NBN Rollout Scrapped

[noco]

I really regret having started this thread.

The NBN will be scrapped.

It has been decided by fat old men and baron (sic) women in Queensland, NSW and Victoria, who control the ALP's destiny.

Once ole Kennealy takes it on board it will be gospel. Jeez, she needs all the traction she can get, not to have the ole Greens outvote the ALP in NSW.

I digress.

The NBN is dead.

Its method of internment is all I was suggesting we discuss.

gg

gg, I think you are closer to the truth than a lot of peopel realize...It is becoming a 'LEMON' more and more each day. NBN will be useless for lap tops, I-pod and who knows what is around the corner in electronics.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...s-over-broadband/story-e6frg6zo-1226008373847

 

[todster]

gg, I think you are closer to the truth than a lot of peopel realize...It is becoming a 'LEMON' more and more each day. NBN will be useless for lap tops, I-pod and who knows what is around the corner in electronics.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...s-over-broadband/story-e6frg6zo-1226008373847

More than anything it will get rid of printed newspapers like your beloved Australian.

 

[IFocus]

More than anything it will get rid of printed newspapers like your beloved Australian.

The Australian has run a heavy campaign against the NBN, as you say its a direct threat to it and much of the media out there hence the heavy propaganda.

They run the wireless BS continually to undermined the NBN but forget to tell you that mobile devices alone will soak up most the bandwidth

 

[noco]

More than anything it will get rid of printed newspapers like your beloved Australian.

todster, why do you want to rid the nation of the Australian? That's what was said when TV hit Brisbane on the 3rd Ausgust 1959, everybody would stop reading papers and magazines.
Don't you believe in freedom of speech?
Is it too critical of the soclialist left Labor Government?
Would you ban the ABC as well? Probably not as they are pro Labor and in the ABC's eyes Labor can't do anything wrong. Just listen to Barrie Cassidy and that idiot David Marr on Insiders.
The NBN is a 'LEMON" and will end up in the same catagory as the
Fuel Watch
Grocery Watch
Pink Bats
BER
Cash for Clunckers
Green Schemes
MRT
etc., etc.

 

[tothemax6]

The NBN is a 'LEMON" and will end up in the same catagory as the
Fuel Watch
Grocery Watch
Pink Bats
BER
Cash for Clunckers
Green Schemes
MRT
etc., etc.

It sure will, no one ever learns anything. We are destined to repeat histories errors because no one is intelligent enough to understand its lessons.
Some have said that perhaps the right to vote should be subject to an IQ test, but in reality intelligence never prevented men from coming to the completely wrong conclusions: Marx, Singer, Chomsky etc.

 

[Slipperz]

And it's the contention that is the issue. For a 4G network to deliver an actual download speed of 100Mbps would be almost impossible. Even the highest "4G" implementation (1Gbps) is shared, so a tower could only deliver 100Mbps if there were only 10 people active on it, along with perfect weather and no topographic or engineering features obstructing the signal. Current 4G implementations are only (per cell) 150Mbps, with 300Mbps not too far away. In which case, you could only get 100Mbps if there were only 1 or 3 people connected respectively. And anyone making a phonecall on that tower would also slow the data speed, since wireless treats a phone call as a data connection (albeit at a lower data rate).

So I guess if you sat at the bottom of a tower, in Cooper Pedy, at 3am on a Monday morning, you might get that sort of speed. Once 4G eventually migrates throughout the network of course.

But all the above is beside the point. Wireless data is a complementary service to fixed, not a competing one. Yes, we'll eventually get a 4G service at no cost to the taxpayer (Except probable rural USO subsidies). But it won't replace our fixed networks.

Delimiter has a wonderfully blunt post covering the issue:

Let’s get one thing very, very clear straight away: Any form of over-the-air mobile broadband is not – in any way – a replacement for a wired network like the NBN. It’s just not. What it is, however, is a fantastic piece of complementary technology that allows consumers and business the chance to expand their horizons beyond what’s available if you’re limited to development on a PC chained to desk.

Of course, the idea of having two similar but different technologies existing at once and providing similar services is completely beyond the seemingly small minds of those opposing such a situation.

