary at this stage. Free if you do it when the line is put in your area but it costs if you do it later.

That said, it has been well publicised that the State Government is seriously considering making connection compulsory.

I suspect the project has more political significance in Tasmania than elsewhere. As has been noted, an IT-driven economy would bring about the first real economic direction for the state since hydro-industrialisation (yes that's a real word, at least in Tas) ran aground amidst a blaze of environmental controversy a generation ago. 

After a third of a century arguing about rivers and trees, we might finally have a real way forward economically that doesn't involve protests, arrests and those ubiquitous green (originally yellow) triangles appearing everywhere. Nobody in state politics is likely to stand in the way of that.

Even the Liberal leader in Tas hasn't actually criticised the project. Nor has he sided with his Federal colleagues with their alternative plan. Meanwhile we have a Premier who just happened to be an IT guru in his last job...

2. Overall set-up fees from at least one ISP add up to around $600. They seem willing to waive this for early adopters however.

Plans range $50 to over $150 per month depending on speed. Cheapest plan I've seen at full speed was about $130 per month.

I'm not in the service area, though I did have personal involvement with some of the early cable installation (prior to the NBN existing when it was being done by the electricity industry as a purely Tasmanian project). 

I don't recall the details, I'm not overly knowledgeable on fibre, but my understanding is that the cable we were installing was the largest in Australia at the time. That may not be correct, but it was the general understanding of those doing the work and it's certainly a larger physical size than any fibre cable I've seen before.

One ISP's plan is here. http://www.iinet.net.au/nbn/index.html


----------



## bellenuit (14 August 2010)

IFocus said:


> Just on the health thing you would have devices stuck to you to monitor vital signs plus back to a facility so you could stay at home rather than clogging up hospitals. Real time voice / video would allow for remote analysis
> 
> Plug your car in for diagnostics rather than go to a service center.
> 
> With video / voice real time stay home rather than commute for a large percentage of city workers either increase efficiency or spend more time with the family.




Yes. And probably all of that can be done with today's broadband speeds and certainly with the speeds that will be available as we go forward. It is the provision of the services (which NBN doesn't do in any case) not the network in between that is the reason we don't have these at the moment. In any case, everything else doesn't stop where it is today, with just NBN the only thing progressing.

It is primarily private enterprise that brought the internet and computing to where it is today. I know the internet was originally a US government developed network for the military, but it is when private enterprise got involved that it grew to what it is today. Computer technology, which goes hand in hand with the internet, is almost exclusively the result of private enterprise.

I am in no doubt that NBN offers great technology. But it is a massive cost and is the government betting on one technology. And remember that the network is only part of the puzzle. The other components that are part of the picture that the government is selling - the services that will be available - these will primarily come from private enterprise. Why say private enterprise will come to the party on one aspect, but not on the other.

It is not a similar comparison to building a road up to WA's north west. No one else but the government would have done that. But there are many players wanting to play in the roll out of broadband. Let them take the risks and fly and fall on their success. In fact to try and make the NBN successful, the government is deliberately restricting Telstra from competing against it.

Suggestions that private enterprise will only cater for the low flying apples and that if left to their own devices the bush and poorer areas will be ignored is true. But that can be solved by subsidising the roll out to those areas by private enterprises. If subsidies can make it profitable for it to be done by PI, it will be done. This would likely prove a lot cheaper than the government itself trying to service these areas. 

Think what the situation is going to be with the government in charge of deploying the network. Is pork barrelling suddenly going to stop? Why should they be any more efficient than for the insulation roll out or the BER? What about the eventual privatisation of NBNCO. Do you think the mom and dads will touch it following the Telstra fiasco?


----------



## Calliope (14 August 2010)

Thanks Bellenuit, for an excellent appraisal of of what the NBN will accomplish at massive cost, compared to what private enterprise can do at much less cost to the taxpayer. When you consider that the majority do not need high speed broadband it is a massive overkill. But then, of course, no cost/benefit analysis has been done.

If there is a need for something, then private enterprise will supply it. And, as you say, where it is not profitable, then taxpayer subsidies could apply.


----------



## Julia (14 August 2010)

Thanks to both Smurf and Bellenuit for useful info.


----------



## boofhead (14 August 2010)

When things are said like a majority of schools etc. already have fibre it includes Sydney and other major metro areas. I know in my area in NW Tas more than half have no access to fibre - too expensive to install and too distant to get to any backbone that is not Telstra. Then you have Telstra's costs. Telstra doesn't use costs etc. to drive prices but competition.

NBN boss did a survey of Hobart businesses and surprised by the low fibre penetration. No surprise. No reasonable competition - Telstra until recently had the only submarine cable connecting Tasmania to the big island. Very expensive to deploy fibre. Town planning doesn't forward plan for new services. So retrospective installing is expensive like what happened recently with gas rollout.

Telstra was looking at developing FTTH network. Why did they stop? Access requirements and profit margin.

People are too preoccupied with the headline figure. Unemployed people, pensioners etc. do pay taxes and not only GST (GST doesn't fact in to this anyway as that goes to states.) Labor's mistake is saying they will sell it. Governments can plan infrastructure for longer term funding. People will gain employment to use the NBN. They will pay income tax. Opens new markets to explore.

Remember fibre is the backbone to telecoms. Once the physical lines are inplace the upgrades can be done without touching the fibre itself.

Wireless services like 3G etc. are expensive. They have the same issue as cable nodes - shared. Spectrum that will be used is finite.

NBN has planned for some redundancy.

Tasmania build so far has come at 10% under budget. If they continues and replicated elsewhere then you have $4.3 billion saved. That is before access to Telstra infrastucture is used so potentially more could be saved. Telstra will get some build contracts (has at least one already) and they have good experience.

Give people a medium to exploit and they will.

While much has been said of 100 mbit costs the ISPs can and will (and do) sell slower and cheaper access.

Someone mentioned how South Korea deployed it at a cheaper cost to Australia per citizen, Japanese model used private companies with government subsidies/grants with conditions. I'm curious to know if the governments have considered the same mechanism using Telstra. Perhaps Telstra could have tried to sell such a plan to the governments. It would have been a good way to save many Telstra workers their jobs.


----------



## harks11 (15 August 2010)

What an interesting thread, but for me there a couple points being missed.


 First lets remove the preprogrammed hate mailers who attack the politicians. For the most part our politicians are all working hard on things they think are important albeit from a couple different perspectives. Thankless job. Leave the hate out of it.


 The two questions for me are this.


 1 Where is the cut off point between private and public involvement in infrastructure. Running down my street is an optus cable and telstra cable. There is not a person on earth that will convince me this is smart. Fortunately I only have one set of electrical wires, one water pipe and one sewer system.


 The cut off to me is where the community good is a higher priority than someone making a profit out of it, or where little competition exists. Many of the current infra structure that already exists does not run at a profit and it does not need to. It is there for the community good. Try living in a place where you **** in the gutter out the front and see if the idea is more desirable.


 As many have pointed out about public assets being privatised. The problem with that it changes the goal from customer service to making a profit. The first thing that happens is the assets are maintained at minimum levels instead of best practice. ( or at least very good standard). Then the service goes to pot.


 2 The other area of concern is why our governments seem to have no courage or will to build long term infra structure. If it can not be done in three years, it wont be done. I find that scary.


 Think about the big projects that have been done. Snowy Mountains Scheme and of course the Sydney Harbour bridge are two outstanding examples. Both very long term benefits for the country.And given that a road tunnel of a couple of KLms in brisbane is 4.5b. I think the sugestion that the SMS could be done today for 6b is nonsense. 



 However, look at the last twenty years. Not much on offer. Hawk and Keating did nothing and the golden years of Howard and Costello are no better. Maybe the Sydney Harbour Tunnel will get a gong but a two lanes either way its already peaked for growth.


 So where is our high speed train, National High speed freeway, Long term Agricultural plan, etc.  
 At least the NBN is offering  future capacity. As for the cost someone on here said it was 2K a head. Well you already spend 3 times that a year on social/ medical services now.


 So bring on more long term projects and dont be scared to borrow to fund them ! Stp this short term rubbish.


----------



## IFocus (15 August 2010)

harks11 said:


> So bring on more long term projects and dont be scared to borrow to fund them ! Stp this short term rubbish.




C. Y. O'Connor and his infrastructure projects in WA late 1800's are a great example of the difficulty these things face against small minded critics who have never built any thing.

All of his stuff is still used today 

Fremantle Harbour[



> The construction of Fremantle Harbour[5]  was probably O'Connor's greatest personal triumph, as his proposal to build the harbour within the entrance to the Swan River was contrary to previous expert advice that this was impracticable and that the construction would require constant dredging




Critics wrong

Gold Fields water supply Perth to Kalgoorlie pipe line 



> O'Connor was subjected to prolonged criticism by members of the press and also many members of the Western Australian Parliament over the scheme.




Critics wrong the pipe line has supported countless mining booms in the area.

The link is worth a read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._Y._O'Connor


----------



## trainspotter (15 August 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Australia land area = 7,617,930 square kilometers - population of 22 million.
> Sth Korea land area = 99,392 square kilometers - population of 50 million.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia
> ...




GOSH So_Cynical you really are not quite with it some days are you? What part of this do you fail to comprehend _"Admitteldy there are a lot more Koreans than Australians. Apparently most of it was *privately funded*"_

Also have you bothered to even think that Australians are located on the finge coast and not densely populated across the *whole* of Australia?? HUH? So therefore the land mass is irrelevant as we actually only occupy less than 7% of total area ??? HUH ?? yes yes yes they will have to drag a cable from one side of Oz to the other but but but there ALREADY is one. HUH?

Or what about if there are 50 MILLION Koreans then there would be a sheet load more connections thus more cable etc?

Moreover it was an article in a newspaper I was referring to.

Sheeeeeeeeesh ..... 

Anyone worried that there is no business plan for this thing by the way? Just build it and they will come? No numbercrunching as to who is actually going to use it either.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ess-plan-for-nbn/story-fn558imw-1225904657189


----------



## harks11 (15 August 2010)

IFocus said:


> C. Y. O'Connor and his infrastructure projects in WA late 1800's are a great example of the difficulty these things face against small minded critics who have never built any thing.
> 
> All of his stuff is still used today
> 
> ...




	 	 Great examples Ifocus. Once again examples of a bygone era of courage and will that made this country what it is today. Precious little on the horizon unfortunately


----------



## trainspotter (15 August 2010)

IFocus said:


> C. Y. O'Connor and his infrastructure projects in WA late 1800's are a great example of the difficulty these things face against small minded critics who have never built any thing.
> 
> All of his stuff is still used today
> 
> ...




No problem with what C Y Oconnor achieved either. ESSENTIAL infrastructure this was required.

Why do we need to have an NBN when our hospitals, roads, police, basic infrastructure lies in tatters ?? GREAT we got a really fast internet. We already have high speed internet. I am using it right now on a boat in the middle of the harbour. Whoopppeeeee ! About as useful as a fish to a bicycle when the motor don't go.


----------



## Happy (15 August 2010)

Not everybody must have 5 high definition TV programs at the same time over the SUPER FAST INTERNET.

40 billion dollars could probably reduce hospital waiting lists or provide apprentice training to every able body in Australia.


----------



## So_Cynical (15 August 2010)

trainspotter said:


> GOSH So_Cynical you really are not quite with it some days are you? What part of this do you fail to comprehend _"Admitteldy there are a lot more Koreans than Australians. Apparently most of it was *privately funded*"_
> 
> Also have you bothered to even think that Australians are located on the finge coast and not densely populated across the *whole* of Australia?? HUH? So therefore the land mass is irrelevant as we actually only occupy less than 7% of total area ??? HUH ?? yes yes yes they will have to drag a cable from one side of Oz to the other but but but there ALREADY is one. HUH?




LOL Tranny...your sounding like a typical city centric Australian  don't you have something to do with a pearl farm? .. anyway one of the reasons why its so expensive here is joining all the country dots, regional centres far from the coast (see map)



trainspotter said:


> Or what about if there are 50 MILLION Koreans then there would be a sheet load more connections thus more cable etc?




I would think it works a bit like mining in that the higher the density of people/mineral then the more cost effective it is to connect/remove it.



trainspotter said:


> Anyone worried that there is no business plan for this thing by the way? Just build it and they will come? No numbercrunching as to who is actually going to use it either.




The previous numbers for take up of new technology both here and o/s means that without a doubt the demand is there.

http://www.nbnco.com.au/content/upload/Coverage - Australia.pdf
~


----------



## bellenuit (15 August 2010)

I would agree that all of the infrastructure projects mentioned above were immensely important and extremely controversial at the time. But there are three fundamental differences between them and the NBN rollout.

Firstly, there were no alternatives. There are lots of ways of delivering similar capabilities to what the NBN may offer. 

Secondly, no one else would provide the infrastructure if the government didn't get involved. But we know others want to get involved and will get involved if there is a profit to be made. Subsidies can be used to encourage the technology to be installed in the non-profitable areas. 

Thirdly, and in my opinion, the most important. Not only were there no alternatives, but the likelihood of obsolescence of the infrastructure was remote. O'Connor's water pipeline to the gold fields is still in use today. For broadband, we are dealing with one of the most dynamic areas of technology, with few people even as recently as 10 years ago capable of predicting what we would have available today.

It is this last point, together with the fact that the government is betting so much on one particular implementation that I find frightening. Let the private sector take the bets and stand or fall by their decisions. This is something that IFocus said could be delivered by the NBN.....  



IFocus said:


> Just on the health thing you would have devices stuck to you to monitor vital signs plus back to a facility so you could stay at home rather than clogging up hospitals. Real time voice / video would allow for remote analysis




There is the possibility that an ill person at home in bed could connect some sort of probe to their body that, via the NBN, could allow remote diagnostics of their illness and possibly even remote remedial action. Rolling out the NBN to every home would allow that. But let's say the probe equipment at the patient's end cost $50K. Few could afford that, so rolling it out to every home when only 2% could afford the necessary equipment, is very wasteful. OK, so the equipment is leased out to who needs it. Then you have issues of needing to go to hospital or some central point to pick up the equipment. What if it needs a nurse to connect up (how many can connect up to an ECG?. What about incapacitated people?). What about false readings from improper connections that might trigger a need to send an ambulance? Do you send a nurse out every time a diagnosis is needed just to be sure? Then maybe instead of doing it at home themselves, the best compromise is that the patient goes to a nearby clinic, community centre or perhaps the nursing home medical office for the diagnosis. That would solve the cost problem and alleviate needing expertise at each patient's home, but now we have the situation that roll out to each home was unnecessary, at least for this particular application. OK lets assume that the probe at the patient's end is not complex to attach or expensive to buy. Perhaps nothing more complex that one of those heart monitoring meters that runners wear. So the patient can do it themselves and can be diagnosed remotely. But they have to be either at home or close to an NBN access point. But in the meantime, some bright spark has made a Bluetooth version of the probe that can talk to an application on an iPhone or similar smartphone and that application can simple dial up the hospital if it detects an issue, or maybe the application just relays the probe results every half hour and the diagnosis is done at the remote centre. So instead of having to connect up via an NBN access point, you have 24 hours diagnosis from anywhere using your smartphone and a probe. So the money spent on the NBN in anticipation of what IFocus said could be delivered has been made obsolete by alternative and more flexible delivery methods. 

I am not trying to suggest any one of the above outcomes is more likely than the other. The point I am trying to make is that the government is betting $43B on one outcome, when it has no idea of the practicalities of all the other components necessary to deliver the complete end to end solution and when there is a possibility that their envisaged solution may actually be less flexible than other solutions. 

Not to labour a point. But the government has touted the advantages that the NBN will deliver to education. Looking at industry trends, I would be betting that a mobile device like the iPad connected to broadband wireless will be the access method for most educational and information content in the future, not some home based WiFi network. I may be wrong, but I am not betting with other people's money as the government is doing.


----------



## IFocus (15 August 2010)

harks11 said:


> Great examples Ifocus. Once again examples of a bygone era of courage and will that made this country what it is today. Precious little on the horizon unfortunately




Yes people seemed to have more balls in those days didn't they. Maybe the genes weren't passed on.


----------



## Julia (15 August 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Anyone worried that there is no business plan for this thing by the way? Just build it and they will come? No numbercrunching as to who is actually going to use it either.



Yes, it's just incredible that they are going ahead with this very expensive programme with zero cost-benefit analysis.  No Labor politician who has been asked has been able (that I've heard) to quote costs to the consumer, neither do they appear to be able to answer the question as to what the take up rate will be.



bellenuit said:


> I would agree that all of the infrastructure projects mentioned above were immensely important and extremely controversial at the time. But there are three fundamental differences between them and the NBN rollout........



Completely sensible post, as always.


----------



## Calliope (15 August 2010)

bellenuit, what you say makes a lot of sense. Labor strategists think they only need to trot out "health" and "education" (because these issues are at the top of peoples concerns) to garner support for a massive program like NBN.

I have no idea what is driving them to do this. They obviously think they are on a winner.

At the present rate of progress the system will be superseded before it is completed, and it will be competing with a user friendly cheaper product.


----------



## IFocus (15 August 2010)

Hi Bellenuit dont want to get caught up in a p!$$ing contest but a few points of yours I'll answer




> I would agree that all of the infrastructure projects mentioned above were immensely important and extremely controversial at the time. But there are three fundamental differences between them and the NBN rollout.




Agree there are differences but there also fundamental similarities.




> Firstly, there were no alternatives. There are lots of ways of delivering similar capabilities to what the NBN may offer.




Actually there was water could be hauled and there were a number of other sites where the Harbour could be placed again at lower cost. 

The water was expensive but no where near the immediate cost of the pipe line project.



> Secondly, no one else would provide the infrastructure if the government didn't get involved.




There was existing infrastructure for ships and water mostly provided by businessmen or merchants but it did not provided for a future of expansion or growth.



> But we know others want to get involved and will get involved if there is a profit to be made. Subsidies can be used to encourage the technology to be installed in the non-profitable areas.




This goes to the argument who and why build infrastructure for the future growth of the country its no doubt a thread in its self.



> Thirdly, and in my opinion, the most important. Not only were there no alternatives, but the likelihood of obsolescence of the infrastructure was remote. O'Connor's water pipeline to the gold fields is still in use today. For broadband, we are dealing with one of the most dynamic areas of technology, with few people even as recently as 10 years ago capable of predicting what we would have available today.




Same as the NBN when O'Connor build the pipe line they used timber for much of the line to make the pipe, similar  way as barrels were made the water pumped via steam engines fired boilers.
As technologies improved so the upgrades were done on the pipe line same would apply to NBN.





> It is this last point, together with the fact that the government is betting so much on one particular implementation that I find frightening. Let the private sector take the bets and stand or fall by their decisions. This is something that IFocus said could be delivered by the NBN.....








> There is the possibility that an ill person at home in bed could connect some sort of probe to their body that, via the NBN, could allow remote diagnostics of their illness and possibly even remote remedial action. Rolling out the NBN to every home would allow that. But let's say the probe equipment at the patient's end cost $50K.




Instrumentation has come a long way with the down sizing and component reliability best example to is the motor car now covered in devices that are extremely cheap.
Not long ago you would also needed to employ a heap of instrument techs to maintain the wigits. 

Process control used in chemical, oil and gas production has changed dramatically also as a result but much of if not all of the comms is still hard wired for reliability wireless is still a bit vulnerable on that front.


----------



## boofhead (15 August 2010)

I'm not sure what people think fibre will be surpassed by. The main cost is installation. Upgrades don't need to relay the fibre - only equipment at the ends of the fibre.

It'll be a long time before wireless data rates get remotely close to wired data rates. Probably why many use wireless LANs instead of wireless broadband providers where possible. Better speeds and lower costs.

The Libs want private enterprise to do most of the work. The Libs better develop suitable competition laws and regulation because it struggled a lot under Howard years. The recent fine for Telstra blocking competition shows how much of a joke it is.

As for the cost per citizen - span the cost out for a few years and you'll notice lots of citizens spend just as much on various vices like gambling losses, cigarettes and alcohol.

A common platform with open access will see better potential scale for new competition and applications. Mish-mash of systems will limit scale.

I'm sure once upon a time people didn't think the copper network should be government built as it was a product for only the higher classes.


----------



## drsmith (15 August 2010)

boofhead said:


> As for the cost per citizen - span the cost out for a few years and you'll notice lots of citizens spend just as much on various vices like gambling losses, cigarettes and alcohol.



Doing that though is telling people how to spend their money.


----------



## So_Cynical (15 August 2010)

drsmith said:


> Doing that though is telling people how to spend their money.




Well aren't we all pretty much being told that we are spending 2k each on super fast broadband, what's the big deal :dunno: 2K is what i lost on my CTO trade last financial year....least im getting something for this 2K.


----------



## bellenuit (15 August 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Well aren't we all pretty much being told that we are spending 2k each on super fast broadband, what's the big deal :dunno: 2K is what i lost on my CTO trade last financial year....least im getting something for this 2K.




It will be more like $10K each if you exclude all that don't pay taxes. And if perhaps you are someone who prefers to access the internet from a mobile wireless platform, because that is more in line with your lifestyle, will you have to pay additional for that on top of NBN wired access which you may not want or only infrequently use?


----------



## drsmith (15 August 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Well aren't we all pretty much being told that we are spending 2k each on super fast broadband, what's the big deal :dunno: 2K is what i lost on my CTO trade last financial year....least im getting something for this 2K.



All I'm saying is that it's socialist.


----------



## trainspotter (15 August 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> LOL Tranny...your sounding like a typical city centric Australian  don't you have something to do with a pearl farm? .. anyway one of the reasons why its so expensive here is joining all the country dots, regional centres far from the coast (see map)
> 
> I would think it works a bit like mining in that the higher the density of people/mineral then the more cost effective it is to connect/remove it.
> 
> ...




LOL So_Cyclical ....... you are right. Me and my oysters don't know much but we can lift heavy things. 

We are talking about 2k for every man woman and child here. Not just the ones that pay taxes and lose 2k on a bad trade. Add in cost blowouts (which will happen) and the interest component for the borroings of the Govt to implement and it may well be closer to 10k for the taxpayer to fund.

Like I said earlier .... why do we need it ?? Faster ASF? Quicker pr0n? Would this money not be better spent on internal USEFUL infrastructure like hospitals and roads? I am sure my 83 year old parents will LOVE having fibre optic cabling to their home instead of a Doctor when they get sick.

Yeppers .... gets my vote for sure.


----------



## So_Cynical (15 August 2010)

bellenuit said:


> And if perhaps you are someone who prefers to access the internet from a mobile wireless platform, because that is more in line with your lifestyle, will you have to pay additional for that on top of NBN wired access which you may not want or only infrequently use?




Over time all wireless networks will use the NBN as a backbone....even some dude living in a shed out the back of woop woop will benefit in ways yet to be totally understood.



drsmith said:


> All I'm saying is that it's socialist.




Well we do expect our governments to look at the big picture and plan for the future, make good long term decisions....well i expect that, i know the majority of ASF members are Coalition voters so i have to assume these people were happy with the do nothing Howard approach and will vote for '1 vote Tony' in the hope that he will also do nothing.

I cant see the point of governments that do nothing.


----------



## boofhead (15 August 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Like I said earlier .... why do we need it ?? Faster ASF? Quicker pr0n?




Many people thought the same about ADSL (that initially maxed out at 1500 kbit) yet many people have now dumped dialup. New uses will arrive for the platform. I would expect all the states to love it. Jobs during construction and some expenditure in their states. Later the GST on the services.

As for cost blowouts, the currently active portion is 10% under budget.

Has anyone evaluated how much it would cost to rollout the current copper network?


----------



## trainspotter (15 August 2010)

boofhead said:


> Many people thought the same about ADSL (that initially maxed out at 1500 kbit) yet many people have now dumped dialup.




