NBN take up = 16%

[Jovial Monk]

Garbage!

Not even Telstra put in a proper bid for FTTN. A one-page proposal!

Telstra was NEVER interested in providing good broadband to all: it was happy to service the top half of the wealth distribution with nice high prices because that was comfortable and easy. It set prices to stop ISPs undercutting it and did fuck-all to keep the copper network going.

The copper had to be replaced and the way to do it was to replace it with fibre. Not wireless, fibre! As I have shown, the fibre had to be FTTH not FTTN, your silly proposals to slow down a fast network using wireless for the last mile would cause a pathetic network performance at a higher cost than FTTH!

A good network is ubiquitous, high bandwidth, symmetric (you avoided mentioning that your crazy last-mile wireless was asymmetric like ADSL etc) and affordable. The NBN ticks all those boxes, wireless deployed in place of the NBN ticks but one: not high bandwidth, not symmetric and bloody expensive! WIMAX which is a fixed wireless system does not have high bandwidth, is not symmetric and is expensive. And floods everywhere with EM radiation.

[Jovial Monk]

BTW SN, look up Ultra High Definition TV. Killer app for the NBN!

[Jovial Monk]

I see signifcant arguement for why the technology is the best but little on the value for money arguement.

You say it is like you wanting a roller not a Ford. It isn’t!

It is more like requiring minimum standards for cars (no blowing smoke all the time, brakes working) and keeping the roads in good repair. It is also about keeping us competitive with our neighbors or perhaps you would just like us to become the white trash of Asia? It is also about stimulating the economy, not just direct keynesian stimulus but the boost to innovation that will follow the installation of a 21st century network.

It is also about helping those currently on slow wireless (<1mbps) or dialup partake of the educational, eHealth etc benefits of a modern network. So yes it means all who can have the high speed else you create bottlenecks and throttle the system down and not achieve what the NBN is there to achieve.

Someone did an experiment: they sent a big file via ADSL, train and carrier pigeon (memory stick tied to its leg.) The carrier pigeon delivered the file the fastest. Nope, all need the high speed!

BTW re the future proofing. Over the last 10 years I went from 28kbps to 33 to 56kbps dialup modem to various flavors of ADSL. So, yes, the ends of the NBN can be upgraded easily as FO speeds remorselessly grow, just like moving up from dialup to ADSL meant me throwing away the modem and buying a ADSL router and DSLAMS being put in those exchanges where Telstra deigned to allow them to be installed.

Computer speeds have not markedly improved in recent years, 5GHz is the limit and bloody expensive. The next increase in speed will come from improved networks—FTTH allowing cloud computing, true telecommuting etc.

[Jovial Monk]

Yeah, 11mbps tops is enough [and I gotta flog that old wireless gear quick before the NBN is rolled out] says SN.

Pigs bum! 3 Tv channels going at once, two recording one for watching:

http://www.adam.com.au/announcements/20 ... index.html

Wonder if my 2mbps wireless crap would handle this? Naaaahhhh!!!!!

No wonder the OO is constantly trying to belittle and criticise the NBN: Foxtel would lose customers in droves!

[Super Nova]

Yeah, 11mbps tops is enough [and I gotta flog that old wireless gear quick before the NBN is rolled out] says SN.

Pigs bum! 3 Tv channels going at once, two recording one for watching:

http://www.adam.com.au/announcements/20 ... index.html

Wonder if my 2mbps wireless crap would handle this? Naaaahhhh!!!!!

No wonder the OO is constantly trying to belittle and criticise the NBN: Foxtel would lose customers in droves!

Monk,

You argue from a technology perspective. Yes NBN will deliver great throughput. Let me ask you a question.

Why is NBN good value for money?

[Ned Kelly]

Why is NBN good value for money?

Well, can you prove it is not? Was the Snowy River scheme expensive? Was the Sydney Harbour Bridge expensive? Was the Opera House expensive?

They sure were! Would you now discredit their worth?

[Super Nova]

Aussie,

Well, can you prove it is not?

I ask a question, you respond with a question. The issue is value for money not if it is expensive.

Was the Snowy River scheme expensive?

It was value for money. A free energy source to generate electric power. Business case stands up.

Was the Sydney Harbour Bridge expensive?

Business case stood up because of the cost to the ecconomy of not having noth and south connected. It was built using the technology of the time so it looks big. Business case at the time would have stood up.

Was the Opera House expensive?

yes and not value for money. Business case never stood up. great tourism attraction.NSW had to run a lottery for many years just to fund this white elephant.

They sure were! Would you now discredit their worth?

Once the moeny is spent, we make the best of what we have.

[Jovial Monk]

You want to nobble the NBN with wireless. That will mean a tower in every street, backwired with fibre. It would cost more than FTTH. Even if FTTH cost a bit more it is a 60 year investment at least! Why spoil the ship for a haypenny worth of tar? This NBN can offer so much and you want to nobble it, slow it to 11mbps TOPS, take away the symmetry and you have not made the case that FTTN + wireless actually saves any money!

I am arguing the economics of it, you want to sell wireless gear or that is the impression I get. I have posted details, incl that chart showing how wireless performance is a hyperbola as the number of subscribers to a tower increases. By the time you get to a mere 20 subscribers performance is in the gutter, adding a thousand extra users further degrades performance only marginally. You want the last mile to be wireless (why?????) serving like a mile diameter radius, hello .2mbps, thought I had left you behind?

So why argue wireless? If you want to argue wireless show me how it would be significantly cheaper! You just say wireless, but give no facts.

[IQSRLOW]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010 ... 044317.htm

Senator slams slow take up of fast internet

Tasmanian Liberal Senator Guy Barnett says the low uptake of NBN services in Tasmania proves the Government's management of the project has been farcical.

In a Senate estimates committee this week, Liberal Senator Guy Barnett questioned Communications Minister Stephen Conroy over the number of people who had chosen to sign up for the service.

It was revealed that of the 2,000 homes which have opted for the free connection, 436 have signed up for the service and 262 are active.

Senator Barnett says the sign up rate is appallingly low.

"The mismanagement and the maladministration of the rollout to date has been very high, the 50 per cent connection rate. Then you have such a low barely 5 per cent of the households actually activated to date. So very low sign up rate," he said.

No one wants this shitty proposal by a shitty govt