From http://delimiter.com.au/2011/02/15/lte-will-kill-the-nbn-just-as-unicorns-are-real/

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/industry-sectors/telstras-major-upgrade-of-wireless-network-a-challenge-to-nbn/story-e6frg9hx-1226005976918

This is competition for the NBN right here.

Half a million sign ups in six months!

When the 4G roll out occurs it will make wireless even more appealing.

I am with Telstra now and I get around 17-18 Mbs dl speeds which is perfectly fine.

Quadruple that speed just by upgrading the firmware in the modem? Okay.

Laptops and tablets are the way of the future.

Just wait until they build 4G modems into tablets and netbooks and start giving them away on 24 month plans.

You just throw it in your bag , plonk it on the coffee table like a book.

Desktops connected to an expensive fibre optic network will be used by data hogs.

Gamers and pirates and businesses.

Time will tell but I'm seeing yet more of my hard earned dollars getting pissed away by the government with the NBN.

 

[IFocus]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/industry-sectors/telstras-major-upgrade-of-wireless-network-a-challenge-to-nbn/story-e6frg9hx-1226005976918

This is competition for the NBN right here.

Half a million sign ups in six months!

When the 4G roll out occurs it will make wireless even more appealing.

I am with Telstra now and I get around 17-18 Mbs dl speeds which is perfectly fine.

Quadruple that speed just by upgrading the firmware in the modem? Okay.

Laptops and tablets are the way of the future.

Just wait until they build 4G modems into tablets and netbooks and start giving them away on 24 month plans.

You just throw it in your bag , plonk it on the coffee table like a book.

Desktops connected to an expensive fibre optic network will be used by data hogs.

Gamers and pirates and businesses.

Time will tell but I'm seeing yet more of my hard earned dollars getting pissed away by the government with the NBN.

You seemed to have missed this bit

But despite the rise and possible threat of mobile broadband to the NBN, Telstra director of Wireless Planning Anthony Goonan said that both fixed and wireless technologies would be complementary.

"Our view is always that the wireless and fixed line businesses are complementary," he said.

"We think wireless will progress independently of what occurs in the fixed world and how that's impacted by NBN."

And then this

The upgrade to LTE will initially serve to improve capacity on Telstra's mobile network to enable subscribers more consistent performance from the telco's mobile services.

 

[NBNMyths]

gg, I think you are closer to the truth than a lot of peopel realize...It is becoming a 'LEMON' more and more each day. NBN will be useless for lap tops, I-pod and who knows what is around the corner in electronics.

Useless for laptops huh? I'm sitting here typing this in my lounge room, on my laptop, connected to ADSL via WiFi. Not a cable in sight. Why would this be any different under the NBN (Except that my wifi would be connected to a much faster network)?

I think there's a lot of confusion between "WiFi" and "wireless/mobile broadband (AKA 3G, NextG, 4G, LTE, WiMax)".

WiFi is short range, high speed (currently up to 300Mbps, but 7Gbps is under development). It is connected to a fixed network like ADSL, cable or the NBN. It's the tech used in your home and office wireless networks, and the hotspots at Maccas, Starbucks etc.

"Wireless broadband" is long range and delivered by mobile phone towers.

iPods only have WiFi built in to them. There are no iPods with wireless.
iPads have two versions, a WiFi-only and a WiFi/3G. The WiFi-only outsells the 3G by 3to1, and the 3G version won't be upgradable to 4G.
Pretty much every laptop has WiFi built in, and some (but very few) laptops have 3G wireless built in. These laptops can't be upgraded to use 4G.

I am with Telstra now and I get around 17-18 Mbs dl speeds which is perfectly fine.

Quadruple that speed just by upgrading the firmware in the modem? Okay.

I call BS. I'm also with Telstra wireless and here's what I got last week in Suburban Sydney:

Let's see a link to your 17-18Mbps speedtest result.


The fastest speed I have ever seen demonstrated on NextG was about 7Mbps. The fastest I have ever personally got was about 2Mbps.

Sorry, but you won't be able to just upgrade your firmware to get 4G. They operate on different frequencies and use completely different technology. You'll need to buy a new modem.