Sure thing boofhead. No question new technology is "the way forward" for want of a better phrase. My point is would not 43 BILLION DOLLARS be better spent on hospitals, roads, police, mental health, schools ad infinitum?

This is like saying I have planted a new garden in the front of my house when the house actually needed a new roof. I would much rather see money spent of this magnitude improving what we have got before it is spent on a technology that will only be used by a few. And for what again? What did we do before the internet? HUH ? I am not for one second advocating we go back to stone tablets as a medium by the way. We already have a good internet system that seems to work just fine. No, not everybody in Australia has access to it but I am sure that they would prefer to have a roof over their heads before they can download information at blinding speed. Think N.T aboriginals for a start. Where are those houses by the way?

There already is high speed internet in hospitals and schools. Approx 50% in fact. Yes yes yes it is not 100 gigawhatjamathingys per second but who cares? Let's fix what we have first and worry about the future technology once we have our house in order.

Or am I the only person thinks that to drive a Porsche at high speed you cannot have pot holes in the road ?


----------



## drsmith (15 August 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Well we do expect our governments to look at the big picture and plan for the future, make good long term decisions....well i expect that, i know the majority of ASF members are Coalition voters so i have to assume these people were happy with the do nothing Howard approach and will vote for '1 vote Tony' in the hope that he will also do nothing.
> 
> I cant see the point of governments that do nothing.



Is 6 to 7% return on investment sufficient, inparticular if the government ultimately wants to sell it ?


----------



## So_Cynical (15 August 2010)

drsmith said:


> Is 6 to 7% return on investment sufficient, inparticular if the government ultimately wants to sell it ?




The Govt spends 100 billion annually on welfare...what sort of return on investment do you think would be an appropriate return?

Or the 14 Billion they will spend on the Joint strike Fighter...what sort of a return should we expect from that spend?

Something that seems to be over looked is that when the NBN is finished all wireless telephony services will be backboned thru it, as well as voice/video phone, land lines (home phone) services....its more like we are replacing our half century old patchwork network.

And the Coalition policy is basically to keep patching up our old system, spending alot less, though still billions on a system that is 50 years old...FTTH/C is inevitable, now or in 5 / 10 years time it will have to be done.


----------



## tayser (15 August 2010)

just going to repost an answer to a question of "What are we going to use the NBN for/how is it going to aid us economically" on another forum:

Apart from Japan/South Korea/Singapore/Norway/Sweden/Finland, we'll have the most ubiquitous & advanced information platform laying the foundations for growth in:

- consumer-focused products:
-- VOD (Television over IP, Video shops will truly become a thing of the past)
-- Video-calls/conferencing - the NBN will thrown open the gates for Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) makers to test new products here rather than elsewhere - see voice activated/touch-screen screens to replace the telephone over the longer-term
-- Although you don't need very fast net to use the likes of Facebook/Twitter et al, having a ubiquitous network that allows you to do so much more than what we currently have (purely in terms of network throughput) will give us a huge competitive advantage over other economies for software houses / entrepreneurs to create new applications and test them in a good sized wealthy market.

- content creation-focused industries:
-- What's the next video standard after 1080pHD etc?  We don't know, but a network such as the NBN will be able to deliver whatever new bandwidth-intenstive applications that will be developed in future
-- cloud computing, best you read wikipedia about this.
--- international data warehousing - this has actually more to do about the explosion of international capacity that is happening right now: a stable government and extremely low levels of corruption at all levels of our society means we're attractive to foreign governments (of which we no doubt have treaties with) and foreign companies for storing data on the other side of the world.
-- local media production - TV/Movies/etc, the NBN is a great tool to transmit productions - whatever they are - en masse and _cheaply_ to consumers - thus lowering production costs and likely to generate more growth in this sector (ties in directly with the consumer).

- government-related uses:
-- Emergency response networks, if all consumer devices created from here on it are designed to work with the NBN - be it Fibre/4G/SAT - it's likely every device hanging off the network will be able to be used to distribute targetted information to end-users with ease and in possibly the fastest way possible - likely to compliment TV/Radio exceptionally well in this area.
-- E-Health is talked about a ****load. Dont think I really need to explain this in too much detail other than what you have a fat data pipe leading to the overwhelmingly majority of Australians and the rest covered by equally fat wireless pipes video will become ubiquitous and health providers (and tech companies in the health sector) can harness it in many different ways.

- CPE manufacturers:
-- touched on it above, but this is more of an R&D and eventually exporting growth sector: NEC, Cisco, D-link, Alcatel-Lucent and many more CPE/telco providers are already here and are likely to be big beneficiaries of the NBN owing to the fact they can Research, Develop and Test new hardware/products in a wealthy market and potentially even manufacture and export on a large scale from Australia

- general productivity benefits:
-- again comes back to the ubiquitous video applications that would allow office/service industry workers to work from home or even on the go (see below).  Thus reducing demand on transport networks - private/public - better work/life balance leads to happier and more productive (I know there's another debate here entirely) tax payers - government receives same amount of tax from them, but doesn't need to spend as much to get them to and from work - good budgetary outcome over the longer-term.
-- Health industry resources can be better deployed - rather than concentrating them in Hospitals and Clinics, they can be housed in offices - think call centre but with video - in centralised or decentralised locations or even the health professionals can work from home and treat people in their own homes.

And all this is going to require venture capital, another growth sector for us.

___________

One thing that the NBNCo hasn't touched on but I think would work really well beyond the initial construction and switched over phase of the project - as Fibre is going to 93% of the population, think about a bog-standard suburban street with a strand of fibre going to every house.  All the NBN need do is install some kind of wifi (possibly next generation / longer-range / higher-bandwidth capability) base station where the fibre terminates on each house and that would allow Retail Service Providers to bundle fixed and wireless connections together thus allowing consumers to use fixed network devices in the home but also keep the same connectivity with mobile devices.

This does beg the question about competition with current Telco mobile networks which are likely to be upgraded to the same technology as what the NBN will offer to wireless access areas, but regardless - fixed and mobile networking is likely to converge in this area and again opening up a new market for CPE manufacturers and content-providers to exploit...


----------



## trainspotter (15 August 2010)

And with Telstra revenue dropping through the floor on fixed lines who is going to take up this wonderful new technology? Can you tell me how much it is going to cost to access? Got any data ? Thought not because there is not even a business model on outcomes from the Govt. All they are doing is telling us this is the best thing since sliced white bread. 

How about this then ..... 

*An $11 billion deal with Telstra means the NBN intends to run 85 per cent of the fibre connections underground in ducting owned by the company.*

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/need-for-speed-in-battle-of-broadband-20100814-12424.html

GIVE ME A FRIGGING BREAK !


----------



## So_Cynical (15 August 2010)

trainspotter said:


> And with Telstra revenue dropping through the floor on fixed lines who is going to take up this wonderful new technology?




Well for a start Telstra's 9+ million home phone customers will be forced over to it. 



trainspotter said:


> Can you tell me how much it is going to cost to access? Got any data ?




Here's a link to the NBN plans iiNet are offering in Tasmania...starts at $49 a month. http://www.iinet.net.au/nbn/

And below ill post a speed test comparison of my ADSL2 connection in Sydney and some guy with NBN in Tasmania both pinging a Melbourne server.
~


----------



## boofhead (16 August 2010)

trainspotter said:


> And with Telstra revenue dropping through the floor on fixed lines who is going to take up this wonderful new technology?




Read the full report. Telstra is losing retail customers. People are making less landline calls.

From page 16 of one of the PDF releases to the ASX, 







> Wholesale revenue declined by 2.6% as the ULL and LSS build out
> continued detrimentally impacting the wholesale business. The
> migration from on-net resale services to ULL/LSS was reflected in
> wholesale PSTN lines declining by 32 thousand and DSL lines
> ...



 which indicates less ISPs are reselling Telstra DSLAM products and the ISPs have installed more of their own DSLAMs.


----------



## bellenuit (16 August 2010)

tayser said:


> just going to repost an answer to a question of "What are we going to use the NBN for/how is it going to aid us economically" on another forum:




The assumption implicit in your list is that the world is going to stop for every other technology apart from NBN. Fibre to the premises will be rolled out when and if required, but it will be a based on hard cold economics at the time of the decision rather than on a fuzzy feel good wish list many years in advance. 

As I said in a previous note, you have to look at the complete end to end solution and if all your investment is tied up in the network, there may be nothing left over for the other components. What is the point of remote medical diagnosis capability in every home if it requires a nurse, say, to attach the probes, but there is no money left in the budget to hire additional nurses. 

And even if the NBN can make video stores obsolete by enabling video on demand of 3D/HD movies, is that the best use of our scarce resources.

Somebody likened the NBN to putting a 4 lane toll road to everyone's house. That includes those who don't have a car, those who can't drive and those who for whatever reason prefer other forms of transport or only infrequently drive. You can also come up with a list of deliverables that the 4-lane tollway can uniquely deliver to the house, but that doesn't mean it is the right thing to do with limited resources.


----------



## glenn_r (16 August 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Well for a start Telstra's 9+ million home phone customers will be forced over to it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I wonder what sort of bill my kids could rack up if we had that download speed....They already max out our 30gig fusion plan.


----------



## drsmith (16 August 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> The Govt spends 100 billion annually on welfare...what sort of return on investment do you think would be an appropriate return?
> 
> Or the 14 Billion they will spend on the Joint strike Fighter...what sort of a return should we expect from that spend?



Welfare and defence are basic government services.


----------



## boofhead (16 August 2010)

glenn_r said:


> I wonder what sort of bill my kids could rack up if we had that download speed....They already max out our 30gig fusion plan.




Many customer friendlier ISPs offer fixed monthly pricing where speeds are capped. Some offer mechanisms to pay extra to remove the speed caps.

The Australian government is expanding online services. Newstart can be applied for (fortnightly reporting) and processed online with periodic interviews. Potentially the government could find a way for ISPs to peer and maybe even route the traffic to the nearest POP of the customer thus eliminating backhaul costs for ISPs.


----------



## glenn_r (16 August 2010)

Maybe the Kiwi's have a way of increasing speed at a lower cost?

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...ster-at-no-extra-cost/articleshow/6314808.cms


----------



## boofhead (16 August 2010)

glenn_r said:


> Maybe the Kiwi's have a way of increasing speed at a lower cost?
> 
> http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...ster-at-no-extra-cost/articleshow/6314808.cms




http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/gadgets/4025300/Kiwi-device-to-make-broadband-50X-faster is a better source. It isn't 50x but 50% increase. I'm having a bit of trouble finding more details about it.


----------



## Calliope (16 August 2010)

This is just another thought bubble. If she was genuine, what's stopping her from doing it now? What's Labor's national broadband network got to do with it?



> In a new policy announcement, she has revealed a plan for patients in rural, regional and outer suburban areas to claim a Medicare rebate for consultations with city specialists in their local doctor's office via Labor's national broadband network.  The plan reportedly has been costed at nearly $400 million.



Read more: http://www.news.com.au/features/fed...ne/story-e6frfllr-1225905777085#ixzz0wkLGVfyJ


----------



## boofhead (16 August 2010)

How can she do it now? There is no NBN mainland deployment - it is only just beginning.


----------



## overhang (16 August 2010)

bellenuit said:


> The assumption implicit in your list is that the world is going to stop for every other technology apart from NBN. Fibre to the premises will be rolled out when and if required, but it will be a based on hard cold economics at the time of the decision rather than on a fuzzy feel good wish list many years in advance.
> 
> As I said in a previous note, you have to look at the complete end to end solution and if all your investment is tied up in the network, there may be nothing left over for the other components. What is the point of remote medical diagnosis capability in every home if it requires a nurse, say, to attach the probes, but there is no money left in the budget to hire additional nurses.
> 
> ...




You raise some great points.  I think what a lot of people forget though is it's 42 billion over 8 years, this equates to $260 per person or $583 per household over the 8 year duration.  If this were a 1-2 year investment then there is no question that the 42 billion would be more appropriately spent on health, education etc but as this takes 8 years to complete, this is something that cannot be addressed when the time arises as our corroding copper network will be dysfunctional.  
When will there ever be a time where we can spare nurses for E-health? When elective surgery times are under 2 weeks? When hospital beds are at 80% capacity?  I think the infrastructure needs to be in place before allocating nurses and the trouble with health care is how much to the dollar is wasted on bureaucracy.
  Now to the road analogy lets say a new estate was developed that can hold 500 houses but the estate is slow to get of the ground and only 20 lots are sold.  Now the local government looking at this figure thinks only a single lane road will be required to access this estate.  But a sudden boom occurs and all 500 lots are occupied only to find they are stuck in traffic jams and that a 4 lane tollway is required.  The catch is however the 4 lane tollway will take years to build.  So what looked to be an overkill at first would have prevented these homeowners being stuck in traffic each day.


----------



## So_Cynical (16 August 2010)

drsmith said:


> Welfare and defence are basic government services.




I would argue that big ticket infrastructure is also a basic Government duty...who built the old copper network? who built the bulk of the electricity distribution network? would private enterprise build the snowy scheme?

remember the last 2 Sydney - Melbourne very fast trains...come to nothing after the Govt feasibility money ran out....Dr you are obviously a fan of do nothing, hands off government, 1 vote Tony is your 'go to man' when you want nothing done.

The NBN debate really focuses our choice in this election...going forward with Julia and going nowhere with Tony...i know where i want this country to go.


----------



## trainspotter (16 August 2010)

OMFG ... look over there ! Quick look ... a great shiny bauble for everyone to pontificate over. It, it, it looks like a bit of fibre optic cable. It can replace our hospitals with E Health ! It can teach our children at warp speed. It will make our streets safer. It will make rain fall from the sky. It will make all other technologies redundant and EVERYONE will want to use it. YA HAVE GOT TO BE JOKING ME !!

Are you even listening to yourselves? Have a look around peoples. We need more nurses BEFORE we need a piece of cable. We need more teachers BEFORE we need a NBN. We need more police BEFORE we need a data IT downstream project specifity of 100kds kafoopises whatsits. We need more water programmes to keep us alive on this arid continent we live on. Telstra is dropping fixed lines and we want to replace it with .... wait for it ... a fibre optic cable !! WOW !

GEEEEEEZUZ CHRIST !! We can't even get HD TV right so what chance have we got of this going well? HUH ?? 

Talk about fiddling whilst Rome burns eh Nero?


----------



## trainspotter (16 August 2010)

Can anyone show me a cost benefit analysis on the NBN? 

Or what about this then ? Now we - or rather Kevin Rudd and Stephen Conroy and the man who used to be the last competent minister in this government, Lindsay Tanner - are embarked on spending upwards of $40 billion, to increase our access speed all of five times.* From that 20 mbps to 100 mbps.* WOW !! 5 times already.

Or what about this then ? Indeed, spending upwards of $40 billion to perhaps not even increase the speed at all, in much of Melbourne! *Because Telstra can already deliver speeds up to 100 mbps to much of Melbourne down its HFC (Foxtel) cable.*

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/busines...-to-speed-on-nbn/story-e6frfig6-1225882507897

Yeah ... I WANT SUPERFAST INTERNET ! No wait ... I have it already ... on my boat in the middle of the harbour. 

P.S. I don't want Tony Abbotts Frankenstein "me too" version of the internet either.


----------



## AngusSmart (16 August 2010)

How much will they make off all the scrapped copper they are going to pull from the ground?


----------



## So_Cynical (16 August 2010)

Anyone else watching '1 Vote Tony' on Q & A ..he wants to spend 40 Billion over 10 years on paid parental leave..How come no one's carrying on about that 40 Billion...talk about a total waste of money.

Where's the cost benefit analysis for 40 billion on paid parental leave. 



trainspotter said:


> Yeah ... I WANT SUPERFAST INTERNET ! No wait ... I have it already ... on my boat in the middle of the harbour.




Want to post a speed test for that


----------



## moXJO (16 August 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Anyone else watching '1 Vote Tony' on Q & A ..he wants to spend 40 Billion over 10 years on paid parental leave..How come no one's carrying on about that 40 Billion...talk about a total waste of money.
> 
> Where's the cost benefit analysis for 40 billion on paid parental leave.
> 
> ...




I think Abbotts paid parental leave is a stupid idea. Unfortunately it's the only way to bribe the workers back after the work choices scare. I would rather have the NBN then PPL


----------



## trainspotter (16 August 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Anyone else watching '1 Vote Tony' on Q & A ..he wants to spend 40 Billion over 10 years on paid parental leave..How come no one's carrying on about that 40 Billion...talk about a total waste of money.
> 
> Where's the cost benefit analysis for 40 billion on paid parental leave. :banghead
> 
> Want to post a speed test for that




I was trying to keep the politics out of this thread. How much is Labors PPL costing? HUH ? 

I do not agree with this monumental stuff up as well. BUT the funding is being raised from small business in the form of a levy of 1.5% I believe? Labor Party PPL money is coming from where again?

Where is the money coming from for the NBN. Oooooh the tax payer ? 

I am responding to you at about 6 beers per hour .... wanna go faster? I can keep up.

Did you miss this So_Cycical ?(deliberate typo on the name BTW)  *Because Telstra can already deliver speeds up to 100 mbps to much of Melbourne down its HFC (Foxtel) cable.*

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business...-1225882507897


----------



## So_Cynical (16 August 2010)

Here's a list of city's and towns that get fibre or next gen wireless.

http://alp.org.au/getattachment/fb455905-5958-46b8-84cd-36e33c96e973/nbn/

There's like 500 pages of intelligent NBN discussion over at whirlpool....apparently the middle of the harbour is good for 12mbit wireless.


----------



## trainspotter (16 August 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Here's a list of city's and towns that get fibre or next gen wireless.
> 
> http://alp.org.au/getattachment/fb455905-5958-46b8-84cd-36e33c96e973/nbn/
> 
> There's like 500 pages of intelligent NBN discussion over at whirlpool....apparently the middle of the harbour is good for 12mbit wireless.




Fantastic ! I can also get internet on my Blackberry at this speed. I am not against the technology at all. I am more for sorting out what we have first PRIOR to rushing in to spending billions of dollars of taxpayers money. What good is a high speed internet to me when I can't see a doctor when I am sick? What good is this whizzbang cable going to do for my computer illeterate 83 year old parents? HUH ? They don;t even own a computer. How old is the national population and how many of them keep up with the latest technology ? Great benefit to them isn't it !!

I don't give a toss if it is Libs or Labs or Greens or WHATEVER ... we do not need this kind of technology YET !! FIX what we have now with housing, education, hospitals, policing, water infrastructure ........ ohhhhhhhhhh I am wasting my time now.

JINGO's !!!!!!!!  this kind of wastefullness makes me angry 

and again ......  *Because Telstra can already deliver speeds up to 100 mbps to much of Melbourne down its HFC (Foxtel) cable.*

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business...-1225882507897


----------



## trainspotter (16 August 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Here's a list of city's and towns that get fibre or next gen wireless.
> 
> http://alp.org.au/getattachment/fb455905-5958-46b8-84cd-36e33c96e973/nbn/
> 
> There's like 500 pages of intelligent NBN discussion over at whirlpool....apparently the middle of the harbour is good for 12mbit wireless.




Hahahahha ahh "intelligent" discussion at whirlpool. You mean this place ?

NBN - time to reset the vision 
By Sydney Low
Monday, 16 August 2010 09:58 

IT Policy - Government Tech Policy 

  OPINION: I have been on the Internet since 1995, selling Apple Newton software via email and web sites. I co-founded Australia's largest free ISP in 2000 and I've built 3 other online-Internet companies. I can claim to know a bit about online businesses.

In the April 2000 Internet, telco and tech meltdown, one of the catalyst was the vendor-finance fuelled build out of bandwidth capacity. Build the pipes and they will come was the mantra that companies like PSINet, Lucent Technologies and other hardware manufacturers and their investors spent billions funding. What happened? No bandwidth consuming apps arrived and no companies had any business case to pay for using the massive fibre-optic pipes.

Does this sound all too familiar? For my part, it certainly does. The NBN with the claimed 1 Gbit per second download speeds will transform Australia. *What utter rubbish. What a great albatross around Australian's necks it will be*. The vision for NBN should be ensuring a price-capped ADSL2 or equivalent access to 99.99% of Australians. Here's why:

http://www.itwire.com/it-policy-news/government-tech-policy/41173-nbn-time-to-reset-the-vision

Bwaahahahahhahaha aaaa ... Sydney Low is a serial entrepreneur. He has built several companies around software, Internet access and mobile phones. *Previously, he provided advice to Australian and US companies on the strategic use of technologies as a partner at Mitchell Madison Group and McKinsey & Company. *He is currently the CEO of RedTxt.com.au - a company that is pioneering the development of sponsor-funded SMS for communities.

Article came from here ...  http://whirlpool.net.au/ ... about No7 on the hit list


----------



## So_Cynical (16 August 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Article came from here ...  http://whirlpool.net.au/ ... about No7 on the hit list




Yeh that's from the front page were they just link to the latest articles and what ever  is in the press etc...the good stuff is in there discussion forum, the tab over on the left hand side, below the broadband choice tab..you want the broadband forum for NBN content.


----------



## drsmith (17 August 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> I would argue that big ticket infrastructure is also a basic Government duty...who built the old copper network? who built the bulk of the electricity distribution network? would private enterprise build the snowy scheme?
> 
> remember the last 2 Sydney - Melbourne very fast trains...come to nothing after the Govt feasibility money ran out....Dr you are obviously a fan of do nothing, hands off government, 1 vote Tony is your 'go to man' when you want nothing done.
> 
> The NBN debate really focuses our choice in this election...going forward with Julia and going nowhere with Tony...i know where i want this country to go.



Who sold CBA ?

They want to do the same with the NBN, but how will the taxpayer get value for money if the underlying investment does not earn a commercial return in the first place ?


----------



## Calliope (17 August 2010)

boofhead said:


> How can she do it now? There is no NBN mainland deployment - it is only just beginning.




You obviously did not read my post. Gillard revealed a plan for patients in regional, rural and outer suburban locations to claim a Medicare rebate for consultations with city specialists in their local doctors's office *via Labor's National  Broadband Network. *
This would cost $400M sometime down the track

We are talking about diagnostics here, not brain surgery. *She has suggested nothing here that it cannot be done now with our present broadband speeds.*


----------



## Calliope (17 August 2010)

trainspotter said:


> I was trying to keep the politics out of this thread. How much is Labors PPL costing? HUH ?




Why? Socialists want a Government owned and run NBN.  Conservatives believe an efficient broadband service can be provided by private  enterprise and much more cheaply. Malcolm Turnbull explains why, for those who care to read the link.



> AUSTRALIANS understand high-quality, affordable broadband is a critical part of the infrastructure we need to prosper.
> 
> As one of the founders of OzEmail, Australia's first big internet company, I believe passionately in broadband and the power of the internet. But as a businessman and member of parliament I also believe passionately in not wasting taxpayers' dollars on white elephants.
> 
> ...




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...he-nbn-will-fail/story-e6frgd0x-1225906080793


----------



## basilio (17 August 2010)

I think the key questions most people have identified in the debate is whether this particular piece of national infrastructure is best value for money in terms of

1) Cost efficiency of implementing it
2) The economic and social value it might generate
3) Other priorities for scarce resources

I tend to think that the economic value of super fast internet is overrated. When people already have access to  ADSL 2 the extra speed seems to be to simply download movies a bit faster. Obviously there will be some particular business capacities that are worthwhile ie teleconferencing but these can be accessed through current internet capacities. (And anyway the price gouging in the middle of these operations does not make them particularly business friendly)

My overriding concern is that I can see many other priorities for large licks of capital. In a particular I think our electricity supplies should be overhauled with a focus on long term renewable energy. ie solar thermal power stations, geo thermal power stations,  possibly wave, wind. This is a big bill.

I suggest that if we start to see a continuation of the extreme climate events now becoming more common around the world there will be equally large bills for national reconstruction. Certainly the CSIRO has flagged this question repeatedly in it's discussion on the effects of climate change.


