- Joined
- 1 October 2008
- Posts
- 186
- Reactions
- 0
It hasn't been built yet! Are all properties that are built by developers, sold "off the plan"?
Telstra have agreed to move their copper services across ONTO the NBN. NBN Co will lease Telstra’s existing fibre, ducts, pipes and other infrastructure for $9 billion over an undisclosed amount of time. That amount is to be paid to the telco as the copper network is decommissioned.
Money for the NBN has already been earmarked. The Government believes an NBN is in the best interests of Australia. No money has been earmarket for natural disasters and they've had plenty of those in the past 5 years. I believe the Independents are pushing for a Disaster Fund to be set up... not sure how this is any different to the Future Fund, but that opens a whole new can of worms. The point is, if you have a homeloan (already in debt) and your car breaks down, what do you do? Go into further debt, use your holiday fund (savings), or like the NSW Government does - sell an asset?
Here's a thought: Everyone (for or against the NBN) - perhaps you should visit your local MP and request a referendum??? BUT first, do some research into the BENEFITS of fibre, PUTTING ASIDE the cost factor first. Imagine you have unlimited funds, and can even afford a Ferrari (@wayneL).
Last time I looked we weren't Japan and the fact that Australia is 20 times bigger than Japan means there are vast areas of ground to cover between populated areas.
I don't quite understand what your argument is - speed (103Mbps) is VERY different to capacity. I have a 1.5Mbps service at home (lucky me), but if I need to receive a large file, I can reach my capacity (100% or around 150k Bytes per second) quite easily but have to wait approximately 1 hour for every 500mb downloaded. For the majority of the time however, my capacity is probably 1-2%. If I had a faster connection (100mbps), I might only have to wait approximately 1 minute. My productivity has just increased considerably.
Why is Japan OUR benchmark anyway?
Ok - now the USA is our benchmark. Stop jumping around. They have 15 times the population we do which is spread pretty much evenly right across the country. They have much better competition, and therefore don't have a monopoly / duopoly (such as we do here). It hasn't been a prority for them so far until now, but then again neither is their public health system.
Perhaps you should investigate further: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_the_United_States
Oh dear, now we are looking at population. Here's a list of countries in the 23 million - 20 million population ranking:
North Korea, Ghana, Taiwan, Australia, Yemen, Mozambique, Côte d'Ivoire, Romania, Syria, Sri Lanka, Madagascar.
We're back to the SIZE issue again. We're not Japan, or the USA.
Referring to your population list above, North Korea's neighbour (with double the population) has the FASTEST internet in the world with an average speed of 11Mbps (up to 100Mbps). It's amazing what you can do on a smaller scale and by spreading the cost over a larger taxable population. I wonder what it costs for them to protect their neighbouring borders though.
Why? It's not on copper and those 1 million homes have the choice to hook into the fibre network. The service is provided over cable, which probably also provides their FoxTel service. It's funny though, how Telstra promotes it as being able to "... pull down a movie file of 860MB in less than 10 minutes."
Finally a good response. The reason is because people don't want to spend $30+ on home phone, $30+ on mobile, $50+ on internet, when they can get a combined service for (say) $60. This has only changed in the past couple of years though, through competition from Vodafone, Optus and other telcos. I'm only forced to install a home phone, due to the fact that I can't get a Naked-DSL service and are too far from the exchange.
This sort of thing is fine in the major cities, but for the majority of the population outside of the metro area they still need a fixed line. If power goes out, a fixed line is about the only thing that still works. Mobile phone towers still need electricity to transmit / receive.
The NBN will no doubt roll out wireless as well, to areas where it would be prohibitively expensive to run fibre to each home. It would therefore be run to a node and a wireless tower erected to service a wider area.
You're lucky you have the option. In some areas of Tasmania, they have been forced to use dialup. 28.8kbps (unlikely to be 56kbps) compared with a 1.5Mbps service - I know what I would choose. If you don't need a faster service, then stick with a cheaper solution. If you want all of the bells and whistles then you'll have to pay for it. What do you pay for an equivalent service not on the NBN?
I looked at your references, and I think you're off topic. For some residents where the house is (for example) made of bluestone, a wireless service may not be capable of penetrating throughout the home. This will obviously require additional hardwired points to be installed. However, if you already have a Telstra copper service (like I do) then I should be able to simply re-connect my telephone / modem into the new NBN socket. My ADSL modem is able to support 54Mbps wirelessly, so my router is therefore a bottleneck compared with a full 100Mbps network. I'm pretty sure I'd be able to cope with a 50Mbps (half-speed) service though.
Did you read your own reference? They put metal sheaths around the plastic in order to protect it. And my phone was out for 3 days last year, because water got into the telephone pit shorting out the connections, rendering it USELESS. What's your point?
Perhaps you didn't know that the submarine cables that run between countries are also prone to shark attacks, once again, rendering them USELESS (but that's why they build in redundancy).