You wireless advocates really need to understand (no matter how much you want it to be true), that wireless would collapse if you tried to replace fixed lines with it. It's just not possible for it to do the job due to the physical limitations of radio-based technology. No amount of bleating or wishful thinking will change the laws of physics.

Wireless is a shared service. The network speed is divided amongst everyone using it. The more users, the more it slows down. Worse, they are shared with phone users. Every active phone call and every SMS message gobbles up a little bit of bandwidth too. Now just think what would happen if the current congested mobile network also had to content with everyone's landline phone calls, and everyone's landline downloads.

Imagine if all the kiddies started downloading their 5GB movies over the mobile network!

There's just no-one with a telco technical background claiming wireless can do the job. Doesn't it make you wonder (just a little?) why the only people saying wireless will do it are shock jocks and "journos" from The Australian etc? Where are the telco engineers, the physicists, the scientists? Why don't we ever have them quoted by The Oz, or interviewed by Hadlee? Heaven forbid they actually interview someone who knows what they're talking about!

 

[todster]

todster, why do you want to rid the nation of the Australian? That's what was said when TV hit Brisbane on the 3rd Ausgust 1959, everybody would stop reading papers and magazines.
Don't you believe in freedom of speech?
Is it too critical of the soclialist left Labor Government?
Would you ban the ABC as well? Probably not as they are pro Labor and in the ABC's eyes Labor can't do anything wrong. Just listen to Barrie Cassidy and that idiot David Marr on Insiders.
The NBN is a 'LEMON" and will end up in the same catagory as the
Fuel Watch
Grocery Watch
Pink Bats
BER
Cash for Clunckers
Green Schemes
MRT
etc., etc.

No no noco no not just the Australian newspapers in general

 

[Slipperz]

I'm in the CBD. Don't appreciate being called a liar either thanks very much :swear:

The point I am trying to male is the take up of mobile technology is growing.

I'm not suggesting for a minute a mobile broadband network is all we need.

What I am suggesting is the rate of take up for high speed mobile broadband and the devices that use the technology is on the rise and will impact on NBN takeup rates.

500 000 new subscribers to the nextG network in six months? Hello! Might even have a little look at TLS when it goes ex div this week

And that's the critical issue for the NBN IMHO. How many people actually want it or need it and what are they prepared to pay for it?

37 billion is a big chunk of change and the labor govt has a poor record in spending money wisely on large projects to date.

 

[Bill M]

And that's the critical issue for the NBN IMHO. How many people actually want it or need it and what are they prepared to pay for it?

I want it, need it and will pay for it, why? Because I can't get ADSL and the 3G network is cr@p. It lags and during heavy rains I can't do anything for hours. Is that an acceptable service for a so called first world country? Not everybody lives in the Sydney CBD.

 

[trainspotter]

No no noco no not just the Australian newspapers in general

I remember when the computer was supposed to make the office paperless. That didn't work either. Newspapers will be around for a millenium to come due to them being target specific to their local area. Also due to more people know how to read then use the internet. (think of all the baby boomers)

 

[bellenuit]

Imagine if all the kiddies started downloading their 5GB movies over the mobile network!

There's just no-one with a telco technical background claiming wireless can do the job.

Do what job? Allow all the kiddies to simultaneously download 5GB movies?

You keep missing the point. No one is saying that wireless is technically superior to fixed fibre when speed/throughput is the only issue. There will be times when wireless is the best solution and times when fixed is the best solution. But let it evolve based on demand. If I am content with a 4G wireless link and am willing to suffer congestion occasionally, why force me to additionally pay my share of the $35B for a link to my home that I don't want? However, if I have a house full of kids that want to frequently download movies, then let me pay the additional costs of a fibre to the home link.

The risks on the project are huge. This government, and the same could be said for a Lib/Nat government, does not have the runs on the board to deliver on a project of this scale. It could very well blow out to $100B or more going by their track record and could well never be completed successfully. You keep ignoring these important implementation issues.

Letting the net evolve "naturally" as it has done up to now is far less risky. So what if we end up with a not so fast network, but only have laid out $5B. Don't you think the $30B saved could be put to some more beneficial use than just the kiddies downloading movies super fast?