----------



## tayser (17 August 2010)

basilio said:


> I think the key questions most people have identified in the debate is whether this particular piece of national infrastructure is best value for money in terms of
> 
> 1) Cost efficiency of implementing it
> 2) The economic and social value it might generate
> ...




ADSL2+ max speed (22mbps) is only available to people who live less than 1km from a telephone exchange - not all businesses and not all households live within this distance - the average speed that people are getting on current ADSL/ADSL2+ technology is around 1.5mbit to 3-4mbit.

You fail to make mention of the fact that consumers do not have access to the same services (read: bandwidth) as businesses.  Yes, universities, hospitals & many businesses have higher capacity services but if you're to take full advantage of telecommuting / teleconferencing BOTH ENDS need to have similar types of connections for it to work without slow downs.  

We have what is called the "Digital Divide" with current technologies where consumers, businesses and governments have varying levels of internet capability thus impeding application development as you have to cater for the slowest common denominator.

THE NBN WILL GO A LONG WAY TO COMPLETELY REMOVING THIS FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF AUSTRALIANS.

And for f**k's sake people it's not just about downloading more movies for consumers - let's bring us right to the topic of this forum: Where is the next generation of trading applications and tools going to take us?  You may not be able to think of where it'll be, but you can bet your socks that someone somewhere in the world is thinking of of richer content which will no doubt be far more bandwidth hungry than the poxy chart + data feed from the ASX that most of you currently use.

In 1995-2000 if you were trading equities you would have used a few kbytes of data to place your orders over the phone to your broker.  Today you're probably using 50-100megabytes filling your charts with data and executing orders on line - just ask yourself where you're going to be in another 10 years time and what sort of application you're going to be using.  

That's one - relevant to this forum - example of how this network will help us go forward - now times that by about 1000 for the rest of the services sector.

I cannot fkn well believe how many people are ****canning this when all throughout the Howard years people yearned for infrastructure planning and here comes possibly one of the smartest infrastructure projects since the Snow Mountains Scheme.


----------



## bellenuit (17 August 2010)

tayser said:


> In 1995-2000 if you were trading equities you would have used a few kbytes of data to place your orders over the phone to your broker.  Today you're probably using 50-100megabytes filling your charts with data and executing orders on line -




Yes....... and all of that came with minimal government involvement. If there is a need, it will be provided.


----------



## trainspotter (17 August 2010)

tayser said:


> That's one - relevant to this forum - example of how this network will help us go forward - now times that by about 1000 for the rest of the services sector.
> 
> I cannot fkn well believe how many people are ****canning this when all throughout the Howard years people yearned for infrastructure planning and here comes possibly one of the smartest infrastructure projects since the Snow Mountains Scheme.




LOL at the "going forward" remark. Well done on the propoganda machine. Care to quantify the "times that by about 1000" statement? QLD Health Dept can't even install a pay system for crying out loud. What chance do you think we will have with the latest technology that MOST people don't even understand? The ATO has only just started talking to Centrelink AND STILL THEY STUFF IT UP ! And you want the Guvmint to handle this roll out? 

As for the Howard jibe .... wasn't it Keating who went on some bent about budget surplus's and stuffed the infrastrucure as well. Howard just took over and paid off debt.

The Snowy Scheme is also considered economically important for Australia. It supplies vital water to the farming industries of inland New South Wales and Victoria. The system's power stations also produce up to ten per cent of all electricity needs for New South Wales. 

So what is NBN gonna do again? Provide water and electricity? Essential services? Nope ... the internet is gonna be faster. More technology that only a few understand. The problem I see is that there are too many systems out there now that don't talk to each other. Running it through one cable around Australia is somehow going to improve this?

Your thrust was this "Today you're probably using 50-100megabytes filling your charts with data and executing orders on line - just ask yourself where you're going to be in another 10 years time and what sort of application you're going to be using. "

My parry is this "What happens in 10 years time when the programmers figure out a way to make aplications run faster and using less megabytes?" Intel already have i7 chips that process information faster. New encrytpions and codeware is being invented to release memory hungry programmes.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for having the latest technology at my fingertips but not at such a social cost that this will deliver.


----------



## boofhead (17 August 2010)

New hospitals etc. have nothing to do with NBN. For those that are suggesting it is one or the other why aren't they suggesting other government things be cut instead?

Govt expects to put in 26 billion - over the 8 year construction period. The fibres should be in operation for in excess of 40 years.

Private enterprise highlights why the libs suggestion will have issues. Many areas don't have ADSL, plenty of exchanges have only Telstra equipment. Telstra has been known to drag their feet in doing what needs to be done to get competitor's equipment operational. Libs have said they don't want to do anything to damage Telstra. Telstra has a lot of people on RIMs which are sometimes capped to below 3 mbit.

Lots of ADSL2+ customers get less than 12 mbit sync with less throughput. You also have much poorer upload speeds.

People grow in to their environments.

It is no surprise that many countries are moving to fibre to the home.

I do agree with a previous poster the electricity grid needs work. Not sure how a govt will manage that with how some states have sold a lot off. Perhaps that can be the next major project.


----------



## sails (17 August 2010)

I think the technology is great and I would enjoy the speeds NBN may offer.

That said, I am concerned that the government backing NBN does not have a good track record at implementing major schemes.  Their estimates tend to blow out and then they will have to recoup this money somehow.

What if they then tax all internet use heavily to pay for this monster they created? The basic internet we know today could well become unaffordable through heavy taxes.  Just a thought - I'm no techie.

Maybe it should be handled by private enterprise and take the politics out of it.


----------



## Calliope (17 August 2010)

tayser said:


> I cannot fkn well believe how many people are ****canning this when all throughout the Howard years people yearned for infrastructure planning and here comes possibly one of the smartest infrastructure projects since the Snow Mountains Scheme.




Yes, almost on a par with the BER. 

I hope this comment doesn't provoke more gutter language.


----------



## So_Cynical (17 August 2010)

drsmith said:


> Who sold CBA ?
> 
> They want to do the same with the NBN, but how will the taxpayer get value for money if the underlying investment does not earn a commercial return in the first place ?




The maths is pretty easy...Telstra has 9 million fixed line customers that they either direct sell to, or provide for wholesale via other retailers....Telstra as part of the deal they have done with NBNco will be forced to hand over there customers as the copper lines will be made redundant.

9 million X $25 a month = 225 mill a month x 12 months = 2.7 billion a year..and that's just the wholesale for the most basic service, to really understand what's going on you have to turn back the clock to the 60's and 70's and think Monopoly.

NBN co will basically be a monster monopoly with 100% of the wholesale market...Telstra will just be a big retailer (#1 retailer) and perhaps service provider. 



basilio said:


> My overriding concern is that I can see many other priorities for large licks of capital. In a particular I think our electricity supplies should be overhauled with a focus on long term renewable energy. ie solar thermal power stations, geo thermal power stations,  possibly wave, wind. This is a big bill.




We need a smart electricity grid...and before we can spend the money on the smart grid you need a information delivery system...say something like a national (light speed) fibre optic network to enable the upgrade of the national electricity grid to a smart grid.

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



			
				Wiki link said:
			
		

> A smart grid delivers electricity from suppliers to consumers using two-way digital  technology to control appliances at consumers' homes to save energy, reduce cost and increase reliability and transparency. It overlays the electricity distribution grid with an information and net metering system.
> 
> Such a modernized electricity network is being promoted by many governments as a way of addressing energy independence, global warming and emergency resilience issues. Smart meters may be part of a smart grid,


----------



## noirua (18 August 2010)

Australia has to move towards the fast lane on broadband as Japan is so far ahead. Second rate technology in the Aussie Tiger economy isn't thinkable.


----------



## pilots (18 August 2010)

Tell me have I got this wrong???? we are going to spend $$$$$$$$$ on this new F/O cable, now most of my info on the net comes from overseas in a COAXIAL CABLE, now no matter how fast Australia is, I am always going to be slowed down by the coaxial cable, am I right?????????, thanks.


----------



## Mofra (18 August 2010)

pilots said:


> Tell me have I got this wrong???? we are going to spend $$$$$$$$$ on this new F/O cable, now most of my info on the net comes from overseas in a COAXIAL CABLE, now no matter how fast Australia is, I am always going to be slowed down by the coaxial cable, am I right?????????, thanks.



No.

Submarine cables are optical, generally have multiple lines for redundancy and Australia's involvement is heavily regulated by the Telco Act and the ACMA.


----------



## Calliope (18 August 2010)

noirua said:


> Australia has to move towards the fast lane on broadband as Japan is so far ahead. Second rate technology in the Aussie Tiger economy isn't thinkable.




Everybody wants high speed broadband if it is at an affordable price. The problem is whether a socialist government can actually manage the cost of the roll out. We know their record. They have given us a figure of $43B which they have plucked from thin air.

At present they are starting the roll out in selected marginal seats. Will they be still enthusiastic in these areas if they win the election? 

And can we trust a government, which wants to censor the internet, to run it? We know what is happening in China where they are giving Google a hard time. Last week Chinese hackers created havoc on Google Mail.


----------



## trainspotter (18 August 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> The maths is pretty easy...Telstra has 9 million fixed line customers that they either direct sell to, or provide for wholesale via other retailers....Telstra as part of the deal they have done with NBNco will be forced to hand over there customers as the copper lines will be made redundant.
> 
> 9 million X $25 a month = 225 mill a month x 12 months = 2.7 billion a year..and that's just the wholesale for the most basic service, to really understand what's going on you have to turn back the clock to the 60's and 70's and think Monopoly.
> 
> ...




Telstra and the NBN huh? The deal involves Telstra receiving *compensation *for eventually shutting down its copper wire network and cable broadband network. Still another 12 months before the shareholders agree to the deal as well. Oh well ...... more pie in the sky stuff. SO the Government is paying Telstra 11 billion to ACCESS their existing technology in the vain hope that they will shut down their existing technology and switch to the fibre optic cable?

Heyyyyyyyy ...... didn't the Government SELL Telstra because they didn't want to be seen as a monopoly in the market place? Now they are buying it back? 

Monopoly - In economics it exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.

Remember when the banks told us to go online and use internet banking as it was FREE. Not so free anymore now isn't it?

As for the electricity grid being "smart" it does not even work half the damn time. IT NEEDS TO BE FIXED FIRST before we spend 43 BILLION DOLLARS making it work more efficiently.

*A failure at TransGrid's Dural substation caused the outage, an EnergyAustralia spokeswoman said. TransGrid owns and operates the upstream transmission network, which supplies retailers such as EnergyAustralia.*

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sydney-switches-on-again-after-huge-blackout-20100707-zzbk.html

GAWDSAKE peoples wake up to yourselves.


----------



## Julia (18 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> Everybody wants high speed broadband if it is at an affordable price. The problem is whether a socialist government can actually manage the cost of the roll out. We know their record. They have given us a figure of $43B which they have plucked from thin air.



It's not just the cost factor but also whether they can actually get it right.
Considering the utter chaos of something as simple as the pink batts scheme, why would anyone have any confidence in their management of something much more complicated?


----------



## tayser (18 August 2010)

all of you do yourselves a favour and read Quigley's speech: http://www.itnews.com.au/News/229175,quigleys-big-stand-the-full-speech.aspx


----------



## drsmith (18 August 2010)

tayser said:


> all of you do yourselves a favour and read Quigley's speech: http://www.itnews.com.au/News/229175,quigleys-big-stand-the-full-speech.aspx






> Tomorrow we will be releasing a more detailed 80 page technical Product Description document for our Fibre product.




According to NBN Co, it will cost at least $37bn to build.



> Our business case requires equity funding by the Government of around $27 billion. This is not the total capital costs, as we expect to raise debt, without Government guarantees, of at least $10 billion.


----------



## sails (18 August 2010)

Malcolm Turnbull's views on the NBN debate: Why the NBN will fail



> As one of the founders of OzEmail, Australia’s first big internet company, I believe passionately in broadband and the power of the internet.
> 
> But as a businessman and Member of Parliament I also believe passionately in not wasting billions of taxpayers' dollars on white elephants...




It's quite a long article detailing his views.  He also believes it will increase the cost of internet usage which is something I questioned in an earlier post.



> *The NBN will increase internet costs for users*
> 
> Full story:  http://www.businessspectator.com.au...wireless-pd20100816-8D3V8?OpenDocument&src=mp
> 
> ...




Full story here: http://www.businessspectator.com.au...wireless-pd20100816-8D3V8?OpenDocument&src=mp


----------



## trainspotter (18 August 2010)

And a very fine speech it is too from the co CEO of the company charged with building the NBN. What did you expect? "Don't build it as it is a costly dud" ?

I laughed when he said the fibre optic cable is cheap and very robust these days. We have a land development here that uses fibre optic cable already. It is so robust that the long talied rodents from the genus Rattus love the stuff so much they chewed through it in several places. Took about 2 months to repair. 

A monopoly creates competition? More like "competition creates innovation - Against Monopoly"

Look don't get me wrong. I am all for the technology. Great that they can diagnose medical conditions from 3000kms away etc. BUT where are the trained nurses coming from? We can't staff our hospitals NOW. This is sheer lunacy on a magnitude of Ben Hur proportions. 

671,278 people live in 95% of Australias land mass OK. SO let them have the old fashioned wireless/satellite/copper wire technology and put the damn stuff in the ground to service the other 22,176,354 that live on the other 5%. Now would that not be more cost effective and actually deliver to the majority? The savings could go into training more Doctors, Nurses, Policeman .... it's not that hard really.

Oooooh ....... sorry that is not the Labor way now is it? All for one and one for all kinda thingy. My mistake.

I have written previously that I do not want the Libs Frankenstein, hodge podge, "me too" alternative. It's a joke.


----------



## derty (18 August 2010)

trainspotter said:


> My parry is this "What happens in 10 years time when the programmers figure out a way to make aplications run faster and using less megabytes?" Intel already have i7 chips that process information faster. New encrytpions and codeware is being invented to release memory hungry programmes.



While computers are advancing in line with Mores Law the operating systems and software are becoming more complex. Things seem to take just as long to load up and run as they did 20 years ago, it's just that they do much more and look a lot better. They are continually making faster hardware and more efficient code but everything seems to stand still.

The net is similar. I remember being amazed when I got my first 14.4kb/s dialup modem it was such a step up from the old vax terminal we used to have at work. But 14.4k quickly got slow as did 28.8k and 33.3k and 56k. It got to the point where just browsing the web using dialup was an excercise in frustration as everything was designed for broadband speeds. We have seen the same advancement in ADSL to ADSL2. Streaming a decent video feed on an ADSL1 connection is a stop-start exercise in buffering. In the next 5 - 10 years using ADSL tech will be like trying to use a 56k modem these days.

As optic fibres become common, applications and uses will be developed that will take full use of the bandwidth available. This will develop regardless of if we have the technology or not. Though if we do not have the technology we will effectively be locked out of it until we take the plunge.

My only fear with the NBN is that it will be poorly administered. And I guess chances are it will be, regardless of who runs it, as most large infrastructure projects always seem to be. That shouldn't be a reason not to start. If it will cost $6B to hobble an adhoc solution together that will barely enable us to stand still vs $37B to take us to the next level, show me the money.


----------



## Calliope (18 August 2010)

sails said:


> Malcolm Turnbull's views on the NBN debate




I posted Turnbull's views yesterday, Post #243. It supports my view that a lot of posters don't read other peoples posts.


----------



## sails (18 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> I posted Turnbull's views yesterday, Post #243. It supports my view that a lot of posters don't read other peoples posts.




You are right, I didn't see it - my apologies.  

Sometimes I find it's possible to miss the occasional post in a thread of interest due to using the "new post" link.  If a new post is posted a few seconds before logging off, it doesn't show up in the "new posts" next time.  

Other than that, I'm not sure how I missed it!


----------



## trainspotter (18 August 2010)

derty said:


> While computers are advancing in line with Mores Law the operating systems and software are becoming more complex. Things seem to take just as long to load up and run as they did 20 years ago, it's just that they do much more and look a lot better. They are continually making faster hardware and more efficient code but everything seems to stand still.




I remember my 386 olivetti computer running windows 3.1 and MS-DOS 6.22 and it was the fastest and latest thing on the market place when I bought it. To fire it up would take at least (what felt like) 5 minutes while it counted RAM and went through the whole DOS procedure. Then it was 37 double clicks just to open a spreadsheet. Another 5 minutes later. Typing was OK with MS Works (oxymoron if there ever was one) then asking it to print whilst it spooled was another 5 minutes.

Yes the chips have kept pace with Mores Law but it will not be far away when they cannot proceed any further. Intel is already squawking that they are nearing capacity with the technology they have now. I am guessing programmers of code will be the next thing to try and speed the experience up.

That and the NBN on a workable budget and at some time in the future AFTER they clean up the mess we have now with our utilities.


----------



## overhang (18 August 2010)

Julia said:


> It's not just the cost factor but also whether they can actually get it right.
> Considering the utter chaos of something as simple as the pink batts scheme, why would anyone have any confidence in their management of something much more complicated?




Maybe because the Tasmanian test phase was completed under budget and on time and maybe because they have many experts in the IT field in charge of the program, not some former rock band singer.


----------



## bellenuit (18 August 2010)

overhang said:


> Maybe because the Tasmanian test phase was completed under budget and on time and maybe because they have many experts in the IT field in charge of the program, not some former rock band singer.




Yes, but who set the budget and the schedule for the Tasmanian test phase?  Were they ever likely to come back and say that they exceeded budget and schedule, just prior to the election?


----------



## Julia (18 August 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Look don't get me wrong. I am all for the technology. Great that they can diagnose medical conditions from 3000kms away etc.



I have considerable doubts about this.  A proper diagnosis should include a physical examination.  How can a specialist looking at a screen feel the texture and size of an internal organ e.g.?


sails said:


> You are right, I didn't see it - my apologies.
> 
> Sometimes I find it's possible to miss the occasional post in a thread of interest due to using the "new post" link.  If a new post is posted a few seconds before logging off, it doesn't show up in the "new posts" next time.
> 
> Other than that, I'm not sure how I missed it!



Sails, I've found using the "Quick Links" heading, then "Today's Posts", means you see all the posts during the previous 24 hours.  I've also missed posts when using the "New Posts" link.  (With thanks to Professor Frink for this advice.)


----------



## moXJO (18 August 2010)

Julia said:


> How can a specialist looking at a screen feel the texture and size of an internal organ e.g.?




True, millions of internet nerds have been trying to do it for years to no avail


----------



## boofhead (18 August 2010)

NBN Co has been working with the hardware companies and also the deploment and wholesaling companies like Opticomm. Companies that have experience deploying fibre in new estates etc. in Australia already.

As for governments not running companies well - some experience suggests government run integrated electricity companies are more consumer friendly, reliable and responsive that privatised companies. Everything has a cost.


----------



## overhang (18 August 2010)

bellenuit said:


> Yes, but who set the budget and the schedule for the Tasmanian test phase?  Were they ever likely to come back and say that they exceeded budget and schedule, just prior to the election?



   Yes good point and I would assume if it was over budget it would be swept under the carpet.  I don't trust the government but I have no reason to question Mike Quigley CEO of NBN Co, he is even donating his 2 million dollar salary to charity so clearly he doesn't need this job.  He is renowned in the IT sector and I don't believe he would jeopardize his reputation for political influence.  The Tasmanian roll out occurred prior to the agreement  with Telstra which possibly will decrease the costs even further, it was supposedly 10% under budget.


----------



## Calliope (19 August 2010)

overhang said:


> I don't trust the government but I have no reason to question Mike Quigley CEO of NBN Co, he is even donating his 2 million dollar salary to charity so clearly he doesn't need this job.  He is renowned in the IT sector and I don't believe he would jeopardize his reputation for political influence.




OH yeah? Who said so...Gillard or Conroy? Read the link for more on the unbiased  Quigley



> The chief executive of the NBN just happens to make an announcement that favours the government Delimiter.com.au reports yesterday:
> 
> NBN Co chief executive Mike Quigley has delivered a stinging attack on the Coalition's broadband policy, publicly backing Labor's rival National Broadband Network project just days before the federal election due on Saturday.






> Moi? Political? ABC News reports Quigley on August 12:
> 
> THE head of the NBN has rejected suggestions he timed a major announcement about faster download speeds to have maximum impact on the federal election.
> 
> "We made this decision to go to 1 gigabits . . . after some considerable study we decided, 'What do we do? We sit on it because there's an election on?' . . . I decided the right thing to do was to announce it."






> ChannelNews.com.au reports on August 12:
> IN what has to be a federal election stunt, NBN Co boss Mike Quigley suddenly announced yesterday that the new NBN network will be capable of operating at speeds of 1Gbps, a service which Telstra CEO David Thodey said was fast but will have little appeal with consumers due primarily to the cost of such speeds.
> 
> Thodey said: "We already have a 1Gbps service for business, however I see little demand for it in the home".




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...gh-into-election/story-e6frg6zo-1225907032340


----------



## derty (19 August 2010)

From the US, though it puts need of Fibre To The Home in perspective.

And with 8 years to roll out the NBN it's is really something that needs to be implemented before it becomes a necessity.


----------



## bellenuit (19 August 2010)

overhang said:


> Maybe because the Tasmanian test phase was completed under budget and on time and maybe because they have many experts in the IT field in charge of the program, not some former rock band singer.




Just another point on the Tasmanian rollout being on time and on budget.

According to an article in today's The Australian, the NBN has been rolled out to just 70 homes in Tasmania.

I believe the roll out rate to meet their targets over the next few years is about 4,000 installations a day. 

That figure seems plausible. 4,000 by 250 working days is 1M homes per year. That means 8 years to reach 8M households. I don't know what the actual targets are, but I would assume they are in the 8 to 10 year ballpark for rollout to 90%+ of homes.

IMO, there is a vast difference between installing to 70 households in a test phase over how many weeks (?) when you have the skilled personnel available and rolling out 4,000 per day.


----------



## Happy (19 August 2010)

Few prices were bumped around on 2GB talk back radio today:
50 MBps $50
100MBps $80
200MBps $120 or was it $130

Biggest problem is that no house is built to accommodate fibre yet and to fit new one built tomorrow would cost $2,000 to $3,5000 depending on what future owner wants.

To retro-fit existing house might be anything from cost comparable to what fitting new dwelling would be to expensive nightmare.

One last bit which has to be priced in is connection between box in a street and the house.

As they mentioned it might be too expensive to fit, might be too expensive to run and might not be needed by some too.
After all not everybody alive today and in few years time sees the need for Internet.


----------



## bellenuit (19 August 2010)

Happy said:


> Few prices were bumped around on 2GB talk back radio today:
> 50 MBps $50
> 100MBps $80
> 200MBps $120 or was it $130
> ...




And if you also want access via wireless for internet on the move, do you also have to pay for a wireless plan on top of the NBN plan?


----------



## Happy (19 August 2010)

bellenuit said:


> ...
> do you also have to pay for a wireless plan on top of the NBN plan?





Anybody's guess, might be bundled together, might be not.


----------



## Calliope (19 August 2010)

Gillard never opens her mouth about her NBN without throwing in the benefits for health and education. But for whom? Those who can afford to pay the price.



> *Now we're told a structurally separated, pro-competitive NBN will deliver the health and education services needed by all Australians.
> 
> This puts equity at risk, undermining a core ALP value. As a recent Australian Bureau of Statistics report shows, one million low-income households don't have any form of internet access; not even a $10 a month dial-up connection, let alone broadband. Thirty per cent of these households don't have a computer, yet their access to government services will demand high-speed broadband and a computer. If they can't pay for internet access now, how will they pay for a gold-plated NBN service?*




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...g-true-believers/story-e6frgd0x-1225907038763


----------



## drsmith (19 August 2010)

Happy said:


> Few prices were bumped around on 2GB talk back radio today:
> 50 MBps $50
> 100MBps $80
> 200MBps $120 or was it $130
> ...



