This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

National Broadband Network

Jump to new
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

 
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.
Click to expand...

talking sense, as usual.
 

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.
 
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?
 

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.
 

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.
 
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.
 
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.:
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
Julia said:
Question: would it be feasible to move overhead power lines to underground at the same time?
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...