 

[Bill M]

I remember when the computer was supposed to make the office paperless. That didn't work either. Newspapers will be around for a millenium to come due to them being target specific to their local area. Also due to more people know how to read then use the internet. (think of all the baby boomers)

It's getting there TS, I bought my last property in 2009. The whole contract was in electronic PDF form sent to me by email. I now get all my dividend statements and annual reports online. I don't need to go to bank anymore to transfer some $$$ into someone elses account. It will all just get bigger and bigger. I haven't bought a newspaper since 1993, have no idea what one costs anymore. One thing for sure the internet is the way of the future, we just need a reliable service.

 

[NBNMyths]

I'm in the CBD. Don't appreciate being called a liar either thanks very much :swear:

Given the typical NextG speeds, I remain highly dubious that this result is over that network (unless you live directly under the tower). Particularly due to the ping time and NextG's correct location in Sydney (It normally reports as centre of Australia, which shows up in distance to server).

But, giving you the benefit of the doubt, what of the rest of the population that don't have their own personal phone tower and so experience ping times of ~200ms, and download speeds of <2Mbps?

Do what job? Allow all the kiddies to simultaneously download 5GB movies?

You keep missing the point.

I might be missing your point, but there are many people claiming wireless can replace fixed services. The entire argument that "the NBN isn't needed because wireless makes it obsolete" is based on this point. If a 1Gbps network will be rendered obsolete by a wireless network, then by extension, the existing 10Mbps (if you're lucky) fixed network must also be rendered obsolete.

For a wireless network to be successful, it requires there to be a fast fixed network. Because the fixed network will be used to do the heavy lifting, while the wireless network is used for the convenience stuff. This is all basic telecoms theory, advocated by pretty much everyone in the industry, everywhere in the world.

No one is saying that wireless is technically superior to fixed fibre when speed/throughput is the only issue. There will be times when wireless is the best solution and times when fixed is the best solution. But let it evolve based on demand. ... However, if I have a house full of kids that want to frequently download movies, then let me pay the additional costs of a fibre to the home link.

Actually, there are plenty of people saying exactly that.

There is an economies of scale issue here. It's far cheaper and more efficient to roll out the whole network at once than do it piecemeal. Imagine the cost of rolling out one piece of fibre down a road at a time! Then, does the first house have to pay for the whole shared cable?

Man, I'm glad you naysayers weren't around when we were building the phone network. Imagine the outcry!
Wasting all OUR money ($ more per capita than the NBN, BTW) on a device for just gossiping to your neighbour. Why on earth would we need such a thing, when we can post a letter or just walk up the road instead. What a huge waste of public money. Why should I have to pay a share of it when I don't even want a telephone. What benefits could possibly come from such a device....

The risks on the project are huge. This government, and the same could be said for a Lib/Nat government, does not have the runs on the board to deliver on a project of this scale. It could very well blow out to $100B or more going by their track record and could well never be completed successfully. You keep ignoring these important implementation issues.

No, I'm well aware of the issues with Governments building things. But lets not forget that this isn't a Government department with all its associated issues. It's a business, run by a very talented team who have experience with such networks from around the globe. And their costings are backed by KPMG and McKinsey.

Letting the net evolve "naturally" as it has done up to now is far less risky. So what if we end up with a not so fast network, but only have laid out $5B. Don't you think the $30B saved could be put to some more beneficial use than just the kiddies downloading movies super fast?

The difference now, is that a "natural evolution" requires the spending of big $. Implementing ADSL is generally cheap, because the lines don't change. Add some gizmos to the exchange, and it's done. But the next fixed evolution requires the mass relaying of cable. Now looking back to the HFC debacle of the 90s and the pair gain and rim issues of copper, do you really think that any telco will put up the money to roll out a new network to the population? Telstra won't even get ADSL working for thousands of homes (despite the obvious demand), so what hope is there that they'll ever lay fibre there?

If we left it to natural evolution, then the CBDs and inner suburbs might get it, and the rest will miss out. Outer suburbs, regional and rural areas will be stuck paying exorbitant rates for services well below what's available in metro areas. Businesses in these areas will continue to suffer, but the service disparity will grow exponentially.