From post #179

Iinet's NBN5 (down/up speed: 50/4 Mbps), (peak + offpeak quota: 50GB + 50GB) is $100pm. To use the line for voice calls, iiTalkpack is also required ($10pm). Total cost $110pm.

The equivilent naked ADSL2+ plan in terms of quota (Naked Home 3) is $70pm and includes iiTalk. 

Their top speed NBN plans (down/up speed: 100/8 Mbps) start at $130pm.


----------



## IFocus (19 August 2010)

A bit left field here but would anyone here have supported building the Sydney opera House in 1957.

Building started in 1959 finished 1973

Original estimate $7mil final cost $102 mil

Was it worth it?


----------



## derty (19 August 2010)

I imagine all you glass half-empty guys would have been squealing 60 years ago when the copper was being laid out that it was a waste of money and would end up being a white elephant. You've spent all you efforts telling us why it is such a bad idea, do any of you see any positives to the initiative? 

Here is a nice little graph showing the increase in internet traffic since 1994 and the predicted growth in the next couple of years (PB = Petabyte = 1 million gigabytes or 1,000,000,000,000,000bytes). Any idea how we will be a part of this growth without an NBN or equivalent?


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 August 2010)

bellenuit said:


> Just another point on the Tasmanian rollout being on time and on budget.
> 
> According to an article in today's The Australian, the NBN has been rolled out to just 70 homes in Tasmania.



A bit of background on the Tasmanian roll-out:

Started by state-owned Aurora Energy (electricity distributor and retailer) as a means of connecting its own substations to a reliable communications network for purposes relating directly to electricity distribution.

Then it spread to the broader large sites market (government and corporate), still under Aurora's control and ownership.

Then along came the NBN and connections to households etc.

What must be understood, is that any reference to costs, timeframes etc relates to a project conceived and implemented by a state-owned electricity company which isn't exactly flush with cash right now. Of course they've done it as cheap as they can, something I can confirm. 

To compare what Aurora has done in Tasmania versus what might be done on a larger scale within the state or nationally is very much comparing apples and oranges.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 August 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> We need a smart electricity grid...and before we can spend the money on the smart grid you need a information delivery system...say something like a national (light speed) fibre optic network to enable the upgrade of the national electricity grid to a smart grid.



I've yet to meet anyone who, when they understand exactly what all this "smart grid" stuff entails, is overly keen on it.

Yes it's wonderful for the electricity generation industry if it can decide when you will cook dinner, whether or not you can do the washing or have the heater on right now and so on. A great way of lowering capital investment requirements that's for sure.

But I have a feeling that your average family won't be so keen once they realise that they no longer have a 99.95% reliable electricity supply to do as they please with and that control has been centralised.

If I want the heating on when it's 5 degrees outside then that's what I want - heating. I sure don't want someone at AEMO deciding that I'll be happy shivering until after 8pm when demand has dropped.

Oh for the days when electricity companies saw it as a great embarassment if they couldn't meet consumers expectations in full on the coldest day of Winter and the hottest day of Summer. 

We need a new communications network because the copper lines have been almost totally neglected and are in a terrible state. In that context the NBN is effectively a Telstra bailout. Soon we'll need a new power grid too once that's been wrecked through turning the supply of power into little more than the casino which it is today. Just like competing companies messed it up before, leading to the creation of the various state electricity authorities to fix it. Just like my taxes have bailed out bankers who couldn't bank and railway companies that couldn't maintain trains.

Put a few engineers in charge of infrastructure and kick out these clowns who want to turn everything into a casino. Then we might get reliable water, communications, transport, power etc that we can actually afford to use. It worked fine that way not too long ago...

PS Just a thought, but what happens to all the asbestos associated with the old copper network when it is abandoned? Do my taxes pay for cleaning that up too? There's huge amounts of it all over the place from inner city to the bush.


----------



## trainspotter (19 August 2010)

Go and read Calliopes post #273 .... It's a corker !! 1 million people do not even have internet. How are they going to afford it? Must be some Guvmint thingyamijiggy I don't now about yet as a _TAXPAYER._ What about the hospitals and schools that already have high speed internet. What about most of Melbourne that has Telstra Foxtel that can already deliver 100 mbps to satisfy the proleteriat.

Whoopeeee we all have internet ..... at blindingly fast speeds. WHAT FRIGGING good is it to me when my hospital doesn't have nurses or doctors. What good is this shiny blue cable going to help Policemen attend to a domestic dispute because they are busy at a traffic accident. How is it going to get more teachers that have the *brains* to teach my kids? Will it FIX roads? Will it fix the rundown electricity grid? Will it fix the dams for our water? Will it give my council more money to pay for books in the local library? HUH "" NO ... I MEAN HUH?

Do you even understand the consequences you guys are talking about? 

WOW ........ I got this great new bit of cable that connects me to the internet so I can wait for a policeman whilst my home gets broken into. So I can sit in the emergency centre at the hospital while I wait for a doctor. So my kids can sit in front of a screen rather than have human interaction.

GEORGE ORWELL ....... eat your freakin heart out. You are creating an US and THEM society all over again. 

"I have NBN connected to my home" says the higher socio economic white trash.

"I can't afford a computer nor the monthly cost of NBN" says the truly deserved person of such technology.

GEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZUUUUUUUUUUZ KEEEEEEEEEERRRHIIIIIIST !!


----------



## boofhead (19 August 2010)

trainspotter: Are you saying NBN is only going ahead because they don't want to do any extra than they are doing to health? Surely the government is spending money in many areas, some that is not to the best value or suitable.


----------



## trainspotter (19 August 2010)

boofhead said:


> trainspotter: Are you saying NBN is only going ahead because they don't want to do any extra than they are doing to health? Surely the government is spending money in many areas, some that is not to the best value or suitable.




Not saying that at all boofhead. I have agreed that we need the NBN several times. I am saying we need to get our **** sorted first BEFORE we embark on another windmill charging expensive bauble.

The Govt has agreed to spend money in lots of areas YES. NO I have not seen ONE bit of improvement.

Wait a minute ... is this an election bribe? Ohhhhhhhh the irony.


----------



## sails (20 August 2010)

As I've said before, I'm not against the concept of NBN, just have concerns at the ability of government to handle such a major infrastructure with a huge price tag and the eventual cost to home owners.  Billions seem to roll off the tongue these days as easily as millions.

An article from the Australian - "Homes to pay heavy price for internet from NBN":



> "HOME owners face a heavy slug to distribute the ultra-fast internet access promised by Labor's National Broadband Network around the house.
> 
> Projections for the take-up of the government's $43 billion NBN could prove optimistic once households realise they face costs of up to $3000 to fully exploit the potential of the super-fast internet..."
> 
> ...




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...nternet-from-nbn/story-fn59niix-1225907517167


----------



## Calliope (20 August 2010)

sails said:


> As I've said before, I'm not against the concept of NBN, just have concerns at the ability of government to handle such a major infrastructure with a huge price tag and the eventual cost to home owners.  Billions seem to roll off the tongue these days as easily as millions.




It's the word "fast" that sucks everybody in. If you offered me a Ferrari, it would be a waste of money. My Hyundai suits me admirably. I live in a regional area and my ADSL2+ speeds are not flash but they would suit 90% of householders very well. With a download quota of 50gb, the cost is quite affordable.

And as you may have noticed at the supermarket the fast lane doesn't always guarantee you a fast service.


----------



## overhang (20 August 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Not saying that at all boofhead. I have agreed that we need the NBN several times. I am saying we need to get our **** sorted first BEFORE we embark on another windmill charging expensive bauble.
> 
> The Govt has agreed to spend money in lots of areas YES. NO I have not seen ONE bit of improvement.
> 
> Wait a minute ... is this an election bribe? Ohhhhhhhh the irony.




And what is a sufficient amount of nurses etc?  We always need more, there will never be an appropriate time for this, we could have a policeman on every corner and it still wouldn't be enough.  We are spending 57 billion on health next year alone, if we added the 43 billion from the NBN over 8 years to health care it would increase the funding by under 10%.  ADSL2 is all we need now but it wont be in 8 years time which is why we must invest in this now and not in 8 years time.


----------



## tayser (20 August 2010)

A taste of things to come:

http://www.iinet.net.au/press/releases/20100818-iinet-age-of-terabyte-arrives.pdf

*"iiNet launches the Age of the Terabyte"*

$99 for 1TB (500G/500G peak/off peak) over their ADSL2+ network currently.  But more importantly, same price and you'll get 100Mbit/8mbit over fibre on the NBN.

Hello Hello Dot Com Dot Au.

TPG and Primus quickly countered, all this and only 70 people have been connected to fibre - in 5 years time 100mbit/8mbit with 3-5TB of data will probably be the norm in the $50 pcm range.

Bring it.


----------



## drsmith (20 August 2010)

Those numbers are not quiet as rosy as they appear.

With those plans, iinet has moved to metering both uploads and downloads.

The shaping is more generous though if you do bust the monthly quota bank.


----------



## boofhead (20 August 2010)

iinet has had a number of plans that meter uploads for well over one year so that isn't new.

As for only 70 people connected - only 70 people connect to the current network controlled by NBN. There are other fibre establishments - maybe that is what people should look at for pricing as that is all commercial development.

July 2011 is when the ACCC is supposed to have their bit to say about pricing.

While NBN is government owned it isn't directly a government department running it. It actually has proper IT and management.

It reaffirms that scare makes a bigger impact.


----------



## trainspotter (20 August 2010)

overhang said:


> And what is a sufficient amount of nurses etc?  We always need more, there will never be an appropriate time for this, we could have a policeman on every corner and it still wouldn't be enough.  We are spending 57 billion on health next year alone, if we added the 43 billion from the NBN over 8 years to health care it would increase the funding by under 10%.  ADSL2 is all we need now but it wont be in 8 years time which is why we must invest in this now and not in 8 years time.




So if the amount of money spent is 57 billion on health and we still can't get it right please explain what a shiny bit of cable is going to do? Get results quicker to non existent people who are not there to do what again? 

I AM ALL FOR THE NBN .. Last time I am going to write this BTW ... If we are spending 57 billion on health and we still cant get it right but one of the reasons we need the NBN is to make it easier to have nurses in remote areas to help doctors diagnose diseases.

NOW DO YOU SEE WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING ?

What freaking nurses? we are spending 57 billion (your words not mine) and we still cannot improve our health services. So when is the right time?

Man oh man I must be stoopid to not be able to grasp this concept.

A shiny bit of cable will help this ? HUH ?


----------



## trainspotter (20 August 2010)

OK OK OK OK .... I was having this very same discussion with one of my deckhands and he was all for the NBN. I said "Sure ... what a great idea, I'll tell you what I will do. I will replace the Furuno radar on the boat with a Navitron X digital so we can pickup ships over the horizon." Should only cost me about 70k to replace. This is the whole budget to run my boat for a whole year. So great we have the best technology known to man.

Not much good to me now that I cannot afford to take the boat out as I have neglected to spend money servicing the motor to make the boat go and run the genset that makes electricity to fire up the whizz bang radar.

Yippeeeeeeeeeee ! This is why he is the deckhand.


----------



## overhang (21 August 2010)

trainspotter said:


> So if the amount of money spent is 57 billion on health and we still can't get it right please explain what a shiny bit of cable is going to do? Get results quicker to non existent people who are not there to do what again?
> 
> I AM ALL FOR THE NBN .. Last time I am going to write this BTW ... If we are spending 57 billion on health and we still cant get it right but one of the reasons we need the NBN is to make it easier to have nurses in remote areas to help doctors diagnose diseases.
> 
> ...




And I want to know when will it be right?  When will you ever be happy with the health care? We could spend 1 trillion and people still would complain about insufficient nurses.  Now how about if every 2 nurses that fill out paper work for every one nurse that does the rounds actually did some hands on work we would probably see an improvement in health care instead of everyone screaming for additional funding.  And to answer your question E-health is a crock of crap that is just a smoke screen so conservatives can see a benefit now and not in 8 years time.  If you want to fix health care how about actually promoting preventative health care, tax fast food and subsidize gym memberships but why do that we can just pump billions more dollars to get the obese through doors.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (21 August 2010)

Is it true that it will cost between $3000 and $5000 to get it from yer gate, to your living room?

What a bloody con, if it is.

gg


----------



## Calliope (21 August 2010)

boofhead said:


> While NBN is government owned it isn't directly a government department running it. It actually has proper IT and management.




That idiot Conroy runs it and he is the chief censor.


----------



## derty (21 August 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Is it true that it will cost between $3000 and $5000 to get it from yer gate, to your living room?
> 
> What a bloody con, if it is.
> 
> gg



That is probably if you set up a home network and wire up every single room in the house to have a connection. I cannot see how running a cable to one or two outlets in your house is going to cost $3000-$5000. Getting a new phone line installed is only a few hundred dollars.

Just more scare tactics I think gg.


----------



## So_Cynical (21 August 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Is it true that it will cost between $3000 and $5000 to get it from yer gate, to your living room?
> 
> What a bloody con, if it is.
> 
> gg




That's so silly is almost a 'push polling' type post...when you post rubbish like that, without any substance to back it up, it really makes you look like a liberal stooge.


----------



## sails (21 August 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> That's so silly is almost a 'push polling' type post...when you post rubbish like that, without any substance to back it up, it really makes you look like a liberal stooge.




Sorry Cynical, but this country had to put up with much worse rubbish yesterday with a certain female voice droning on and scare mongering about work choices.  She should know that changes to work choices would have to get past the senate and that's a near impossibility.  No substance, IMO.

How can you trust this government to know what it's doing with NBN when
(a) it's track record at managing anything is dismal
(b) it lowers itself to scaremongering on something that is obvious won't happen - especially this Monday...


----------



## Julia (21 August 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Is it true that it will cost between $3000 and $5000 to get it from yer gate, to your living room?
> 
> What a bloody con, if it is.
> 
> gg






So_Cynical said:


> That's so silly is almost a 'push polling' type post...when you post rubbish like that, without any substance to back it up, it really makes you look like a liberal stooge.



That's just unreasonable, So Cynical.  I read the same thing in "The Weekend Australian".  gg is not just making it up, as you seem to be suggesting.
The quote comes from the CEO of The National Electrical and Communications Association.

No wonder the government has been so reluctant to talk costs to consumers.


----------



## Calliope (21 August 2010)

Julia said:


> That's just unreasonable, So Cynical.  I read the same thing in "The Weekend Australian".  gg is not just making it up, as you seem to be suggesting.
> The quote comes from the CEO of The National Electrical and Communications Association.
> 
> No wonder the government has been so reluctant to talk costs to consumers.




Yes Julia, I have just read it. Is it pink bats all over again?



> The National Electrical and Communications Association confirmed it was likely residents and some businesses would have to pay if they needed new wiring and outlets to take full advantage of the NBN.
> 
> Association chief executive James Tinslay said that once the NBN had installed fibre-optic cables, residents would still need to equip their homes with new cables and devices.
> 
> ...



(My bolds)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ds-an-extra-3000/story-fn59niix-1225908005122


----------



## So_Cynical (21 August 2010)

sails said:


> Sorry Cynical, but this country had to put up with much worse rubbish yesterday with a certain female voice droning on and scare mongering about work choices.  She should know that changes to work choices would have to get past the senate and that's a near impossibility.  No substance, IMO.
> 
> How can you trust this government to know what it's doing with NBN when
> (a) it's track record at managing anything is dismal
> (b) it lowers itself to scaremongering on something that is obvious won't happen - especially this Monday...




The thing is with work (no) choices, we all know that's what they really want, the shadow IR guy said so on Lateline last week..just added that they would seek a mandate at some time in the future to do it.

The green dominated (post election) Senate wont pass it, that's true..but it don't change the fact that IR reform is at the core of Liberal/National thinking.

Its a bit like saying that some crazy guy wont hurt you as long as he's on his medication...or this aircraft is perfectly safe to fly in due to all the back up safety systems, aircrew training and advanced technology...however we all know crazy guys can still kill you and aircraft fall outa the sky all the time.


----------



## overhang (21 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> Yes Julia, I have just read it. Is it pink bats all over again?
> 
> 
> (My bolds)
> ...




Absolute scaremongering at its best, the article tries to imply that it will be a prerequisite to connecting to the NBN.  For most users an existing wireless N router that achieves speeds of 50-90 mbps will be sufficient.  The NTU that the NBN provide emulates ADSL so you can still use your same setup until you feel the need to upgrade.


----------



## Calliope (21 August 2010)

overhang said:


> Absolute scaremongering at its best.




I seem to remember Gillard and Rudd saying similar things about home insulation and the BER.


----------



## IFocus (21 August 2010)

overhang said:


> Absolute scaremongering at its best, the article tries to imply that it will be a prerequisite to connecting to the NBN.  For most users an existing wireless N router that achieves speeds of 50-90 mbps will be sufficient.  The NTU that the NBN provide emulates ADSL so you can still use your same setup until you feel the need to upgrade.





Agree the claim is bizarre and extraordinary as once NBN is connected to the location options on distribution is endless depending on the needs the problem is most punters are not tech savvy and believe this rubbish


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (21 August 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Is it true that it will cost between $3000 and $5000 to get it from yer gate, to your living room?
> 
> What a bloody con, if it is.
> 
> gg






So_Cynical said:


> That's so silly is almost a 'push polling' type post...when you post rubbish like that, without any substance to back it up, it really makes you look like a liberal stooge.




Actually SC, I got it in pillow talk from a lady last night who works for the NBN. 

As I am a gentleman, I am unable to provide absolute proof, but I believe, as Julia has said, it is now in the Press.

You are a rotter, as a former Foreign Minister would say, and for the record I am an Australian first, then an Anarchist and Political Opportunist.

I support no party, just good politics with a smattering of graft, double dealing and mayhem. 

My friendships range from the NSW Right, through the Liberals to the National Party and there are many good folk in all parties. I have never met a Green.

If I hadn't promised Joe that I would be good today I'd ask you outside to settle this once and for all with some bare knuckle persuasion.

gg


----------



## overhang (21 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> I seem to remember Gillard and Rudd saying similar things about home insulation and the BER.




Labor could tell you black is black and you'd still argue otherwise, judge the policy not the party and stop treating the coalition like there your football team.


----------



## overhang (21 August 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Actually SC, I got it in pillow talk from a lady last night who works for the NBN.
> 
> As I am a gentleman, I am unable to provide absolute proof, but I believe, as Julia has said, it is now in the Press.
> 
> ...




The janitor doesn't count gg


----------



## bellenuit (21 August 2010)

overhang said:


> Absolute scaremongering at its best, the article tries to imply that it will be *a prerequisite to connecting to the NBN*.  For most users an existing wireless N router that achieves speeds of 50-90 mbps will be sufficient.  The NTU that the NBN provide emulates ADSL so you can still use your same setup until you feel the need to upgrade.




Actually, the article doesn't imply that at all, if this is the one you are referring to:



> The National Electrical and Communications Association confirmed it was likely residents and some businesses would have to pay if they needed new wiring and outlets *to take full advantage of the NBN*.
> 
> Association chief executive James Tinslay said that once the NBN had installed fibre-optic cables, residents would still need to equip their homes with new cables and devices.
> 
> "Residents will need to consider what technology they wish to embrace when the NBN reaches their front gate, and it is very likely that many households will need to be retrofitted with new cables, wiring and outlets *to access new services*."




If you are talking about new services like HD internet TV, then your existing home wireless network simply won't cut it. How many homes have wireless N routers? I am building some townhouses and have been looking at what is required to make them Foxtel and NBN ready.  For the latter I am using the instructions from Telstra for its fibre rollout (called Telstra Velocity) to greenfields estates, as I haven't seen any wiring guidelines from NBN. The recommendation is that you run at least two Cat 5e (or better) ethernet cables from a central hub in the house to each room that needs access. Foxtel suggests two Cat 5e and 2 coax to each room, Velocity suggests 2 Cat5e and 1 Coax to each room, but 2 coax to the "entertainment centre". 

This is a link to the Telstra Velocity document.

http://www.telstra.com.au/smartcommunity/assets/cableentryforvelocity_0509.pdf

I think it highly dishonest of Labor not to discuss some of the other costs involved with the rollout. As I mentioned in a previous post, you have to look at the complete end to end solution, not just the network in between, when they start touting the services that will be available. Although Wireless N routers will simplify wiring for many customers, it may not support all of the services suggested (after all they have recently touting speeds of 1Gb/sec), and it does come at some cost. Not everyone is capable of setting up a wireless network without some assistance.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (21 August 2010)

overhang said:


> The janitor doesn't count gg




They do if they earn $180,000 pa.

gg


----------



## So_Cynical (21 August 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Actually SC, I got it in pillow talk from a lady last night who works for the NBN.
> 
> As I am a gentleman,blah blah blah
> 
> gg




You posted a deliberate mis truth in order to further your right wing agenda, anyone with a basic understanding of English and networking could understand form the article that the 3K figure is a crock of ****....but instead of looking into it and giving some sort of realistic commentary you came here and posted with the intention of spreading fear and misinformation.

That's a cheap low act.


----------



## trainspotter (21 August 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> You posted a deliberate mis truth in order to further your right wing agenda, anyone with a basic understanding of English and networking could understand form the article that the 3K figure is a crock of ****....but instead of looking into it and giving some sort of realistic commentary you came here and posted with the intention of spreading fear and misinformation.
> 
> That's a cheap low act.




Got a link to the article So_Cyclical? I haven't read it yet.


----------



## So_Cynical (21 August 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Got a link to the article So_Cyclical? I haven't read it yet.




lol sure you haven't...you should of got a link in your inbox, same as calliope...probably in your election spin folder.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ds-an-extra-3000/story-fn59niix-1225908005122

----------------------------------------------------

A major Aussie ISP has connected its first School to the NBN.



			
				Internode said:
			
		

> Internode has connected its first school, Circular Head Christian School, to Tasmania's NBN Stage One program with a 100 megabit-per-second fibre-optic broadband service.Since Internode connected it to the NBN last month, the evangelical Christian school at Smithton has seen massive increases in its Internet access speeds. This improved performance opens up the potential for students to use videoconferencing as well as the introduction of "virtual classroom" technology.




http://www.internode.on.net/news/2010/08/192.php


----------



## Julia (21 August 2010)

overhang said:


> Absolute scaremongering at its best, the article tries to imply that it will be a prerequisite to connecting to the NBN.  For most users an existing wireless N router that achieves speeds of 50-90 mbps will be sufficient.  The NTU that the NBN provide emulates ADSL so you can still use your same setup until you feel the need to upgrade.






IFocus said:


> Agree the claim is bizarre and extraordinary as once NBN is connected to the location options on distribution is endless depending on the needs the problem is most punters are not tech savvy and believe this rubbish






So_Cynical said:


> You posted a deliberate mis truth in order to further your right wing agenda, anyone with a basic understanding of English and networking could understand form the article that the 3K figure is a crock of ****....but instead of looking into it and giving some sort of realistic commentary you came here and posted with the intention of spreading fear and misinformation.
> 
> That's a cheap low act.



Really?   Those of us who have mentioned the $3000 figure have done so from a direct quote from the CEO of the National Electronics and Communications Association.
So you are actually accusing not just us, but this person of all of the above.

Perhaps you can explain why the CEO of such an organisation would do this?

It's way out of line for you, So Cynical, to be accusing gg of deliberately posting a mistruth.   
You are so besotted with your beloved Labor Party that you have zero capacity to be objective, even to the point of realistically considering a statement from what would seem absolutely to be a disinterested party.


----------



## So_Cynical (21 August 2010)

Julia said:


> Really?   Those of us who have mentioned the $3000 figure have done so from a direct quote from the CEO of the National Electronics and Communications Association.
> So you are actually accusing not just us, but this person of all of the above.
> 
> Perhaps you can explain why the CEO of such an organisation would do this?
> ...




