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
More than anything it will get rid of printed newspapers like your beloved Australian.
More than anything it will get rid of printed newspapers like your beloved Australian.
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.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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
No no noco no not just the Australian newspapers in general
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.
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)
I'm in the CBD. Don't appreciate being called a liar either thanks very much :swear:
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. ... 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?
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 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)
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 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."
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?
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?