As for the cost...If it goes roughly to plan, then the NBN will provide a return exceeding the cost of the debt attached to it. The Government aren't "spending" $27bn on it, they are financing it. Once it's done, we'll have a superior network which will be a valuable asset, and the debt will be paid off.

I'm amazed that no-one sees the benefits to business that this network will bring. Perhaps that's why business groups are so supportive of it.

 

[trainspotter]

As for the cost...If it goes roughly to plan, then the NBN will provide a return exceeding the cost of the debt attached to it. The Government aren't "spending" $27bn on it, they are financing it. Once it's done, we'll have a superior network which will be a valuable asset, and the debt will be paid off.

I'm amazed that no-one sees the benefits to business that this network will bring. Perhaps that's why business groups are so supportive of it.

Just LOL on the "financing" throw away line on this one. A couple of posts ago you claimed it was "earmarked". Now it is financed. RoR has been agreed at approximately 7% ..... chuck in some interest component of say 4% and it is going to take an awfully long time for this thing to payback 27 BILLION DOLLARS. Do the math.

Me thinks NBNMyths is a little bit more than an avid supporter and pro NBN by choice. Remarkable amount of hyperbole seems to stream with not many facts like this little gem about business groups supporting it which FLIES IN THE FACE of what has been aknowledged.

THE federal government has conceded that its NBN vision is failing to win business support.

Parliamentary Secretary Senator Kate Lundy acknowledged the problem during a panel session at the World Computer Congress in Brisbane last week.

After speaking on the government's technology-centric citizen engagement model, Senator Lundy faced pointed observations from Mark Toomey, founder and chief executive of technology consultancy, Infonomics.

Mr Toomey told the senator several key business groups did not understand the economic vision of the NBN.

"I don't think the Australian Information Industry Association does get it, I know that the Committee for Economic Development of Australia doesn't get it, the Australian Institute of Management definitely doesn't get it and the Australian Institute of Company Directors is only barely getting it," Mr Toomey said.

"We still have a massive education job to do in this country to shift from where a few businesses in a few very successful organisations get it, and know that it's a competitive advantage for them, to where all Australian business leaders and governments actually get it."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/aus...-economic-vision/story-e6frgakx-1225930197092

 

[todster]

I remember when the computer was supposed to make the office paperless. That didn't work either. Newspapers will be around for a millenium to come due to them being target specific to their local area. Also due to more people know how to read then use the internet. (think of all the baby boomers)

Well i think they will be looking for growth and baby boomers already buy the paper.
How many young people do you know who buy the paper?

 

[NBNMyths]

Just LOL on the "financing" throw away line on this one. A couple of posts ago you claimed it was "earmarked". Now it is financed. RoR has been agreed at approximately 7% ..... chuck in some interest component of say 4% and it is going to take an awfully long time for this thing to payback 27 BILLION DOLLARS. Do the math.

I've never used the phrase earmarked.

I don't need to do the maths. According to the "maths" it will be repaid in 2034.

Me thinks NBNMyths is a little bit more than an avid supporter and pro NBN by choice. Remarkable amount of hyperbole seems to stream with not many facts like this little gem about business groups supporting it which FLIES IN THE FACE of what has been acknowledged.

"I don't think the Australian Information Industry Association does get it, I know that the Committee for Economic Development of Australia doesn't get it, the Australian Institute of Management definitely doesn't get it and the Australian Institute of Company Directors is only barely getting it," Mr Toomey said.

"We still have a massive education job to do in this country to shift from where a few businesses in a few very successful organisations get it, and know that it's a competitive advantage for them, to where all Australian business leaders and governments actually get it."

Yep, I must work for Conroy. Because I've already said I think his policy for the filter is stupid, and I was here at 11pm on a sunday night typing on an internet forum, and that's what pubic servants are paid to do

Your article just goes to show, yet again, how one-sided the Australian's reporting about the NBN is. eg:

Australian Information Industry Association:
Ian Birks, CEO: “Given the high level of significance of the broadband issue, and in particular its resonance with the independents, we now expect to see the roll-out of the NBN prioritised in this government’s term”

“There are immediate returns on offer for every business that will only become more powerful with ubiquitous, high-speed broadband.”


The Council of Small Business of Australia:
Executive Director Peter Strong: “[The NBN] is an equal playing field. You don’t get that too often. We want it, we need it.”