To be truly objective you have to be honest..now the 3k figure comes from an industry nutter, as it could only be arrived at by actually re-wiring/wiring the entire house, as in fibre to every room...since the vast majority of homes have 1 phone line and perhaps 1 extension, the 3 K is a bullsh!t figure arrived at for what could only be political or personal reasons.

How many phone lines do you have Julia?...do you need fibre to every room? or would you prefer a more realistic wireless router/switch at the end of your fibre connection to your home....since the vast majority of homes would settle for a wireless router/switch with VOIP, cost today of less than $400.

-------------------------------------

GG's post was quiet deliberate in its lack of information and implication...NBN = $3000 out of your pocket...and that's a total un-truth, and he knew that when he posted it, he's not an idiot he's a Liberal!...what's needed here from a few more members is a little more objectivity and alot more realism.


----------



## trainspotter (21 August 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> lol sure you haven't...you should of got a link in your inbox, same as calliope...probably in your election spin folder.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ds-an-extra-3000/story-fn59niix-1225908005122
> 
> ...




Thanks So_Cyclical ... I read this from the link you provided.

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

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

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

and this also ...

Mr Fletcher said if customers did not upgrade their home wiring they could use wireless technology to connect all the rooms to the network. But he said that *would not deliver high-speed internet*, video and telemedical services simultaneously to multiple devices throughout the home.

Sounds a bit like the Pink Batt fiasco all over again to me. Don't care about Libs or Labs on this one So_Cyclical. Care more about the uneccesary cost to the country.

But but but you reckon for $400 I can get a wireless service that will do ALL OF this.

Hmmmmm .... your story is starting to unravel there old chap.


----------



## So_Cynical (21 August 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Thanks So_Cyclical ... I read this from the link you provided.
> 
> Mr Tinslay said a standard retrofit *could cost up to $3000*.
> 
> ...




Tranny your story is in utter tatters, and is dependent on scare tactics, apathy and mis information.

I installed Foxtel satellite for 2 years and worked with lots of guys who used to do cable (seriously considering a return to the industry to take advantage of the NBN money)....situation is this, cost to get fibre from the pole out the front of your house to the front of your house (basic install, standard house) in real terms is about $300>$400, in reality its free because the service providers cant sell you anything if your not connected, so will connect you for nothing on a 2 year contract....as happens with Foxtel, NBN and ADSL2 NOW.

The NBN is going to replace the Telstra copper network over time, its a infrastructure monopoly providing wholesale telephony and internet to the masses....what don't you people understand about this?

As for training..and i know this will come as a bit of a shock but, when i did satellite (2000 > 2002) nothing was required, you just had to have a the balls to do it..Austar used to require a 'cable pulling' ticket of some kind, but in reality its a joke.

Fact is you put 10000 people on 100000 roofs and a certain percentage will fall off...same as 10000 people into 100000 roofs doing insulation installation, a certain percentage will get electrocuted /die of heat exhaustion etc, training will reduce the losses but wont stop them...you cant force people not to be stupid.

------------------

BoBTM will do everything fibre related for under $400 http://www.iinet.net.au/fibre/what-do-i-need.html


----------



## trainspotter (21 August 2010)

Not my story So_Cyclical ... taken from your link to The Australian article.

Like I have said previoulsy ... I WANT THE NBN .... but not YET. Put forward a business plan and some finite costings based on actual outcome based solutions and NOT a shiny bauble for the people to goo and gaa over.

Let's fix what we have first, like constant generation of electricity without blackout and power spikes blowing up my HD TV's for crying out loud. Fix the pot holes in the streets and give me a decent road system first. blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda fill in the blanks.

THEN give me a NBN on a fully costed basis with a specific roll out plan to the densley populated areas that need it. Not that hard really. 

STOP all the bovine excreta about "It's gonna cost $3,000 to install into my home" ... Julia Gillard was asked this question and she deflected it like a Shao Lin monk deflects a flying knee kick. 

GIVE ME SOME FACTS ... not just build it and they will connect to it !!

_As for training..and i know this will come as a bit of a shock but, when i did satellite (2000 > 2002) nothing was required, you just had to have a the balls to do it..Austar used to require a 'cable pulling' ticket of some kind, but in reality its a joke._

This just scares me as it sounds EXACTLY like what happened with the insulation installation programme. DOH !


----------



## bellenuit (22 August 2010)

The NBN could very well be the deciding factor on who gets to form government. It seems all the independents like the NBN plan, because of the way it targets rural Australia.


----------



## Calliope (22 August 2010)

bellenuit said:


> The NBN could very well be the deciding factor on who gets to form government. It seems all the independents like the NBN plan, because of the way it targets rural Australia.




Yes the NBN is popular with the three ex-National Party independents. This and their hatred of Barnaby Joyce and Warren Truss may tip them towards Gillard.

In a way this wouldn't be a bad thing. With Labor in power and the NBN going belly up like all Labor's wasteful programs, they will have to share the fall-out.


----------



## So_Cynical (22 August 2010)

bellenuit said:


> The NBN could very well be the deciding factor on who gets to form government. It seems all the independents like the NBN plan, because of the way it targets rural Australia.




Agree...i think what ever happens the NBN is safe as its just so rural and Tasmanian friendly, the greens and all the independents want it, apparently it was a big factor in Tasmanian voting trends.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (22 August 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Agree...i think what ever happens the NBN is safe as its just so rural and Tasmanian friendly, the greens and all the independents want it, apparently it was a big factor in Tasmanian voting trends.




I agree SC.

As long as us folk in rural areas get paid the $3000-$5000 it will cost to get from the road through the paddock, up the wooden steps and in to the living room.

Thank god we'll have the Rural Independents in, to ensure we get that.

Fat chance of Labor ever putting their hands in their pockets for people in the bush.

gg


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 August 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Agree...i think what ever happens the NBN is safe as its just so rural and Tasmanian friendly, the greens and all the independents want it, apparently it was a big factor in Tasmanian voting trends.



Worth noting in that context that the Tasmanian state Liberal leader, Will Hodgman, doesn't appear to share the party's view against the NBN.


----------



## Solly (22 August 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I agree SC.
> 
> As long as us folk in rural areas get paid the $3000-$5000 it will cost to get from the road through the paddock, up the wooden steps and in to the living room.
> 
> ...





gg, the NBN will connect to the premises via an Optical Network Termination (ONT) in the house, which is spliced through to a nearby Fibre Distribution Hub (FDH), which connects through to a local aggregated Fibre Access Node (*FAN*) then on to the backhaul. 

Also in Brisneyland the City Council are deploying some private fibre in the sewers as described here.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/technology/brisbane-city-council-plan-to-install-broadband-cable-through-sewers/story-e6frep1o-1225887277019

Maybe this same delivery methodology could be implemented to haul the NBN fibre up your way ?

My only concern is knowing the way government plan, implement and deliver things, I can see real potential for the **** to really hit the FAN..:


----------



## IFocus (22 August 2010)

bellenuit said:


> The NBN could very well be the deciding factor on who gets to form government. It seems all the independents like the NBN plan, because of the way it targets rural Australia.




Now we get to possibly see scripted and non scripted or core and non core promises as Abbott may have to connect north QLD to NBN to win the day.


----------



## Solly (23 August 2010)

Here's an interesting article by Lucy Battersby in The Age 

Politics puts NBN and Telstra in limbo

Looks like all 3 independents are among the first to have the NBN rolled out in their electorates.


----------



## noie (23 August 2010)

Solly said:


> gg, the NBN will connect to the premises via an Optical Network Termination (ONT) in the house, which is spliced through to a nearby Fibre Distribution Hub (FDH), which connects through to a local aggregated Fibre Access Node (*FAN*) then on to the backhaul.
> 
> Also in Brisneyland the City Council are deploying some private fibre in the sewers as described here.
> 
> ...




Im interested in who is going to supply all this fibre, and who is going to move it all over the country


----------



## trainspotter (16 September 2010)

noie said:


> Im interested in who is going to supply all this fibre, and who is going to move it all over the country





Here are the technical reasons NBN will fail :

1) fibre optic cable has a maximum theoretical lifespan of 25 years when installed in conduit.  Over time, the glass actually degrades (long story), and eventually it cant do it's bouncing of light thing any more.  But when you install fibre outside on overhead wiring (as will be done for much of Australia’s houses, except newer suburbs with underground wiring), then the fibre degrades much quicker due to wind, temperature variation and solar/cosmic radiation.  The glass in this case will last no more than 15 years. So after 15 years, you will have to replace it.  Whereas the copper network will last for many decades to come.  Fibre is not the best technology for the last mile.  That's why no other country has done this. 

2) you cannot give every house 100Mbps.  If you give several million households 100Mbps bandwidth, then you have exceeded the entire bandwidth of the whole internet.  In reality, there is a thing called contention.  Today, every ADSL service with 20Mbps has a contention ratio of around 20:1 (or more for some carriers).  That means, you share that 20Mbps with 20 other people.  It's a long story why, but there will NEVER be the case of people getting 100Mbps of actual bandwidth.  Not for several decades at current carrier equipment rates of evolution.  The “Core” cannot and will not be able to handle that sort of bandwidth.  The 100Mbps or 1Gbps is only the speed from your house to the exchange.  From there to the Internet, you will get the same speeds you get now.  The “Core” of Australia’s network is already fibre (many times over).  And even so, we still have high contention ratios.  Providing fibre to the home just means those contention ratios go up.  You will not get better download speeds.

3) new DSL technologies will emerge.  15 years ago we had 56k dial-up.  Then 12 years ago we got 256k ADSL, then 8 years ago 1.5Mbps ADSL2, then 5 years ago 20Mbps ADSL2+.  There are already new DSL technologies being experimented on that will deliver over 50Mbps on the same copper we have now.  $zero cost to the tax payer 

4) 4G wireless is being standardised now.  The current 3G wireless was developed for voice and not for data, and even so it can deliver up to 21Mbps in Australia.  There are problems with it, but remember that it was developed for voice.  The 4G standard is specifically being developed for data, and will deliver 100Mbps bandwidth with much higher reliability (yes, the same contention issues apply mentioned earlier).  $zero cost to the tax payer 

5) the “NBN” will be one of the largest single networks ever built on earth.  There are only a few companies who could do it - *Japan’s Nippon NTT, BT, AT&T;, Deutsche Telekom etc. * Even Telstra would struggle to build something on this scale.  Yet we are led to believe that the same people who can’t build school halls or install insulation without being ripped off are going to to do it ?  Here at Telstra, we are laughing our heads off, because when it all comes crumbling down, after they have spent $60+billion and the network is no more than half complete, it will be up to Telstra to pick up the pieces..............


----------



## todster (16 September 2010)

Its only wireless to the phone tower,all other speeds quoted are in ideal conditions.
I will have to buy a house next to the exchange or under a tower, nice.


----------



## boofhead (16 September 2010)

Where is the facts on fibre lifetimes? Not all fibre is made of glass. Some applications use plastics.

As for not being able to give out 100 Mbit to everyone I'm not sure any customer retail network is designed for everyone to use full capacity at once. Many DSLAMs setups cannot handle all people connected using full speed. The core network is potentially easily upgradeable for a cost. Change the terminal equipment. Nextgen is involved with 40 and 100 Gbit trials. Telstra has worked with Alcatel-Lucent from memory on similar long distance trials.

Contention ratios depend on ISPs as you say. Not all are 20:1 or worse. Some ISPs are more proactive and do better manage their networks. Over time people use it more so they upgrade network capacity. If you're willing to pay you can get access to services provided 1:1.

DSL is a limited vehicle - electrons and cheaper materials like copper has limits. Many improvements are designed for those close to exchanges. Telstra controls the exchanges and the copper network. Telstra uses equipment and arrangements that limit DSL. ADSL1 could do faster than what Telstra would allow when initially offered.

The Japanese build was based on government regulation and subsidies based on various conditions which helped drive retail consumption. The reality is no Australian government would do similar. Coalition does not want to do anything meaningful if it possibly reduces Telstra shareprices.

If USA is not doing something it doesn't mean it is bad. Many other countries interested in moving forward with technology have made moves and retail fibre including 100% private companies in some European have deployed fibre. They see it worthy.

Fibre allows a greater range of services to be deployed on a single access medium - possibly great for consumers. Issue is lack of redundancy. NBNCo has some PDF files worth reading about how it has built aspects of the network.

Wireless has issues. Travel around Tasmania and find how patchy it really is. How congested it gets in the evenings and only 1 carrier here has any decent coverage - Telstra. Optus has finally started to expand.


----------



## IFocus (16 September 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Here are the technical reasons NBN will fail :
> 
> On Whirl pool some where (I tried to find it) these aspersions are pulled apart by the various tech heads.
> 
> The life span of fiber is one that I personally know is wrong.


----------



## orr (19 September 2010)

Fat chance of Labor ever putting their hands in their pockets for people in the bush.

gg[/QUOTE]

Does it depend on which 'people' in the bush where thinking about. 'SORRY' I remember how 'thoughtful'  'Sir Joe' was to certain 'people' in the bush. And then of course there was Alexander Downers grand dad, very helpful.  Ahh the good old'e days.


----------



## bellenuit (30 October 2010)

From today's The Australian:

*NBN a waste of money, says Japan IT mogul Masayoshi Son*

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busi...-1225945379107


----------



## Calliope (20 November 2010)

It is difficult to comprehend the stupidity of the Independents who voted with Labor to delay the release of the NBN Business Plan.




> *Cut this week to Turnbull's comment after the vote against his bill. Labor, he asserted, had abrogated its responsibility to taxpayers and consumers. They had been "supported in this recklessness" by Bandt, Windsor, Katter and Wilkie. Laying his charge, Turnbull said: "Every anti-competitive act by Labor's vast new monopoly communications carrier will be the direct responsibility of those who voted to duck their obligations to consumers. Every misstep, every setback, every failure of the reality of the NBN to live up to Senator Conroy's promises will be the direct responsibility of those who voted against transparency and independent analysis."*






> *At week's end Abbott, arguing for release of the NBN's business plan, said the last time Labor said a policy was "too important to be delayed" was the pink batts program. He asked: why was the government so keen to steamroll the parliament into making the most important decision of this term without the evidence?*




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...itll-keep-rising/story-e6frg6zo-1225956812030


----------



## noco (20 November 2010)

Calliope said:


> It is difficult to comprehend the stupidity of the Independents who voted with Labor to delay the release of the NBN Business Plan.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




What ticks with these stupid independants to allow the Gillard Government to get away with hideous white elephant?


----------



## todster (20 November 2010)

noco said:


> What ticks with these stupid independants to allow the Gillard Government to get away with hideous white elephant?




If or when they get the NBN up and running can I assume you won't be connecting.


----------



## noco (20 November 2010)

todster said:


> If or when they get the NBN up and running can I assume you won't be connecting.




todster, firstly,the word A-S-S-U-M-E makes an ass out of you and me. I'm pleased you started with "IF" they (Labor) get the NBN up and running. It's going to be a big "IF" the way things are shaping with the OECD, Japan and other organisations saying the Gillard Government are on the wrong track.

As long as I can operate with ADSL or ADSL 2,which I might add is all I need at $49 per month, why would I want a provider at double the cost? Well, that is the cost that is being reported and I would not be surprised if they become a monopoly the cost will go higher and the average Joe Blow will have no choice and that is what Conroy is aiming for.

Why is it that only some 10% have signed up in Tasmania and what has the Gillard Government got to hide by with holding scrutiny of any business plan?


----------



## Julia (20 November 2010)

todster said:


> If or when they get the NBN up and running can I assume you won't be connecting.



As I understand it, neither Noco nor anyone else will have a choice as the Telstra copper network will be no more.  Such is democracy in this fair land.
Given the NBN will be a monopoly, customers will have no choice but to pay the asking price.  And you think this is a good thing, Todster???



noco said:


> todster, firstly,the word A-S-S-U-M-E makes an ass out of you and me. I'm pleased you started with "IF" they (Labor) get the NBN up and running. It's going to be a big "IF" the way things are shaping with the OECD, Japan and other organisations saying the Gillard Government are on the wrong track.



Yes, hopefully the pressure currently being applied, and which looks like swinging the independents away from Labor, will eventually require a cost benefit analysis.  The Productivity Commission have made it clear they have considerable reservations about the whole project:  hence the governments refusal to submit the plan to them.
The government is wrongly assuming the electorate to be so passive and/or so ignorant that they will get away with this.
The evidence is becomingly increasingly to the contrary.




> As long as I can operate with ADSL or ADSL 2,which I might add is all I need at $49 per month, why would I want a provider at double the cost? Well, that is the cost that is being reported and I would not be surprised if they become a monopoly the cost will go higher and the average Joe Blow will have no choice and that is what Conroy is aiming for.



Exactly right, noco.  Conroy has already stated that the option to continue with the status quo will no longer exist when the NBN is operational.
Start saving now if you want to maintain a connection to the internet.


----------



## todster (21 November 2010)

Julia said:


> As I understand it, neither Noco nor anyone else will have a choice as the Telstra copper network will be no more.  Such is democracy in this fair land.
> Given the NBN will be a monopoly, customers will have no choice but to pay the asking price.  And you think this is a good thing, Todster???
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## todster (21 November 2010)

Well they can't oppose the NBN and the splitting of Telstra as well or we be in the dark ages forever.


----------



## todster (21 November 2010)

bellenuit said:


> From today's The Australian:
> 
> *NBN a waste of money, says Japan IT mogul Masayoshi Son*
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busi...-1225945379107




What he actually said was maintaining the copper network was a waste and stupid.
The good old Australian


----------



## sails (21 November 2010)

todster said:


> ...Choice you can still use wireless like I have to.





With technology generally moving ahead so quickly, it seems inadvisable to proceed with such an expensive and drawn out infrastructure.  IMO, there is a very real risk that wireless or something else may become much more sofisticated and fibre could well become an expensive white elephant.

*Todster, if Abbott was in power and as hell bent as Gillard on rolling out a $43b NBN, would you still be batting for it?* 


I certainly wouldn't.


----------



## todster (21 November 2010)

sails said:


> With technology generally moving ahead so quickly, it seems inadvisable to proceed with such an expensive and drawn out infrastructure.  IMO, there is a very real risk that wireless or something else may become much more sofisticated and fibre could well become an expensive white elephant.
> 
> *Todster, if Abbott was in power and as hell bent as Gillard on rolling out a $43b NBN, would you still be batting for it?*
> 
> ...




Why do you keep the $43b price tag? 
When $26b is the tax payer part.
Libs and infrastructure in one sentence bahahaha


----------



## todster (21 November 2010)

That's the spirit hope for a breakthrough in wireless technology ring Tony with your policy idea.
to late Turnbull already thought of that one


----------



## todster (21 November 2010)

And to all you people who will be forced off the copper network what about the people who are forced on?


----------



## derty (21 November 2010)

Why copper and HFC can't save us
Interesting article about the shortcoming of the current copper system with respect to signal attenuation and the lack of exchange density and what that means for Turnbull's proposed copper work-around to deliver 12Mbps. 



> ...distance realities mean that no matter how many RIMs or pair-gain systems we replace, Coalition strategies are going to do basically nothing to improve service for people that already have ADSL but are simply finding that it's under-delivering. Unless Malcolm Turnbull is going to double or triple the density of Telstra's current 3000-odd exchanges around the country that is not going to change.
> 
> ...you cannot actually deliver nationwide 12Mbps at a relatively modest cost compared to the NBN. Filling in the gaps I've highlighted would require not only the Coalition's planned RIM-replacement work, but extensive supplementation of the existing exchange infrastructure with new exchanges; billions of dollars to reroute homes' copper services from their existing distant facilities to the new sites; and all this to bolster a copper infrastructure that not even Telstra wants anymore.


----------



## alphaman (21 November 2010)

For god's sake if cost was the real issue here then just roll out fibre in metro areas, it shouldn't be that expensive. I wish people would waste time on this political BS and just get on with fibre.


----------



## Julia (21 November 2010)

todster said:


> Julia said:
> 
> 
> > As I understand it, neither Noco nor anyone else will have a choice as the Telstra copper network will be no more.  Such is democracy in this fair land.
> ...


----------



## Bill M (21 November 2010)

I have not read the several pages before hand but I will give you my position. I live on the Central Coast in a semi regional area north of Sydney. I can not get any ADSL internet whatsoever. When I moved here I had no idea it was not available and assumed that as it's a fairly new suburb that it would be available. I had NO option but to get onto a wireless plan so I got onto Telstras next G network.

I am a heavy internet user and going from ADSL2 in Sydney to the next G network was a major downgrade. The speeds are slower and I must pay more for less gigabytes. I am on a pair gain system so I was told by Telstra. I am not happy with my current service because it is slower and I can not get more than 12 gigabytes per month and when it rains it frequently goes down and doesn't work at all. This is what I get in a so called first world country, it is lousy. I have had better internet in 3rd world countries where I have lived.

I say we need the NBN to address this issue. I saw a very good debate on insight recently and I see my issues are Australia wide. Mr Turnbull said he could said he could fix these problems for much less than what the NBN would cost. That is all good and well but why didn't he and his mob fix that when they were in power for all those years? I distance myself from any political debate as politics is not the issue, broadband is the issue and this country should have nothing but the best, bring it on, I want my broadband.


----------



## IFocus (21 November 2010)

Bill M said:


> I have not read the several pages before hand but I will give you my position. I live on the Central Coast in a semi regional area north of Sydney. I can not get any ADSL internet whatsoever. When I moved here I had no idea it was not available and assumed that as it's a fairly new suburb that it would be available. I had NO option but to get onto a wireless plan so I got onto Telstras next G network.
> 
> I am a heavy internet user and going from ADSL2 in Sydney to the next G network was a major downgrade. The speeds are slower and I must pay more for less gigabytes. I am on a pair gain system so I was told by Telstra. I am not happy with my current service because it is slower and I can not get more than 12 gigabytes per month and when it rains it frequently goes down and doesn't work at all. This is what I get in a so called first world country, it is lousy. I have had better internet in 3rd world countries where I have lived.
> 
> I say we need the NBN to address this issue. I saw a very good debate on insight recently and I see my issues are Australia wide. Mr Turnbull said he could said he could fix these problems for much less than what the NBN would cost. That is all good and well but why didn't he and his mob fix that when they were in power for all those years? I distance myself from any political debate as politics is not the issue, broadband is the issue and this country should have nothing but the best, bring it on, I want my broadband.




Bill the opposition would argue that competition or coming technology will solve your problems.

Realities are neither will. wireless is behind the curve and will stay there no matter what anyone says and in your case there will never be a competitive reason to connect you.

I am starting to think if the NBN goes down fact is there will not be another option but there will be delays meaning a lot of people will be angry not to mention lost opportunities.


----------



## todster (21 November 2010)

Julia said:


> todster said:
> 
> 
> > Todster:  here is a link to Joe's instructions for how to use the Quote Tags.
> ...


----------



## Calliope (22 November 2010)

Bill M said:


> I distance myself from any political debate as politics is not the issue, broadband is the issue and this country should have nothing but the best, bring it on,* I want my broadband*.




Exactly, so do we all, Bill...but not at any price. Refusing to release the business plan, while parliament is in session, is not a good omen.


----------



## trainspotter (24 November 2010)

*In a bid to win over independent senator, Nick Xenophon, to secure passage of its NBN legislation, the Government has released a 36 page summary of the NBN Co business case, but it is devoid of any pricing information, any estimates of revenue or of service take-up rates.*

http://www.itwire.com/it-policy-new...case-summary-leaves-many-questions-unanswered

Be afraid ...... very afraid.

*The internal rate of return is also "dependent on completion of the Telstra deal, which has a material impact on construction costs."*

*quiver*


----------



## moXJO (24 November 2010)

> Julia Gillard says the 50-page summary of the business plan will show the NBN will cost taxpayers less than expected - $35.7 billion compared to the previous figure of $43 billion, The Australian reported.




Oh look... 
It's cheaper than expected. And they just happen to discover this now I hope people are not that stupid to fall for that type of crap. While I support an nbn, I don't believe in paying whatever it takes.
http://www.news.com.au/technology/breakthrough-on-national-broadband-network-as-senator-nick-xenophon-seals-deal/comments-e6frfro0-1225960153923


----------



## drsmith (24 November 2010)

The 36 page business case summary.

http://demo.idg.com.au/cw/content/NBN-Co-Business-Case-Summary.pdf

The pickings are rather lean in relation to the details of the business case.

Telstra's $9bn NPV equates to $13.8bn in nominal terms over the life of the agreement (to June 2020). In additional to Telstra's payment, capex in nominal terms (to June 2020) is $35.7bn, but what this is in NPV, I could not find. Hopefully the Coalition won't be silly enough too add 13.8 to 35.7 (or 9 to 35.7), as this could be a trap set by the ALP. 

Also of interest though is the graphic on page 23 (chart 1). One would imagine that a significant factor with the expectation of a 10-fold in speed every "x" years is a reduction in cost per unit speed (or download quota) of a similar magnitude. 

The NBN's expectation of future demand (exhibit 2, page 24) being much less is then very interesting in this context. NBN Co does expect to reduce nominal prices over time, but obviously no where near as much as the chart on page 23.


----------



## Aussiejeff (25 November 2010)

LOLOLOL....



> *First school superfast broadband 'not reliable'*
> 
> 
> Concerns about the reliability of the National Broadband Network have been raised by the first school to be connected.
> ...




http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/11/25/3076326.htm

30MB/s is only a touch above full ADSL 2+ speed. LOL

I can imagine how much of a mess the full scale roll out is going to become if this tiny, tiny portion of the rollout is continuing to have major probs.....

The ghosts of Pink Batts past.

Lemme see, Ms Blowhard now says NBN $Aus 43Bn-7Bn cost savings=36Bn.

I disagree & predict 36Bn+*10Bn blowout* for major revisions & "unforeseen extra costs"=46Bn.

Let's see who's right in 5-10 years!


----------



## moXJO (25 November 2010)

Aussiejeff said:


> LOLOLOL....
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You should see what they do to peoples driveways laying the cable. I wonder if fixing them will be added to the cost?


----------



## drsmith (26 November 2010)

moXJO said:


> You should see what they do to peoples driveways laying the cable. I wonder if fixing them will be added to the cost?



I suspect that where I am, the fibre cable will just replace the copper cable strung from one termite meal to the next and that in about 2020.

I guess I'll just have to do with 12mb/sec from Telstra's ageing copper. That's if the termites don't bring it down it first.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (26 November 2010)

I've hesitated to comment on this until now.

One should never invest all one's kopeks in infrastrucure or technology.

For example re nbn , there is much work being done on biological transfer of information, not through wire or wifi, but through organic cells.

I have a modest 20k invested in a US startup in this technology.

The ole sheila Gillard and whatsisname Conroy will go down in history after Rudd as having wasted more of our nations assets than any before.

Some silly teenage bastard at this moment in some garage somewhere in the world is working on making pillock adventures like nbn defunct.

gg


----------



## Julia (27 November 2010)

Glenn Stevens has significantly embarrassed the government by joining those who feel strongly a cost benefit analysis should be undertaken prior to the implementation of the NBN.

This is on top of his recently saying that the banks were justified in increasing rates to the level they have due to their funding costs.

That Conroy and Gillard can continue to ignore the recommendations of David Murray, the BCA, Treasury Redbook Advice, Warwick McKibbin, and now Mr Stevens is beyond belief.


----------



## noco (27 November 2010)

Julia said:


> Glenn Stevens has significantly embarrassed the government by joining those who feel strongly a cost benefit analysis should be undertaken prior to the implementation of the NBN.
> 
> This is on top of his recently saying that the banks were justified in increasing rates to the level they have due to their funding costs.
> 
> That Conroy and Gillard can continue to ignore the recommendations of David Murray, the BCA, Treasury Redbook Advice, Warwick McKibbin, and now Mr Stevens is beyond belief.




I agree Julia, but the Labor Party's problem is the fact that they are so heavily committed on the NBN and to back down on this venture will be the end of Ms. Gillard and Mr. Conroy, so they are determined to proceed irrespect of the cost and or the out come. They are also determined to make NBN a monopoly and charge what ever they like.


----------



## noco (27 November 2010)

The attached link surely should be a worry for the Labor Party with the Hong Kong wireless technology which will eventually make optic fibre obsolute in a vert short time. So why is Gillard and Conroy still determined to go ahead with the NBN?

http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...ments/hong_kong_shows_the_future_is_wireless/


----------



## noco (27 November 2010)

Does Julia Gillard and Conroy really know what the cost of NBN will be? Terry McCran states it is going to cost a lot more than Labor is predicting and would anyone really be surprised!!!!!


http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...couriermail/comments/50_billion_and_counting/


----------



## Julia (27 November 2010)

This provides the full context of Glenn Stevens' comments.  It is more useful than extracts in that it offers his view of the overall picture on the Australian economy.

I'd have a lot more confidence if Mr Stevens were the person actually running the country.

http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/andrewbolt/index.php/couriermail/comments/stevens_worries/


----------



## sails (27 November 2010)

Here is more info on the Long Term Evolution (LTE) network in Hong Kong:

*'Fourth generation' internet arrives in Hong Kong* 



> THE latest generation of wireless internet that will allow people to watch a crystal clear movie or live sporting event on the street or atop a hill is being deployed throughout Hong Kong.
> 
> The Long Term Evolution (LTE) network will give super high speeds across the city and could mean the end of computers ever needing to be plugged into a wall for a connection to the net.




and from Noco's link:



> The system will give speeds of up to 100 megabits per second...(Mbps)




It makes one wonder whether the government has actually done any research on viable alternatives before committing excessive funds to a potential future white elephant.

It appears that LTE networks are apparently already operating in Europe, Scandinavia and North America with Japan also planning to install it.  How could they have missed this...


----------



## Julia (27 November 2010)

sails said:


> It appears that LTE networks are apparently already operating in Europe, Scandinavia and North America with Japan also planning to install it.  How could they have missed this...



Um, Sails, because they have so much political capital invested in the NBN, they are in denial of any other options.  They simply cannot politically afford another backdown in any area.

So they will forge ahead and spend this huge amount of taxpayer dollars without any cost benefit analysis or consideration of possible alternatives without a second thought.

The arrogance is unbelievable, as is their naivete if they imagine voters will be forgiving if it all falls over in an expensive heap.


----------



## sails (27 November 2010)

Julia said:


> Um, Sails, because they have so much political capital invested in the NBN, they are in denial of any other options.  They simply cannot politically afford another backdown in any area.
> 
> So they will forge ahead and spend this huge amount of taxpayer dollars without any cost benefit analysis or consideration of possible alternatives without a second thought.
> 
> The arrogance is unbelievable, as is their naivete if they imagine voters will be forgiving if it all falls over in an expensive heap.




Lol Julia, it was a somewhat sarcastic comment re how they could have missed it...

I don't doubt they would rather stick their heads in the sand than face any sort of reality.  Seems to be the norm during the last 3+ years.

IMO Gillard, Conroy & co really don't care if NBN never works out.  Aussie  taxpayers (aka "working families") will be left to pick up the pieces while incompetant politicians go on their merry way with life pensions and other perks regardless of their performance (or lack of).


----------



## IFocus (28 November 2010)

Julia said:


> I'd have a lot more confidence if Mr Stevens were the person actually running the country.





Politics is such it could never happen but I am thank full that Australia has had an excellent run of RBA governors supported by an excellent bureaucracy.


----------



## IFocus (28 November 2010)

sails said:


> Here is more info on the Long Term Evolution (LTE) network in Hong Kong:
> 
> *'Fourth generation' internet arrives in Hong Kong*
> 
> ...




This has long been discussed over on the NBN thread at http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum/142.

Did you know?
Labor and Coalition are looking at putting the same amount of people on wireless.

Cut and paste from one of the posters 



> LTE ADVANCED is 4G, LTE is 3GPP
> 
> Which is also referred to as 3.9G.
> 
> ...




There is a lot of excellent threads including one on Malcolm Turnbulls blog afraid he gets a hammering.


----------



## IFocus (28 November 2010)

"The Americans have need of the telephone, but we do not. We have plenty of messenger boys." ”” Sir William Preece, chief engineer of the British Post Office, 1876.

"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." ”” Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977.

"While theoretically and technically television may be feasible, commercially and financially it is an impossibility." ”” Lee DeForest, inventor.


----------



## todster (28 November 2010)

noco said:


> The attached link surely should be a worry for the Labor Party with the Hong Kong wireless technology which will eventually make optic fibre obsolute in a vert short time. So why is Gillard and Conroy still determined to go ahead with the NBN?
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...ments/hong_kong_shows_the_future_is_wireless/




With Australia having so much geographically in common with Honkers I can't believe they didn't think of that.


----------



## drsmith (28 November 2010)

IFocus said:


> "The Americans have need of the telephone, but we do not. We have plenty of messenger boys." ”” Sir William Preece, chief engineer of the British Post Office, 1876.
> 
> "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." ”” Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977.
> 
> "While theoretically and technically television may be feasible, commercially and financially it is an impossibility." ”” Lee DeForest, inventor.



None of this detracts from the fact that the Government should be releasing more information about the finances of this project than they are.


----------



## IFocus (28 November 2010)

drsmith said:


> None of this detracts from the fact that the Government should be releasing more information about the finances of this project than they are.




I think the biggest weakness of the Gillard Government is the inability to prosecute their case or simply communicate their position clearly.

Failure to do so allows this sort of head line rubbish  

"NBN a 'white elephant', says Abbott" 



> PRIME Minister Julia Gillard's decision to give parliament another sitting day to push through the national broadband network illustrates the policy is a "white elephant", Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says.
> 
> The plans have the potential to become a "school halls on steroids", he told reporters in Sydney today.


----------



## moXJO (29 November 2010)

IFocus said:


> I think the biggest weakness of the Gillard Government is the inability to prosecute their case or simply communicate their position clearly.




You think they would have learnt to deal with this. Considering they have had similar problems with Pink Batts scheme and the BER. So it doesn't exactly fill me with hope that they simply leap from one disaster to the next.


----------



## derty (29 November 2010)

Here is a very good article, well worth the read: *BROADBAND FACTS, FICTION AND URBAN MYTHS*

It covers the current global uptake of FTTP, trends of ADSL, fibre and HFC usage, historical and projected backhaul (main distribution infrastructure) bandwidth/capacity and historical and projected usage.

The article also addresses several of the dominant criticisms of the NBN such as the NBN is a white elephant, the human brain cannot process 100Mb/s, wireless technologies will be able to provide 100Mb/s, DSL advances will provide 100Mb/s e.t.c.



> ...the capacity of wireless access is constrained by the very limited slice of the electromagnetic spectrum that can be used by wireless communications (see Section 3 below for an explanation of the limitations of wireless). In addition, the radiofrequency spectrum in a cellular  network is shared by all users in that cell. Therefore, to achieve anything approaching 100 Mb/s to the home would require almost one base station tower for every user...
> 
> ...a single optical fibre can carry 10,000 times the information that can be carried on the entire radio frequency spectrum and that when a fibre is used, the information can be dedicated to a single user. On the other hand, wireless suffers from limited bandwidth because the radio-frequency spectrum is necessarily shared, not dedicated...


----------



## sails (29 November 2010)

While this article is probably more relevant in the government thread, I thought it's worth a mention here as Glenn Stevens, the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA), has expressed his concerns regarding the financial cost of NBN and which confirms what some of us have been bleating on about:

*Under pressure: RBA casts doubt over federal finance*



> 1) There was no place for a National Broadband Network (NBN) in his summary of national infrastructure priorities that will need to be funded by both the private and public sectors over coming decades;
> 
> 2) If taxpayers are to be forced to underwrite 100 per cent of the $27 billion of equity risk capital associated with the NBN, then *“of course, a proper cost-benefit analysis” should be carried out before committing to such an extraordinarily large investment*, and that any productivity benefits from the interconnectivity enabled by the NBN, “hinges on how much you pay to do it and how efficiently it is done”




NB:  Bold is mine.


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 November 2010)

How would a cost benefit analysis actually be done?

Surely, to do such an analysis, requires that both the cost and the benefits are known?

Cost we can estimate, but I challenge anyone to compile an accurate list of the benefits. Go back to 1900 and tell me what benefits electricity or motor cars will bring - entire industries based on both of those have since emerged that nobody could have foreseen back when the technologies were new.

As late as 1916 the Federal Government still had doubts about electricity, warning the Tasmanian state government that widespread use probably wouldn't catch on and that the state's scheme to supply it would likely be a financial disaster since there would only ever be one customer which, if it were to close, would leave no use for electricity whatsoever. Nearly a century later and we're all using electricity, and that first customer is still there too by the way (though the company concerned has changed names a few times over the years). 

Same applies to just about everything. It's virtually impossible to assess all the benefits of a new technology.


----------



## Julia (29 November 2010)

Well, Smurf, I suppose that's why we have highly paid demographers and economists who are trained to make all the appropriate projections.

Surely their best efforts would be better than not even trying to ascertain the future benefits in relation to the massive cost to taxpayers?

And why, for goodness sake, are the government so absolutely and utterly determined that no such analysis will occur?  If they were genuinely confident that there could be no adverse outcome of such analysis, wouldn't they be happy to accede to demands that it should happen, especially now given the high level of people asking that it happen, starting with Glenn Stevens most recently?


----------



## todster (30 November 2010)

Hard wire the major cities screw the country theres ya cost benefit geez its the Libs Wrecking ball regardless of any analysis.


----------



## sails (30 November 2010)

todster said:


> Hard wire the major cities screw the country theres ya cost benefit geez its the Libs Wrecking ball regardless of any analysis.




haha Todster... Labor is showing itself to be quite capable of wrecking itself without any help from the Libs.  Losers generally look for someone else to blame for their own mistakes and so it is very handy for Ms Gillard to have Mr Abbott for this purpose.  

What has Labor got to hide by persistently refusing to allow any indepth analysis to be made public?

This is nothing to do with denying anyone broadband - it's about whether Australia can really afford an investment of this size.  But then I think you know that - it's just more fun to write an unpunctuated line of nonsense to poke the stick at the libs ...


----------



## noco (30 November 2010)

sails said:


> haha Todster... Labor is showing itself to be quite capable of wrecking itself without any help from the Libs.  Losers generally look for someone else to blame for their own mistakes and so it is very handy for Ms Gillard to have Mr Abbott for this purpose.
> 
> What has Labor got to hide by persistently refusing to allow any indepth analysis to be made public?
> 
> This is nothing to do with denying anyone broadband - it's about whether Australia can really afford an investment of this size.  But then I think you know that - it's just more fun to write an unpunctuated line of nonsense to poke the stick at the libs ...




Sails, you summed Todster up pretty well.


----------



## todster (30 November 2010)

sails said:


> haha Todster... Labor is showing itself to be quite capable of wrecking itself without any help from the Libs.  Losers generally look for someone else to blame for their own mistakes and so it is very handy for Ms Gillard to have Mr Abbott for this purpose.
> 
> What has Labor got to hide by persistently refusing to allow any indepth analysis to be made public?
> 
> This is nothing to do with denying anyone broadband - it's about whether Australia can really afford an investment of this size.  But then I think you know that - it's just more fun to write an unpunctuated line of nonsense to poke the stick at the libs ...




Umm the Libs lost?
Do a cost benefit analysis on public transport while your at it.
Nonsense??? I would of thought by not running the blue wire to regional centers would save a fortune.


----------



## derty (30 November 2010)

sails said:


> haha Todster... Labor is showing itself to be quite capable of wrecking itself without any help from the Libs.  Losers generally look for someone else to blame for their own mistakes and so it is very handy for Ms Gillard to have Mr Abbott for this purpose.
> 
> What has Labor got to hide by persistently refusing to allow any indepth analysis to be made public?
> 
> This is nothing to do with denying anyone broadband - it's about whether Australia can really afford an investment of this size.  But then I think you know that - it's just more fun to write an unpunctuated line of nonsense to poke the stick at the libs ...



Both the Liberal and Labor know the CBA for the NBN as it stands will be negative. If it wasn't, private enterprise would have jumped on this ages ago. Australia's tyranny of distance ensures this in servicing the last 10-20% of Australians. So essentially the first part of Todsters comment was true, cut out the rural component and the CBA will likely be +ve. 

As Labor know the NBN CBA will be -ve with current technologies they of course will be opposing any CBA to avoid political damage. The Libs knowing the same are pushing this for maximum political damage. It is a political football, there are points to be made. Todsters wrecking ball comment is on the money too.

Sails, did you read and consider Smurfs post? How can an accurate CBA be completed when the likely largest variable is unknown? Who would have thought in the early 90's sitting at a monochrome screen sending out text based Archie searches that in 15 years the Web would be this encompassing and critical to everyday existence. I was amazed back then. Then consider the exponential growth in bandwidth and more importantly web economy since those days. Now put your mind forward 15 years - what will the Web be like? What will you be able to do on it? I sure don't know but I'm looking forward to it.

I say how can we not afford to commit to an investment of this size.


----------



## sails (30 November 2010)

Derty,

Yes, I read Smurf's post, but that doesn't override the fact that some things we can afford in life and some things we can't - or if we do go ahead, it will either impact on other areas of our budget or we have to work harder to pay for it.

Government is no different.  They have to budget the funds they receive against their expenses.  Simple.  If they overspend, then other areas are going to be neglected or they have to start taxing us further to make up the shortfall.

For example, a young couple on a basic wage with a few young children.  Income is limited and there is barely enough to go around.  Then their old car needs replacing and they look with wide eyes at vehicles that have enough room to seat their large family and have extra safety features.  They convince themselves they should go ahead - afterall it's what they need.

They don't do a simple budget and, after being knocked back by the more reputable lenders, their friendly car dealer refers them to a lender who doesn't need to know their income or worry about credit checks.  They don't understand all the fine print or the impact of 25% interest.  They are over the moon to finally have their vehicle.

Then they find they can't provide food for their kids AND pay off their new car.  Something has to give.  But even if the vehicle is repossessed, that doesn't wipe out their loan in full because, as it turns out, they were overcharged in the first place and interest is already mounting up.  So cutbacks have to happen and there is no money left for food such as meat and fresh fruit and vegetables.​
As I have said several times on this thread, I'm not against the NBN any more than I would be against a family purchasing a safe vehicle.  I am only asking:
1.  Can Australia really afford this massive spend?
2.  Will it have a negative effect on other essential services (which are already known to be hurting)
3. If it doesn't pay it's way financially, how much extra burden will be placed on taxpayers in the future?​
In my analogy above, if the young couple had taken the time to look more closely into what they were actually signing, what the impact was going to be on their already struggling household budget. Australia is no longer in surplus with debt levels rising.  We don't have the same financial security that Howard and Costello left us.

That's all some of us are asking for.  When the RBA chief is calling for the same due diligence and expresses concern that Australia may be overcommitting itself financially with this project, I don't understand the Labor government ignoring his advice.  IMO, they are showing no more financial savvy than the young couple in my analogy.  

Once again, I repeat, I have no problem with the concept of NBN unless there is a cheaper, viable alternative and *IF* Australia can adequately afford it without impacting on essential services and without adding significantly to the already overloaded taxpayer.


----------



## alphaman (30 November 2010)

derty said:


> Both the Liberal and Labor know the CBA for the NBN as it stands will be negative. If it wasn't, private enterprise would have jumped on this ages ago. Australia's tyranny of distance ensures this in servicing the last 10-20% of Australians. So essentially the first part of Todsters comment was true, cut out the rural component and the CBA will likely be +ve.



Just do the cities then. Telstra's copper can continue to serve the rural areas. No NBN, so that will keep the Opposition happy, and we can move on.


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 November 2010)

sails said:


> Derty,
> 
> Yes, I read Smurf's post, but that doesn't override the fact that some things we can afford in life and some things we can't - or if we do go ahead, it will either impact on other areas of our budget or we have to work harder to pay for it.



I'm wondering if they have decided to bet that inflation will devalue the debt shortly after the NBN is built? 

Seriously, there are plenty of people predicting high rates of inflation ahead and the same strategy worked quite nicely to pay for rather a lot of highways, power schemes, water supply etc in the past.

Borrow the money at low fixed interest rates. Add some inflation. Pay back the loans using the devalued currency. 

It's a gamble doing that however...


----------



## IFocus (30 November 2010)

derty said:


> Both the Liberal and Labor know the CBA for the NBN as it stands will be negative. If it wasn't, private enterprise would have jumped on this ages ago. Australia's tyranny of distance ensures this in servicing the last 10-20% of Australians. So essentially the first part of Todsters comment was true, cut out the rural component and the CBA will likely be +ve.
> 
> As Labor know the NBN CBA will be -ve with current technologies they of course will be opposing any CBA to avoid political damage. The Libs knowing the same are pushing this for maximum political damage. It is a political football, there are points to be made. Todsters wrecking ball comment is on the money too.
> 
> ...





Really good summery Derty


----------



## Julia (30 November 2010)

derty said:


> Both the Liberal and Labor know the CBA for the NBN as it stands will be negative. If it wasn't, private enterprise would have jumped on this ages ago. Australia's tyranny of distance ensures this in servicing the last 10-20% of Australians. So essentially the first part of Todsters comment was true, cut out the rural component and the CBA will likely be +ve.
> 
> As Labor know the NBN CBA will be -ve with current technologies they of course will be opposing any CBA to avoid political damage. The Libs knowing the same are pushing this for maximum political damage. It is a political football, there are points to be made. Todsters wrecking ball comment is on the money too.
> 
> ...



Derty, I always respect your views, and thank you for the above post.
I also completely get what Sails is saying.

At the risk of being labelled discriminatory, I'd ask if there really should be an expectation that those who live in the country are reasonable in expecting all the facilities enjoyed by those who live in a major city?

If we were to apply your reasoning here with respect to the spread to every remote part of Australia of fast internet services, wouldn't we also suggest there should be a research based teaching hospital with all the best specialists in these regions as well?  Or the top department stores?  A branch of every bank?

What I'm suggesting is that if we choose to live away from the major hubs of industry, business and general activity, then we should accept we are simply not going to have at our fingertips all those services which are available to citizens of big cities.

If you want the country quietness, no traffic jams, no industrial pollution, the ability to be away from the crush, then don't you also have to accept that you can't necessarily have everything you would have if you accepted all the disadvantages of living in a city?

I'm just a bit tired of minorities needing to be so catered for.  This is probably a bit of an overreaction on my part to all the noise and parliamentary time spent on gay marriage when the country faces far more pressing issues.  That the very vocal minorities can absorb so much national energy and emotion just seems disproportionate to me.


----------



## sails (30 November 2010)

Smurf1976 said:


> I'm wondering if they have decided to bet that inflation will devalue the debt shortly after the NBN is built?
> 
> Seriously, there are plenty of people predicting high rates of inflation ahead and the same strategy worked quite nicely to pay for rather a lot of highways, power schemes, water supply etc in the past.
> 
> ...




That could be their plan, but it's the secrecy of whatever plan they have is what gets me...

In fact, we don't actually know if they have a plan or if it is simply hope.  Or do they just decide as it goes along what to do next. And if it should fail, the pollies still get their lifetime entitlements so it's no skin off their noses and might keep them in power for a bit longer (due to the desperately needed independents who want NBN).  

After the gang of four's management debacles such as BER, pink batts, etc, it doesn't really inspire one with confidence that they have the necessary skills to manage such a large infrastructure let alone keep it on some sort of budget.