The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry:
Peter Anderson, CEO: “The instinct in the business community is that there can be a real productivity kick and benefit.”

Google:
Alan Noble, head of Engineering: “The NBN will underpin Australia’s digital economy and will be just as vital an enabler of innovation, economic growth and entrepreneurship in the 21st century as national highways and the electric grid were in the 20th century. Simply put, it means a world of opportunities for all Australians”


Intel:
Phil Cronin, Managing Director: “It’s now time to move beyond debate… the NBN has the potential to deliver significant long term benefits to consumers and small businesses alike”


Microsoft:
“This NBN will be critical in the years ahead and essential for reducing costs in health and education service delivery. It will also contribute to overcoming the tyranny of distance that exists in rural and regional Australia”


Optus:
Maha Krishnapillai, Dir. Govt & Corp affairs: “… Broadband is crucial to Australia’s future prosperity and fibre is indisputably the best way to deliver high-speed broadband for the long term. As Tony Windsor said and we agree: ‘You build it once. You build it right. You build it with fibre”. There are still some people querying that there’s going to be some new technology that’s going to replace fibre and as recently as yesterday people saying that fibre is no longer the technology of the future. I’m not exactly sure what parallel universe people live on but fibre will be the way of the future.”

Paul O’Sullivan, CEO: “It’s long been our view that the National Broadband Network is economically viable and the release of today’s detailed study from McKinsey and KPMG confirms this. Most importantly the study has found that access to the network will be available to all Australians at a price they can afford, which is essential to the healthy take-up of services on the new network.”


Vodafone:
Vittorio Colao, CEO: “Australia is taking a very bold step….I honestly think that the vision that in this country the Government has is a very healthy one”
​

I agree that the govt needs to do more education of some business groups, but overall it's being welcomed by the business communty. Interesting that one of the groups quotes by the Oz has publicly announced support for the project.

Also interesting that the Murdoch press was one of the few media outlet that didn't report the CEO of Google's heavy praise of the NBN last week. Wonder why that was?

 

[NBNMyths]

I remember when the computer was supposed to make the office paperless. That didn't work either. Newspapers will be around for a millenium to come due to them being target specific to their local area. Also due to more people know how to read then use the internet. (think of all the baby boomers)

Well i think they will be looking for growth and baby boomers already buy the paper.
How many young people do you know who buy the paper?

Sorry trainspotter, but before too long newspapers will have gone the way of the dodo.

Circulation has been in decline for the last 20 years, despite the growth in population. On average, paper sales are falling about 2-3% per year, which is about the same rate as people drop off from old age.

Look at the historic titles that have disappeared all together in the last 25 years... The Sun (Syd), The Sun (Vic), The Daily Mirror, The National Times, The Brisbane Tele.

Readership of the Daily Tele in the late 80s was well over a million, but today it's 950,000, despite Sydney's population increasing enormously since then. On a per-capita basis, newspaper sales are in freefall.

In the UK, the biggest selling paper (The Sun) sells a million less copies now than it did in 1994! That's a fall of ~30%! In the US, circulation is falling at 5% a year.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jun/17/newspaper-circulation-oecd-report

Younger people just don't buy papers, as a rule. Hell, I'm 38 and I can't remember the last time I actually bought a newspaper, and even that was probably just so I had something to read on the plane. Why buy a paper when Google is only a second away, and you can read "papers" online for free anyway.

The problem for the papers, is that with continuing circulation falls, their advertising revenue is plummeting. They can't raise the price because then circulation will fall even further, while their costs remain pretty static. Revenue is falling even faster than circulation:

I'll give them 20 years before the only newspapers left will be freebie local rags. There will probably be online news services, but whether they will bear any resemblance to today's current papers is unlikely.

Networks like the NBN will be the final nail in the coffin of newspapers as we know them.

 

[Slipperz]

Given the typical NextG speeds, I remain highly dubious that this result is over that network (unless you live directly under the tower). Particularly due to the ping time and NextG's correct location in Sydney (It normally reports as centre of Australia, which shows up in distance to server).

But, giving you the benefit of the doubt, what of the rest of the population that don't have their own personal phone tower and so experience ping times of ~200ms, and download speeds of <2Mbps?