----------



## So_Cynical (30 November 2010)

Julia said:


> If we were to apply your reasoning here with respect to the spread to every remote part of Australia of fast internet services, wouldn't we also suggest there should be a research based teaching hospital with all the best specialists in these regions as well?  Or the top department stores?  A branch of every bank?
> 
> What I'm suggesting is that if we choose to live away from the major hubs of industry, business and general activity, then we should accept we are simply not going to have at our fingertips all those services which are available to citizens of big cities.
> 
> If you want the country quietness, no traffic jams, no industrial pollution, the ability to be away from the crush, then don't you also have to accept that you can't necessarily have everything you would have if you accepted all the disadvantages of living in a city?




Bit of a difference between a fibre optic cable and a teaching hospital ....fat chance that proposal would have getting thru the senate...rural dwellers know there compromising there life styles to a certain extent living in the country, they also know that there is a pay off to that compromise.

Looking at the roll out map its easy to see that many many rural community's miss out on the NBN and its clear to see there not running the cable everywhere, and that the route broadly makes sense considering the routing and back haul needs of a good NBN.

The fibre optic footprint (in red) is tiny.
~


----------



## joea (2 December 2010)

Hi.
Well I always thought the CBA of the NBN was to ensure we were not putting a noose around our neck in trying to pay it off, forever in the future.
Regardless of where we live in Australia we pay taxes. The people in rural areas are sick of getting screwed. Rural people are entitled to have a reasonable speed with broadband. They did not ask for "the sky is the limit".

Now I live north of Port Douglas, and was one who waited patiently for a speed better than "dial up". Well after the major cities had speed for about 10 years, it arrived. Well golly gosh we then had to sign a "bloody petition" to ensure it would be cost affective to upgrade the local exchange. i.e.
go and get the people to sign the petition, then give it to the local politican.

Guess what. I have satellite because anything that gets installed in the country, never seems to be up to scratch. My daughter is now getting satellite because wireless does not work. 
Oh I am sorry they live in Dimbulah and are growing mangoes and beef to feed you lot in the cities. (also working in a mine to get the show going).
As far as I am concerned they are doing more than most, and I would have thought a little bit of broadband speed was not too much to ask for.

What I dispute is Gillard has said she will get fibre to 93%(i think) of the
 country. Well is that 93% of the nation of 1950, or 2025 by the time it will be finished( it never will).

Regardless of facts on NBN or QBN or whatever.

This country is in a bit of trouble that we are attempting to crawl out of. 
And there is one thing I am 100% sure of, is THAT GILLARD TALKS WITH A FORKED TONGUE.(about any subject)

AND SWAN COULD NOT BALANCE A CHURCH FETE.
Cheers.... I am a free spirit for the rest of the day.


----------



## joea (3 December 2010)

Hi.
last night in a question and answer session with some of the government, we were told that two satellites had been ordered by NBN. Conroy himself said they would be 20 times faster than current satellites. He then went on to say the speed as, and mentioned the data down and up of a base package.
So the speed was not mentioned by my recollection.
The satellites will be 3 years in the making.
Satellite will handle 3% and wireless will handle 4%. or vice versa.
Thank god the japanese has just unveiled new satellite technology with much faster speed.
My satellite is weather compensated, so the japanese new show must be pretty good.

I suppose we have to give the government some credit, as they are beginning to understand the 7% of Australia that will not have fibre is getting bigger and bigger. In three years they can then order another couple of sats.
Wonder if they were in the original costing?
The ACCC has told the government to expand its 14 points of interconnection
to 200 to utilise more fibre that is in the ground.

So NBN will be the saga in the news forever as I see it.

Cheers


----------



## drsmith (8 December 2010)

Telstra is not expected to proceed with its head of agreement deal with the NBN if there are only 14 points of interconnection, according to today's Australian.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ile-compo-claims/story-e6frg6nf-1225967249352


----------



## joea (16 December 2010)

The NBN network has been forced to redesign the NBN project by the ACCC.
The planned 14 points of interconnection is to be expanded to 120 places.
It will be now more difficult to have the promised uniform national price.
NBN Co is to release altered business model later this month.

Well golly gosh!!!


----------



## trainspotter (16 December 2010)

Don't wanna say it BUT ........... I told you so !! Let's all gather around the shiny blue cable and warm the cockles of our heart. Hip Hip Hooray for Joolyah


----------



## Julia (16 December 2010)

joea said:


> The NBN network has been forced to redesign the NBN project by the ACCC.
> The planned 14 points of interconnection is to be expanded to 120 places.
> It will be now more difficult to have the promised uniform national price.
> NBN Co is to release altered business model later this month.
> ...



Good to see such a basic design fault brought to public view at least.

Does the ACCC similarly have any capacity to force a cost benefit analysis?
I suppose that's not their role.


----------



## sails (16 December 2010)

Here is news on an Australian-designed system for delivering long-range wireless broadband to remote areas: 



> The CSIRO has successfully tested the technology - dubbed Ngara - in rural north-west Tasmania, using analogue television frequencies and existing broadcast towers to send and receive data




More here: Remote broadband tests come up trumps

IMO, it continues to raise serious questions as to how much research went into alternative solutions before using NBN as a massively expensive election promise.


----------



## Happy (16 December 2010)

I prefer wireless broadband to any hard wired connection, it is like not having mobile phone with me.

It would be OK 10 years ago, but now I want to have my wireless broadband with me.


----------



## So_Cynical (16 December 2010)

Julia said:


> Good to see such a basic design fault brought to public view at least.
> 
> Does the ACCC similarly have any capacity to force a cost benefit analysis?
> I suppose that's not their role.




Fault?

To find out what's really going on.

http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1586916


----------



## joea (17 December 2010)

Happy said:


> I prefer wireless broadband to any hard wired connection, it is like not having mobile phone with me.
> 
> It would be OK 10 years ago, but now I want to have my wireless broadband with me.




Happy
When you look at it on paper you are correct. However in the rural sector
wireless has been initiated in 3 area's that I know of and has failed. The individuals are now installing satellite.

The comments from IT locals say, signal weak, clouds or hills cause problems.
Now any or all of these maybe the problem, but the facts are there are problems. I have a friend who had wireless  installed in a town, and when it failed he was told by Telstra because he had a colorbond roof he needed a aerial. When that was installed it worked.

This NBN saga will go on & on & on for ever.

I actually think we have politicans who think they are network designers.
Well Hello? they cannot even do the job as a politican!!!!
Cheers


----------



## drsmith (20 December 2010)

Some light reading.

http://resources.news.com.au/files/2010/12/20/1225973/864345-aus-file-nbn-corp-plan.pdf

On page 134 is the financial summary.

EBITDA margin is expected to be 54% by full deployment (FY2021), 72% by FY2023 and 79% by 2040.


----------



## joea (21 December 2010)

Golly Gosh!
It is obvious that the NBN business plan was written to be released for April 1st 2011.
Its just that we have received it for Christmas.
Well the media will have something to keep them busy. Just wondering when they will realise the consequences.
Cheers


----------



## todster (21 December 2010)

joea said:


> Golly Gosh!
> It is obvious that the NBN business plan was written to be released for April 1st 2011.
> Its just that we have received it for Christmas.
> Well the media will have something to keep them busy. Just wondering when they will realise the consequences.
> Cheers




How about you spell out the consequences and the Libs alternative while your at it.


----------



## nulla nulla (21 December 2010)

I'm surprised no-one has raised the merits of cables in the ground, versus wireless and satelite as national security issues.


----------



## Mofra (21 December 2010)

nulla nulla said:


> I'm surprised no-one has raised the merits of cables in the ground, versus wireless and satelite as national security issues.



Many of our security satellites are run by Optus, so I'd hate to see what would happen if we had any serious dispute with Singapore. I'm glad someone has reaised this issue to be honest, kudos.

The copper infrastructure is early 20th century technology, and as an industry participant I am all in favour of a replacement given the current technical and regulatory restraints that we currently have in place.


----------



## IFocus (21 December 2010)

No one seemed to have picked up on this...............

Business Spectator by ALAN KOHLER

Now that's a broadband business plan
 With an absurdly conservative revenue plan not only will the NBN not be a white elephant it will also almost certainly prove to be a great investment for the nation.


----------



## So_Cynical (21 December 2010)

IFocus said:


> No one seemed to have picked up on this...............
> 
> Business Spectator by ALAN KOHLER
> 
> ...




Seems to be little reaction from the ASF right, GG, Julia, noco, Tranny, Calliope, bellenuit, gav etc...all gone very quiet.


----------



## Julia (21 December 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Seems to be little reaction from the ASF right, GG, Julia, noco, Tranny, Calliope, bellenuit, gav etc...all gone very quiet.




Oh dear, do I really want to bother responding to this?
Not really.

You might both consider that some of us have despaired, and pretty much switched off from the whole damn thing.

But Radio National's Breakfast today did have some pretty clear criticism.  You might like to have a listen to this:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/stories/2010/3098135.htm

And btw, if the government actually were to do something good, i.e. actually get something right, I'd be the first to offer praise.
Please do not categorise me as 'of the Right'.  I'm a swinging voter who has voted Labor more often than Liberal.

I do, however, retain the right to be critical of any government, whatever its persuasion, which consistently stuffs up everything they undertake.

Just today they have announced the axing of the current green loans schemes because they simply can't get it right.

I won't subject you to the pain of again listing all they have got wrong.  You already know this.

But given this woeful list of failures, what makes you think they can get such a massive project as the NBN off the ground successfully?

Just last night on the 7.30 Report there was a very lucid account of a user of the NBN there who felt utterly let down in her participation of the NBN, and indeed they demonstrated how slow it was even to make the initial connection.

If you seriously think this government can successfully put in place the NBN project, even not considering that it will be technologically superseded by the time it actually happens, you are imo pretty deluded.


----------



## tothemax6 (21 December 2010)

MS+Tradesim said:


> Congratulations. What about the rest of us who can't get faster than 1.5mbps?



I know some people who wish they got 1.5mbps. I personally can't wait until I get a fiber into my house. God yeah, that big long glass fiber coming all the way from the exchange into my house. Unloading torrents into my computer at 1000mbps+.
Ahem, I mean faster internet would be nice.


----------



## todster (22 December 2010)

Julia said:


> Oh dear, do I really want to bother responding to this?
> Not really.
> 
> You might both consider that some of us have despaired, and pretty much switched off from the whole damn thing.
> ...




Superseded tell me more,Let down haaaaaha Telstra have got my Bigpond account wrong every bill in 13 months ask me about my participation in the current wireless debarcle left over from inaction from the last set of clowns.
How people who claim such bias from the ABC and them quote them when it suits them never stops to amaze me.
Very hard to kick a goal when people put wheels on the post


----------



## bellenuit (22 December 2010)

I am considering building two 2-story townhouses and thought it would be a good idea to have them NBN ready.

One builder quoted on running conduits from the attic to each of the three bedrooms and two living areas with draw wires and also a conduit from the attic to under the stairs where the control hub will be located. The idea is that the NBN will terminate somewhere on the house and a cable will be run from the termination point to the control hub, where it will then be distributed to each of the above mentioned rooms. So this builder was not actually pricing the wiring, just running conduits and draw wires to make it easy to run the wiring at a later stage. His price for this:  $8,000 per unit.

A second builder was more reasonable. His quote include wiring two coax and two cat 6 cables from the control hub to each of the above mentioned rooms.  His price: $4,200 per unit.

I think a lot of people are going to be unpleasantly surprised if they want to wire their house to take full advantage of the NBN. Remember, the above quotes apply to the work being done during building, which is a lot less costly than afterwards.

I think these figures are in line with what had been mentioned in the press a few months ago, figures that Conroy ridiculed as being unrealistic.


----------



## todster (22 December 2010)

bellenuit said:


> I am considering building two 2-story townhouses and thought it would be a good idea to have them NBN ready.
> 
> One builder quoted on running conduits from the attic to each of the three bedrooms and two living areas with draw wires and also a conduit from the attic to under the stairs where the control hub will be located. The idea is that the NBN will terminate somewhere on the house and a cable will be run from the termination point to the control hub, where it will then be distributed to each of the above mentioned rooms. So this builder was not actually pricing the wiring, just running conduits and draw wires to make it easy to run the wiring at a later stage. His price for this:  $8,000 per unit.
> 
> ...




Mate if you think because under construction phase the install would be cheaper i hope your not a first time owner builder.


----------



## joea (22 December 2010)

todster said:


> How about you spell out the consequences and the Libs alternative while your at it.




If I remember they were going with a $9billion project utilising existing and future fibre
projects. They intended to have non government investors. Speed would increase as technology provided it. Wireless and satellite for the outback.

The point people are making is the election pitch from labor was 100mbps for 93 % of Australian households at basically the same affordable  price across the country. i.e. city's would subsidize the country. $300 - $500 INSTALLATION COST FOR NEW HOMES.
It appears base is now 12mbps at say $54/month and extra data additional.
I do not know who pays for battery when  fibre is installed.

Basically the election pitch got them the government, but the taxpayer is not getting the goods promised. The pitch was fraud.

Anyway Combet and Ferguson can come out and tell us the truth and be up front with the facts. They speak with integrity, maybe Gillard and Swan should let them handle the media and policy finalisation. I am sure we would be better off.
Actually I quite enjoy watching them both speak on behalf of the government!!!

Cheers


----------



## boofhead (22 December 2010)

93% is to be covered by fibre. The 93% can then attain 100 megabits per second. That part of the election promise is still potentially correct.


----------



## shiftyphil (22 December 2010)

boofhead said:


> That part of the election promise is still potentially correct.




Which part isn't?


----------



## boofhead (22 December 2010)

I never said any part of the election promise is broken or incorrect. What I read of the election promise wasn't that 100 Mb/s only.

One part that could be incorrect is the timeframe. Some numbers recently popping up saying it'll take a year or 3 longer.


----------



## So_Cynical (22 December 2010)

bellenuit said:


> His price for this:  $8,000 per unit.
> 
> A second builder was more reasonable. His quote include wiring two coax and two cat 6 cables from the control hub to each of the above mentioned rooms.  His price: $4,200 per unit.
> 
> I think these figures are in line with what had been mentioned in the press a few months ago, figures that Conroy ridiculed as being unrealistic.




I installed Foxtel for 2 years and can tell you that your quotes are totally unrealistic...however if you or anyone else is silly enough to pay that sort of money, then tradeys will happily que up to take it from you....your talking about no more than 200 bucks of conduit and maybe 300 bucks worth of CAT6 and RG6.

My advise would be forget the conduit and just run 2 lots of RG6 and 1 CAT6 during the build...get a cable puller to do it and save a fortune...its a 1 day job so no more than $800 total, and that's being very generous.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (25 December 2010)

What I know about IT could fit on the head of a pin.

I do know that the technology changes very rapidly and I fear that "Broadband" as we know it will be obsolete in 10 years time.

a quote from 

http://www.macworld.com/article/156661/2010/12/bacteria.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+macworld%2Fnews+%28News%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo



> According to Cambridge University's student magazine BlueSci, researchers from the University of Hong Kong managed to place 90GB of data into the DNA of a colony of 18 E.coli. The data can also be encrypted by site-specific genetic recombination; a purely natural process that means data can be jumbled up.
> 
> Science is weird.
> 
> Given that there are apparently around 10 million cells in a gram of bacteria, and each cell can hold approximately 5GB, this could lead to some pretty enormous storage capacities. Plus, different types of cells have stronger radioresistance than others, meaning the cells (and data in them) would survive a nuclear blast.




This guy Conroy seems to like spending other people's money on a pink batts crusade which will impoverish the Treasury for decades.

It is time for Labor to get rid of these machine men and replace them with workers and small business people who know a lemon when it is presented to them.

gg


----------



## Aussiejeff (26 December 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> It is time for Labor to get rid of these machine men and replace them with workers and small business people who know a lemon when it is presented to them.
> 
> gg




Alas, too late. The "party" has already purged most all "good" Labor from it's ranks, in favour of robotic yes-sheeple, including the incumbent Blowhard and her hench-sheeple.

Perhaps your quote might have to be changed to _"It is time for *THE PEOPLE* to get rid of these machine men and replace them with workers and small business people who know a lemon when it is presented to them"._

What a revolutionary idea, wot? 

Anyhoo, a swimmingly Happy New Year in the Queen's Own Land to you, GG.

Have a nana or two on me.... :bananasmi


----------



## todster (26 December 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> What I know about IT could fit on the head of a pin.
> 
> I do know that the technology changes very rapidly and I fear that "Broadband" as we know it will be obsolete in 10 years time.
> 
> ...




Brilliant rather using the telephone network we use the sewer
The Brownband network GG you are a genius


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (26 December 2010)

todster said:


> Brilliant rather using the telephone network we use the sewer
> The Brownband network GG you are a genius




From my reading of this technology, it is flush with possibilities, and a sewer may not be necessary.

Todster, I have applied for a patent on Brownband and will umbly request you to drive the Arnage, be the babeorganiser, etc. etc. You will lack for nought. 

Conroy, what a turd, we may cut him in on a cleaning contract when he is disgraced. 

gg


----------



## joea (18 January 2011)

Hi.
It appears that the NBN will be exempt from freedom of information laws.

The coalition are attempting to block a  government regulation to exempt NBN from scrutiny from the Parlimentary Standing Committee on Public Works.

Is this another mind game of Gillard, or is she attempting to take the focus from something else?

Cheers


----------



## sails (24 January 2011)

An article in response to Ms Gillard likening NBN investment as similar to investing in property:

Fools beware: no guarantee NBN will work 



> No, it's not, because unlike houses, which don't become obsolete (we haven't yet found an alternative way to live), the NBN isn't a guaranteed investment. In time, wireless technology or yet to be discovered alternatives could diminish the value of the NBN's fibre rollout. And even if the analogy is applied, properties don't always make money: in downturns people regularly sell at a loss, especially when interest rate rises force sales.




Does she really believe that investments can only go up in value?...


----------



## Mofra (24 January 2011)

joea said:


> It appears that the NBN will be exempt from freedom of information laws.
> 
> The coalition are attempting to block a  government regulation to exempt NBN from scrutiny from the Parlimentary Standing Committee on Public Works.
> 
> ...



It should be exempt, as are most private companies.  
Having a little experience with FOI cases, they tend to be a massive task that divert a huge amount of resource away from normal duties, and given the exemptions that apply to released material much of what is released after hundreds (or thousands) of hours work per individual request is useless.

The business case is absolutely something which should have been released earlier - FOI status is something they have right IiMO.


----------



## Julia (24 January 2011)

Following is extract from article by Christian Kerr in one of the weekend papers.



> NBN VULNERABLE TO THE WET.
> The Brisbane floods disaster has exposed serious potential problems with the NBN telecommunications industry figures warn.
> 
> While the industry is divided over the full implications for the NBN of the flooding and loss of power, some sources say the government is removing a layer of redundancy that could be vital in an emergency by insisting Telstra tear up its existing network.
> ...




Why actually is the government insisting Telstra  tear up its existing network?


----------



## boofhead (24 January 2011)

Copper doesn't help anything. It is vulnerable to water. Plenty of people have had telephone issues when they've had rain. Many copper lines are not properly in conduit. Some even have paper instead of plastic coating.

Copper would not have provided any reasonable redundancy. Mobile cell towers can albeit with finite battery power which could be supplemented with solar panels. The fibre cables have a coating.


----------



## Calliope (29 January 2011)

President Obama has promised to connect 98% of Americans to next generation high -speed wireless digital communication. Obviously Americans want mobility. Do Gillard and Conroy  know something that Obama doesn't know, or why are we committing billions of dollars to a 20 year old fibre-optic system that doesn't provide any portability?

What Obama has proposed could render our proposed fibre-optic system obsolete before it is completed.

This would dwarf all Gillard's previous white elephants.


----------



## boofhead (29 January 2011)

Got any information on Obama's network?

If Australia's fibre network eventually shows it didn't lose any money factoring inflation then it has a potential benefit - it allows the capitalists that believe a wireless network is better to build their supposed better network. NBNCo's documents outline how the network will support multicast and how bandwidth can be saved by the ISP - IPTV should grow a lot. No surprise Telstra, iiNet, Internode and others are developing systems now ready for it to be available on a better medium.

Wireless spectrum is finite. Does anyone have any crytal balls to peer in to so we know how the wireless market will mature? What plans will be offered, what conditions, what typical speeds, quotas etc.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (29 January 2011)

todster said:


> Brilliant rather using the telephone network we use the sewer
> The Brownband network GG you are a genius




Me and a few mates are working on a revolutionary new IT concept that will make the NBN obsolete in the flush of a drover's dunny.

It's called *iColi.*

gg


----------



## Calliope (29 January 2011)

boofhead said:


> Got any information on Obama's network?




Do you and Gillard and Conroy have access to information on digital networking that   Obama can't access?



> During his State of the Union Address , he remarked, "Within the next five years, we will make it possible for business to deploy the next generation of high-speed wireless coverage to 98% of all Americans. This isn't just about a faster Internet and fewer dropped calls. It's about connecting every part of America to the digital age."
> 
> The federal government has 380 of the 500 MHz it needs.  However, the other 120 MHz is currently occupied and unused by television networks, which were gifted it long ago.  The administration is trying to set up a special auction to convince these networks to part with the unused spectrum by letting them keep a cut of the auction proceed.
> 
> Verizon Wireless general counsel Steve Zipperstein cheered the measure, stating to Reuters, "President Obama is helping the nation to understand the incredible benefits that broadband wireless can bring: to our business, to healthcare, to productivity and to education.  Wireless innovation requires public policies that foster innovation, growth and encourage continued investment by Verizon and our partners in the technology."




http://www.dailytech.com/Obama+Push...State+  of+the+Union+Address/article20750.htm


----------



## todster (30 January 2011)

Calliope said:


> President Obama has promised to connect 98% of Americans to next generation high -speed wireless digital communication. Obviously Americans want mobility. Do Gillard and Conroy  know something that Obama doesn't know, or why are we committing billions of dollars to a 20 year old fibre-optic system that doesn't provide any portability?
> 
> What Obama has proposed could render our proposed fibre-optic system obsolete before it is completed.
> 
> This would dwarf all Gillard's previous white elephants.



 As the heavy rain hit the northern suburbs of Perth this afternoon and my wireless connection dropped out again maybe you could get  the modem attached to the white elephant to give me better reception.
Should of kept the dial up hey grandpa


----------



## Calliope (30 January 2011)

todster said:


> As the heavy rain hit the northern suburbs of Perth this afternoon and my wireless connection dropped out again maybe you could get  the modem attached to the white elephant to give me better reception.
> Should of kept the dial up hey grandpa




I guess you are one of the 2% who even Obama can't help.


----------



## noco (30 January 2011)

todster said:


> As the heavy rain hit the northern suburbs of Perth this afternoon and my wireless connection dropped out again maybe you could get  the modem attached to the white elephant to give me better reception.
> Should of kept the dial up hey grandpa




How long were you without your wireless connection?


----------



## todster (30 January 2011)

noco said:


> How long were you without your wireless connection?




Just long enough not to be able to reach emergency services curly.
Yeah lets invest all our money in a service that might work in an emergency.


----------



## todster (30 January 2011)

Calliope said:


> I guess you are one of the 2% who even Obama can't help.




2% of the US would be about 30% of Australians i would imagine


----------



## Gringotts Bank (30 January 2011)

I think some US company will invent a whiz bang, low cost wireless technology capable of high speed data transfer.  Obama has said he would put a lot of support behind such a venture.

How about we find that company and invest some Aus taxpayer money in that, rather than x billion in the NBN?  Good idea?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (30 January 2011)

todster said:


> Just long enough not to be able to reach emergency services curly.
> Yeah lets invest all our money in a service that might work in an emergency.