I might be missing your point, but there are many people claiming wireless can replace fixed services. The entire argument that "the NBN isn't needed because wireless makes it obsolete" is based on this point. If a 1Gbps network will be rendered obsolete by a wireless network, then by extension, the existing 10Mbps (if you're lucky) fixed network must also be rendered obsolete.

For a wireless network to be successful, it requires there to be a fast fixed network. Because the fixed network will be used to do the heavy lifting, while the wireless network is used for the convenience stuff. This is all basic telecoms theory, advocated by pretty much everyone in the industry, everywhere in the world.



Actually, there are plenty of people saying exactly that.

There is an economies of scale issue here. It's far cheaper and more efficient to roll out the whole network at once than do it piecemeal. Imagine the cost of rolling out one piece of fibre down a road at a time! Then, does the first house have to pay for the whole shared cable?

Man, I'm glad you naysayers weren't around when we were building the phone network. Imagine the outcry!
Wasting all OUR money ($ more per capita than the NBN, BTW) on a device for just gossiping to your neighbour. Why on earth would we need such a thing, when we can post a letter or just walk up the road instead. What a huge waste of public money. Why should I have to pay a share of it when I don't even want a telephone. What benefits could possibly come from such a device....



No, I'm well aware of the issues with Governments building things. But lets not forget that this isn't a Government department with all its associated issues. It's a business, run by a very talented team who have experience with such networks from around the globe. And their costings are backed by KPMG and McKinsey.



The difference now, is that a "natural evolution" requires the spending of big $. Implementing ADSL is generally cheap, because the lines don't change. Add some gizmos to the exchange, and it's done. But the next fixed evolution requires the mass relaying of cable. Now looking back to the HFC debacle of the 90s and the pair gain and rim issues of copper, do you really think that any telco will put up the money to roll out a new network to the population? Telstra won't even get ADSL working for thousands of homes (despite the obvious demand), so what hope is there that they'll ever lay fibre there?

If we left it to natural evolution, then the CBDs and inner suburbs might get it, and the rest will miss out. Outer suburbs, regional and rural areas will be stuck paying exorbitant rates for services well below what's available in metro areas. Businesses in these areas will continue to suffer, but the service disparity will grow exponentially.

As for the cost...If it goes roughly to plan, then the NBN will provide a return exceeding the cost of the debt attached to it. The Government aren't "spending" $27bn on it, they are financing it. Once it's done, we'll have a superior network which will be a valuable asset, and the debt will be paid off.

I'm amazed that no-one sees the benefits to business that this network will bring. Perhaps that's why business groups are so supportive of it.

I don't live under the tower but I am only a few buildings down the road.

I'd take a photo but I don't see the need to prove anything to you.

Your slanderous insinuation can stand for what it is.

Oh no wait you're giving me the benefit of the doubt are you. LOL.

And now because I do actually have the speeds I said I did it's not fair to the rest of Australia.

Nice work there.

So now I'm not a liar I'm inconsiderate by my existence. Is that your inference?

I have not suggested that rural and regional Australia are not in need of an upgrade in their communications infrastructure. In fact posts from some forum members here make it glaringly obvious it's an urgent necessity.

What I was pointing out via the recent article in the Australian is that HALF A MILLION Australians signed on to telstras nextG network in the past six months, a point you blithely ignore.

And now telstra are going to quadruple their speeds by years end. It's an appealing option to a young mobile urbanised population.

Sure your analysts have done their projections.

Just like the high priced analysts projected traffic flows into the cross city tunnel and the lane cove tunnel.

Both sold into receivership.

Oopsie. Was someone telling porkers there? It would seem these analyst types are pretty good at telling the govt what they want to hear on an inflated contract and assuming zero responsibility when their predictions lead major infrastructure projects to ruin.

Major spend and massive miscalculation much?

And we taxpayers sigh and wring our hands and hope it never happens again.

But wait! Now we are expected to stump up 37 billion after the school hall and home insulation debacles?

Excellent this should go well.

Now really. 37 billion dollars.

Not the governments money mind you.

My money. And every other taxpayer in Australia.

Whether we are going to get value for money or not remains to be seen.