I find pigeons never let you down todster. Become a fancier.

gg


----------



## todster (30 January 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I find pigeons never let you down todster. Become a fancier.
> 
> gg



HAHA GG me and Bill Lawry the national birdband network


----------



## bellenuit (30 January 2011)

If we were to have invested in a telephony technology that has the most reliable connection in an emergency, then we would have put all our money into landlines and not mobile phones. Yet it is patently obvious from the myriad of people saved by having access to a cell phone that reliability of connection is just one criterion to consider. 

IMO, access from almost anywhere is far more important. An incapacitated person who falls down just a meter or two from a landline phone may be unable to use the landline for help, but if the person had a mobile at hand, then no problem

I think it is the same with the internet. Yes there are instances where a wired connection is going to be better than wireless, but it is apparent that the whole industry is moving in the opposite direction to us. Did anyone announce a new desktop PC at the recent CES in Las Vegas? No (I'm pretty sure), but there were dozens of pads announced and that is the future according to spokespersons there.

Internet connected TVs were also a standout at the show and they would be better in a wired high-speed environment to access HD content than wireless. But the government didn't sell the NBN based on access to HD TV content. It was the remote medical diagnosis, education etc. that they used as examples. However there is no evidence to suggest that when such applications are developed, they will require high speed wired connections only. It is much more likely that the applications will be suited to the "device du jour" which predictions indicate will likely be a mobile device of sorts. There will be situations when wired outshines wireless and vice versa, but the gripe against the NBN is that we are putting all our eggs in the one basket and betting against the trend. This is more apparent after Obama's SOTN speech.


----------



## Calliope (30 January 2011)

todster said:


> 2% of the US would be about 30% of Australians i would imagine




A high percentage of Australian adults don't have the necessary computer skills necessary to work around your problem. You may have to relocate.


----------



## todster (30 January 2011)

Calliope said:


> A high percentage of Australian adults don't have the necessary computer skills necessary to work around your problem. You may have to relocate.



 Maybe i could relocate to the Sunshine coast near you,but how would i find your address?
I know look for the black cloud hovering above the nursing home


----------



## noco (30 January 2011)

todster said:


> Just long enough not to be able to reach emergency services curly.
> Yeah lets invest all our money in a service that might work in an emergency.




And what are the odds of that happening MOE?


----------



## Calliope (30 January 2011)

todster said:


> I know look for the black cloud hovering above the nursing home




Your references to me as "grandpa"  and  to "nursing home" are obviously name calling and slighting language, as well as being ageist and ill-informed. Others may find it amusing but I don't.


----------



## todster (30 January 2011)

noco said:


> And what are the odds of that happening MOE?



 ask larry


----------



## boofhead (30 January 2011)

Calliope said:


> Do you and Gillard and Conroy have access to information on digital networking that   Obama can't access?




I'm not sure why you're asking me unless you forgot to quote something I wrote that directly relates to that question.

Wireless speeds tend to drop with distance, congestion (something that apparently telcos sometimes have issues with now like Vodafone). How well do the various wireless technologies handle available spectrum in Australia in high population areas with many customers? Akamai recently released their report in some trends, "The company found that average mobile connect speeds with Verizon Wireless, AT&T, and Sprint all settled in between 700Kbps and 800Kbps" which suggests many with wireless are doing better. Wireless should improve but that doesn't mean wired will not. Fibre also has potential extra advances to how copper has been adapted from pure voice to voice + xDSL.


----------



## Logique (30 January 2011)

Calliope said:


> Your references to me as "grandpa"  and  to "nursing home" are obviously name calling and slighting language, as well as being ageist and ill-informed. Others may find it amusing but I don't.



Yes a bit of a stereotype T., I know you didn't mean it to be hurtful. Conservatives come in all ages, and so do radicals. And Left and Right the same.


----------



## Julia (30 January 2011)

Calliope said:


> Your references to me as "grandpa"  and  to "nursing home" are obviously name calling and slighting language, as well as being ageist and ill-informed. Others may find it amusing but I don't.






Logique said:


> Yes a bit of a stereotype T., I know you didn't mean it to be hurtful. Conservatives come in all ages, and so do radicals. And Left and Right the same.



 How do you know he 'didn't mean it to be hurtful'?  It's a perfectly deliberate and rude comment.


----------



## IFocus (31 January 2011)

Logique said:


> Yes a bit of a stereotype T., I know you didn't mean it to be hurtful. Conservatives come in all ages, and so do radicals. And Left and Right the same.




.........+1


----------



## IFocus (31 January 2011)

Julia said:


> How do you know he 'didn't mean it to be hurtful'?  It's a perfectly deliberate and rude comment.





...........-1


----------



## Julia (31 January 2011)

IFocus said:


> ...........-1



 Ah, if you disagree, I'm reassured I was on the right track with my observation.

And IFocus, just in case you missed my question earlier, (I wouldn't like to think you felt unable to answer), here it is again:



> So Cynical: just a simple question, if I may. Could you please tell us if you are actually completely happy with the government, and comment on the performances of Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan in particular.
> Do you actually believe they have thus far wisely spent taxpayer funds?
> Do you actually believe they have a credible and sustainable plan to take Australia forward?
> If so, what do you consider to be the essential constituents of this plan and how will it benefit this great nation?
> ...




Of course, you're under no obligation to answer.  If you choose not to, I guess we will easily understand why.


----------



## So_Cynical (31 January 2011)

Julia]So Cynical: just a simple question said:


> And IFocus, just in case you missed my question earlier, (I wouldn't like to think you felt unable to answer), here it is again:
> 
> Of course, you're under no obligation to answer.  If you choose not to, I guess we will easily understand why.




Completely happy? im never completely happy with anything and since the PM and Swanny haven't had much of a chance to do anything yet ill reserve my judgement.

As for Labor in General...in general im happy with what they have and haven't done, while i will admit that some things could of been done better....what dawned on me today for the first time was the realisation that coalition supporters are and were happier when they have/had a government that did little or nothing.

Look at the decade of political success John Howard had, all done by doing little or nothing..and he only ever got himself in trouble when he tried to do something, like work no choices, and water front reform etc...its clear from the Flood levy thread and in fact this thread, that coalition voters want all governments to do little or nothing.

Least that's how im seeing it....dammed if you do and dammed if you do, so do nothing, kept the coalition in Govt for over a decade...until they stuck there necks out with work no choices.


----------



## trainspotter (1 February 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Completely happy? im never completely happy with anything and since the PM and Swanny haven't had much of a chance to do anything yet ill reserve my judgement.
> 
> As for Labor in General...in general im happy with what they have and haven't done, while i will admit that some things could of been done better....what dawned on me today for the first time was the realisation that coalition supporters are and were happier when they have/had a government that did little or nothing.
> 
> ...




LOLOLOL ....... So_Cyclical you are damn funny when you are backed into a corner.

What did Little Johhny actually do whilst in office?

Delivered eight Budget surplus's and effectively eliminated all of Labor’s $96 billion of government debt.

http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1115  ........ look here for more "nothings"

NBN is a myth http://www.coxmedia.com.au/articles/121/broadband_plan_is_smoke_and_mirrors_by_peter_j._cox.html

Let's all be in awe of a shiny blue cable that will save Australia. PMSL


----------



## Calliope (1 February 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> ...its clear from the Flood levy thread and in fact this thread, that coalition voters want all governments to do little or nothing.




I am tempted to make a suitable comment about this bit of nonsense, however it would probably be branded as provocation, so I will back off.


----------



## joea (1 February 2011)

Trainspotter

Thanks for that  site about  NBN and Fibre. I enjoyed reading it.

joea


----------



## Julia (1 February 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Completely happy? im never completely happy with anything and since the PM and Swanny haven't had much of a chance to do anything yet ill reserve my judgement.



What?   Labor has held government for more than three years!   But despite the pink batts, the waste on school halls at double realistic prices, grocery watch, fuel watch, amongst other nonsense ideas, e.g. cash for clunkers and all the failed green schemes, you are 'still reserving judgement'.  

I suppose that's really all a dyed in the wool Labor supporter can say.  It would be just to hurtful to admit how badly they have stuffed up.


----------



## Knobby22 (1 February 2011)

Julia said:


> What?   Labor has held government for more than three years!   But despite the pink batts, the waste on school halls at double realistic prices, grocery watch, fuel watch, amongst other nonsense ideas, e.g. cash for clunkers and all the failed green schemes, you are 'still reserving judgement'.
> 
> I suppose that's really all a dyed in the wool Labor supporter can say.  It would be just to hurtful to admit how badly they have stuffed up.




I thought Labour lost direction when Rudd was sacked, though he couldn't seem to be able to listen either. I am for a few of their ideas and think they did well in some things however they could definitely do better. I have no problem with National Broadband network and believe it is necessary for the future of Australia. The arguments against it are all about how profitable it will be which is a furphy. I am happy to see, I think a few people will be surprised. You must remember that the Murdoch Press hates broadband as it will destroy their profits.

I, (along with many swinging voters), can't vote for Abbott. I don't like his answers or attitude. I bet when he gets knocked off for someone more moderate that Liberals will get in easily.


----------



## trainspotter (1 February 2011)

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ???????????

TELSTRA will retain its high-speed cable network and $75 million in Foxtel contracts as part of a deal struck with NBN Co, but they must decommission the cable's broadband and telephone capabilities.

*Telstra's underground hybrid- fibre coaxial (HFC) network was a major competitive threat to NBN Co because it was capable of delivering broadband at 100 megabits per second and passes millions of houses and businesses in Australia.*

http://www.smh.com.au/business/telstra-keeps-cable-network-in-nbn-deal-20100620-ypd5.html

So the Guvmint is forcing a competitor to stop using it's network because it is a threat to the NBN?? WTF is going on here ladeeez and generalmen?

Didn't we just sell Telstra for a thripney bit because the Government did not want to run a telecommunications company and here we are lining ourselves up for another one?? And a very bloody expensive one at that !!!!!!!!!


----------



## Mofra (1 February 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> I thought Labour lost direction when Rudd was sacked, though he couldn't seem to be able to listen either. I am for a few of their ideas and think they did well in some things however they could definitely do better. I have no problem with National Broadband network and believe it is necessary for the future of Australia. The arguments against it are all about how profitable it will be which is a furphy. I am happy to see, I think a few people will be surprised. You must remember that the Murdoch Press hates broadband as it will destroy their profits.
> 
> I, (along with many swinging voters), can't vote for Abbott. I don't like his answers or attitude. I bet when he gets knocked off for someone more moderate that Liberals will get in easily.



I must say I agree with you Knobby, on both counts.


----------



## IFocus (1 February 2011)

> Julia;608411]Ah, if you disagree, I'm reassured I was on the right track with my observation.




Maybe you missed all the other posts made by todster he uses humor consistently.  



> And IFocus, just in case you missed my question earlier, (I wouldn't like to think you felt unable to answer), here it is again:




Feel free to run your agenda and I will feel free to ignore it




> Of course, you're under no obligation to answer.  If you choose not to, I guess we will easily understand why.




Its a joy when every thing is so black and white.


----------



## So_Cynical (1 February 2011)

trainspotter said:


> LOLOLOL ....... So_Cyclical you are damn funny when you are backed into a corner.
> 
> What did Little Johhny actually do whilst in office?
> 
> Delivered eight Budget surplus's and effectively eliminated all of Labor’s $96 billion of government debt.




LOL Tranny i said he did nothing and you counter with agreement  pointing to budget surpluses made possible courtesy of Hawke/Keating...remember them, they were a Govt that actually did something, floated the dollar, deregulated the financial system, got rid of tariffs, privatised state sector industries, ended subsidisation of loss-making industries, floated the CBA, fringe benefits tax and a capital gains tax.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawke-Keating_Government


----------



## Julia (1 February 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> I, (along with many swinging voters), can't vote for Abbott. I don't like his answers or attitude. I bet when he gets knocked off for someone more moderate that Liberals will get in easily.



Agree, Knobby.  I just asked the question on another thread re would the Libs be brave enough to toss Abbott out and give Malcolm Turnbull another chance?  I'd bet Mr Turnbull wouldn't make the same mistake twice and seems to offer the only viable leader for the Libs.

Probably - given how close the Libs came to government at the last election - they'd find it hard to justify dispensing with Mr Abbott. But if they were as brutally realistic as Labor was when it chopped Rudd's head off, they would get rid of him.  He will simply never appeal to enough people and voters really wanting to get rid of the current government will continue to find it hard to vote for Abbott as PM.


----------



## trainspotter (2 February 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> LOL Tranny i said he did nothing and you counter with agreement  pointing to budget surpluses made possible courtesy of Hawke/Keating...remember them, they were a Govt that actually did something, floated the dollar, deregulated the financial system, got rid of tariffs, privatised state sector industries, ended subsidisation of loss-making industries, floated the CBA, fringe benefits tax and a capital gains tax.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawke-Keating_Government




You are on some wicked mind altering drugs there So_Syclical ......... Hahaha ah ah ahaha a *gasp* haha h aha heh e heh eh eee  ....... Gave us interest rates of 17% on housing loans and 20% on business loans. Racked up 96 billion in debt. Unemployment rate of 10.3%. The "Recession we had to have" is still vivid. Said Canadian Conrad Black could increase his ownership of Australian media if he gave Keating more "balanced" coverage. Asked to elaborate what "balanced" meant, Keating said, "I'm the prime minister." Timor Gap Treaty. LOLOL ....... I will stop now as I am laughing too much !!

ROFL ......... yeah they were the good ol days eh what?

Anyhoooooooo ........ back to the topic of the thread.

Canberra is terrible at building and operating commercial services. Perhaps the most unbelievable aspect of the NBN is that a government-controlled entity can roll out a vast undertaking such as national fibre-to-the-home on budget and on schedule. This from the people who couldn't build school assembly halls without billions in rorts? Who tragically mismanaged the home insulation program? Who put less than half the computers promised in schools at double the cost?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...he-nbn-will-fail/story-e6frgd0x-1225906080793


----------



## trainspotter (2 February 2011)

Pipe Networks founder Bevan Slattery today delivered a ringing slap in the face to Communications Minister Stephen Conroy, predicting most of the promises around his flagship National Broadband Network initiative would fall flat, with the project to end up being a liability to Australia’s taxpayers.

Slattery has a great deal of expertise in laying out the fibre infrastructure that will be at the heart of the NBN ”” with partner Steve Baxter he founded fibre player Pipe Networks in 2001 and built it into a major, predominantly wholesale player, before selling the company to ISP TPG last year.

He told the Communications Day Summit in Sydney today there was one major issue with why the project would *fail* ”” what he described as the fact that you couldn’t get a commercial return on investment for a project building a wholesale-only broadband network that would reach 90 percent of the population.

*“I firmly believe you can’t get a commercial return on this infrastructure,” he said. “Don’t play cute, don’t spin, don’t bull****.”*

http://www.itwire.com/it-industry-news/strategy/38414-pipe-founder-predicts-nbn-will-fail


----------



## Calliope (2 February 2011)

Your electorate's place in the queue will depend on whether your electorate is red or blue, or preferably independent.



> ... to keep the peace during the NBN rollout over the next nine years, let me suggest a new commandment to replace what is commonly cited as Christianity’s number nine tenet, and as we pray that our own individual houses and places of businesses not be the last premises in Australia to receive the NBN fibre in 2021 … years and years after everyone else.
> 
> “Our Father Quigley who art in NBN Co, hallowed be thy name
> Thy fibre kingdom come, thy rollout schedule proceed on Earth as it is in the business case
> ...




http://delimiter.com.au/2011/01/25/nbn-who-will-be-connected-last/


----------



## drsmith (4 February 2011)

Not good news for the Townsville first release site.

http://smarthouse.com.au/Wireless_And_Networking/Industry/N9L3M2P4
http://www.nbnco.com.au/wps/wcm/connect/first-release/site-base/first-release-areas/maps#townsville

Was Telstra's copper network in that area above ground or underground ?


----------



## bellenuit (14 February 2011)

bellenuit said:


> If we were to have invested in a telephony technology that has the most reliable connection in an emergency, then we would have put all our money into landlines and not mobile phones. Yet it is patently obvious from the myriad of people saved by having access to a cell phone that reliability of connection is just one criterion to consider.
> 
> IMO, access from almost anywhere is far more important. An incapacitated person who falls down just a meter or two from a landline phone may be unable to use the landline for help, but if the person had a mobile at hand, then no problem
> 
> ...




I can't for the life of me find it now, but someone replied to this post of mine or a similar post of mine that argued the trend was to mobility over speed by counter arguing that mobility would mean huge transmission towers in every neighbourhood.

Of course the assumption with the counter argument is that wireless technology is going to stand still for the next 10 years. This is an interesting article on the changes taking place on the transmission end.....

*Cell Phone Towers to be Replaced by Tiny Antennas*

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/12/cell-phone-towers-to-be-r_n_822332.html


----------



## drsmith (18 March 2011)

This has all gone very quiet.

A bone though from Telstra, although not much marrow. 

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20110318/pdf/41xjct7h7pkwt8.pdf


----------



## Mofra (18 March 2011)

Google boss seems in favour of it:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/19/3143457.htm

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/biz-tech/google-boss-weighs-in-to-nbn-debate-20110317-1byqj.html



> “Every time we've seen this level of step-up in performance of an underlying network, we've seen an explosion of new and unanticipated uses.”


----------



## drsmith (18 March 2011)

Telstra's announcement suggests difficulties in negotiating the detail between them and the government.


----------



## sptrawler (18 March 2011)

The difficulty in the negotiation between them could be because the ACCC has stuck it's oar in and said there has to be 100+ points of interconnect instead of 14. This no doubt has resulted in Telstra having to hand over access to more of their infrastructure eg exchanges and equipment. The terms of the original deal may have to be renegotiated. This isn't going to play out quickly, as per usual Conroy is probably moving the goal posts and trying to rip off Telstra with the help of the ACCC as usual.
The hypocracy of the cherry picking rules is starting to sink in and a lot of people are starting to kick up about it.
There is every chance this will not be settled before the Government is thrown out. Add to this the detention centre debacle and even the independants must be getting nervous of getting thrown out with the bath water.


----------



## sptrawler (18 March 2011)

Mofra said:


> Google boss seems in favour of it:
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/19/3143457.htm
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/technology/biz-tech/google-boss-weighs-in-to-nbn-debate-20110317-1byqj.html



 I would never have thought the boss of the internets largest search engine would agree with a Government spending billions on the internet, which in turn helps his company. What next?


----------



## Mofra (18 March 2011)

sptrawler said:


> I would never have thought the boss of the internets largest search engine would agree with a Government spending billions on the internet, which in turn helps his company. *What next?*



Luddites wondering why technology is expensive :


----------



## sptrawler (18 March 2011)

Maybe Conroy could employ a few to help build the N.B.N.


----------



## todster (18 March 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Maybe Conroy could employ a few to help build the N.B.N.




Looking for work?


----------



## trainspotter (19 March 2011)

Taken from NBNMyths own propoganda website:-

* 1. The NBN will cost taxpayers $43 billion dollars. We can’t afford it and it’s uncosted*

False

Total construction costs are now forecast to be *$34.4bn,* plus $1.3bn in maintenance costs during the build phase

*2. If it were viable, the private sector would build it*

False

a. The private sector could not afford it. *~$40bn* is a huge investment for any company, and well beyond any telco operating in Australia.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A billion here and a billion there ........ pretty soon they will be talking in real money.

Is it 34.4 billion or 40 billion? Notice how it is cheaper when it suits their argument but toooooo expensive for a private company to fund !

A telco would not build it not because of the cost. The RoR at 7% is totally unrealistic for a private company to fund. Period. NBN is not a telco by the way either. It is a monopoly wholesaler.

Oh well ............. I can't wait for the shiny blue cable to save my technologically challenged life. 

But wait ....... what is this ? Telstra delay creates uncertainty?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...ates-uncertainty/story-e6frg9io-1226023939936

_But once that happens it will take the ACCC at least four months to consider the competition aspects of the agreement and Telstra’s structural separation undertaking.

Once that is done one month's notice is required for an EGM and all of a sudden we are looking at August at best and more likely September before any meeting can be held.

Just what Thodey was thinking when he set the "stretch" target beggars belief, because the ACCC has to give a set period of time to punters to comment on agreements.

At least he is not a member of the Future Fund board, which having served the government in good faith still doesn't know a week or two before his or her term expires that he or she will have the term extended.

*That, frankly, is just insulting and one more reason why business is not a big government supporter.*_


----------



## joea (6 April 2011)

Just like to revise a statement by a fibre network architect in 09/2010.
It was put on this forum.


"The NBN will be one of the largest single network ever built on earth. There are only a few companies who could do it. Even Telstra would struggle to build something of this scale. 
Yet we are to believe that the same people who can't build school halls or install insulation without being ripped off are going to do it.?? Here at Telstra, we are laughing our heads off!!. Because when it all comes crumbling down, after they have spent $60 bullion and the network is no more than half finished, it will be up to Telstra to pick up the pieces,  (shhhh don't tell anybody, it's our secret)"

We will see how close this gentleman was to the mark.

Cheers


----------



## tothemax6 (6 April 2011)

I'm sure this has been used before, but this sums up NBN to a tee:


----------



## joea (8 April 2011)

Well CEO Patrick Flannigan quit NBN a few days ago.

Today it appears Cost and Resource estimates Manager has quit NBN.

A bit of a murmur $4 bullion over estimate. Thats only about 10%.

So it looks like its all going sour at NBN.
God help Australia. Pleaseeeeeeeeeee!

It is obvious that the footprint of this project is going from a size 12mens to size 3 baby's.

Oh well!!!


----------



## noco (8 April 2011)

joea said:


> Well CEO Patrick Flannigan quit NBN a few days ago.
> 
> Today it appears Cost and Resource estimates Manager has quit NBN.
> 
> ...




I wonder how the guvment is NOT tellig us!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## sptrawler (8 April 2011)

From the short list of tender companies left Telstra is the only one with the expertise and suitably skilled manpower available to carry out the build. Just depends if the Government want to fork out more to Telstra.
The other issue is if they use another company without the skill set it will be a huge cost blow out trying to entice a skilled workforce to join the company. Not many companies other than Telstra carry a large permanent workforce of electronic/ communication techs.
Also as they are jumping onto Telstras existing infrastructure Telstra are very familiar with it and drawings, schematics and equipment compatibility issues are readily available to Telstra.
Time will tell but it becomming more and more obvious that Conroy and his croneys are out of their depths and I think Telstras the only hope to save them from drowning.


----------



## joea (8 April 2011)

noco said:


> I wonder how the guvment is NOT tellig us!!!!!!!!!!




We will not want to be hanging from a branch, waiting for "Jerry (Conroy ) Lewis"
to tell us anything truthful. Thats for sure.

It will all come out in the wash. But I am not sure if that"s bath or mouthwash.

The barter now is going to be between NBN Co. and the several large construction
firms behind closed doors.

Cheers


----------



## IFocus (8 April 2011)

sptrawler said:


> From the short list of tender companies left Telstra is the only one with the expertise and suitably skilled manpower available to carry out the build. Just depends if the Government want to fork out more to Telstra.
> The other issue is if they use another company without the skill set it will be a huge cost blow out trying to entice a skilled workforce to join the company. Not many companies other than Telstra carry a large permanent workforce of electronic/ communication techs.
> Also as they are jumping onto Telstras existing infrastructure Telstra are very familiar with it and drawings, schematics and equipment compatibility issues are readily available to Telstra.
> Time will tell but it becomming more and more obvious that Conroy and his croneys are out of their depths and I think Telstras the only hope to save them from drowning.




From a technical and engineering point I agree with the sentiment but Telstra has long been stripped of skill engineering people I may be wrong but suspect that a lot of their work engineering wise is farmed out to contract.


----------



## sptrawler (8 April 2011)

I still think they retain quite a large workforce in technical but they have farmed out the civil and condtruction work. When there is a fault it is usually a Telstra tech that comes out.


----------

