NBN take up = 16%

[IQSRLOW]

The only reason why they are doing this is because the stats for take up are so abysmal this is the only way the govt can save face.

[Super Nova]

The only reason why they are doing this is because the stats for take up are so abysmal this is the only way the govt can save face.

IQ,

On the money. That is exactly what it is about. They are not even being clever about it. So blooody transparent. this means they even see the elephant as glowing white before this starts.

[Jovial Monk]

If Liebor wasn't wasting $43 billion on a useless network there would be no need to shut the copper network down. Fuck this expensive white elephant. There are better, effective and cheaper ways to get better internet. Wireless is just a start.

Yes it would. the copper network is degrading.

Wireless will always be a second grade, complementary technology

You would not need the NBN internet part, but you will need fibre for your fixed-line phone.

That $43Bn figure is now $26Bn thanks to the deal with Telstra. It will not be funded by taxpayers.

People like SN who want to nobble everyone to suit the particular barrow (wireless) they are pushing shit me to tears. I find that offensive to the max. Cloud computing is not for everyone and cloud computing will not give high quality video phone calls. In fact, cloud computing needs the high upload speed of the NBN to work in the first place! SN, data has to get to the cloud in the first place.

There are still 10% of people on dialup! There are other people like me on 3G wireless networking at speeds of .2-6mbps because of pair gain! The Libs totally fucked up Telstra and telephony and broadband in the way they privatised Telstra. A complete rewire of the network is in order and fibre is the way to rewire it, with fixed-point wireless for those too remote for fibre to be economical and satellite for those really remote.

There is no practical alternative to the NBN. Not the Telstra copper network, not 4G wireless.

Heh there are those that think 4G wireless means they can access the net from anywhere. Not so! You need an antenna fixed to the roof of your house to get the 4G wireless networking. So 4G wireless gives you a mediocre 11mbps and you are as tethered to 4G as you would be to the NBN fibre! 4G has a $750 installation fee! Now if everyone were to subscribe to 4G wireless soon there would be a tower on every street all backwired with fibre. High levels of electro-magnetic radiation everywhere—that what you want? A tower in every street backlinked with fibre would cost much more than the NBN!

The NBN will provide phone, fax and internet all through the hair-thin fibre connected to your house. It will upload at nearly the same speed as downloads and have masses of bandwidth. A good network will be ubiquitous, symmetrical and have very high bandwidth. Only the NBN ticks all three boxes.

Oh, if any idiots here doubt what I say about 4G wireless check out Adam Internet WIMAX.

And the actual take up of the NBN in the Tasmanian test sites was 50%.

[Super Nova]

People like SN who want to nobble everyone to suit the particular barrow (wireless) they are pushing shit me to tears. I find that offensive to the max. Cloud computing is not for everyone and cloud computing will not give high quality video phone calls. In fact, cloud computing needs the high upload speed of the NBN to work in the first place! SN, data has to get to the cloud in the first place.

Monk, you misread me. My issue is with the value for money of NBN. I would love everyone to have such a service but all i raise is;
1. Is it value for money - i think not
2. Is it betting the farm on one type of technology - the current technology - yes
3. Will future technology be able to deliver the required service more effectively. - i think it will
4. Is NBN an over engineered solution - yes
5. Will Australia have a cost effective delivery of information for the future - NO

My biggest concern is that it will turn into a great white elephant, be a burden on us. i expect that broadband will be so much more expensive in Australia as compared to the rest of the developed world making it a drag on the data ecconomy in Australia. Government are not good at these sorts of projects.

Also i do agree that the way Teltra has been privatised has not been done in the cleverest way.

[Jovial Monk]

No it isn’t! You want to nobble everybody to fit in with your hobby horse of wireless! You said clearly “nobody needs more than 12mbps!” Well, fuck you, I want more than that!

It will also need a tower in every street, so will be MORE expensive than the NBN!

[Jovial Monk]

As to price, you are not thinking!

A 1Gbps service like the NBN (1Gbps, not a lousy 12mbps!) can service 40 homes with one hair-thin fibre offering more than double the lousy 12mbps you want to force down everybody’s throat! Or ten homes at 100mbps. These would be symmetric with upload speeds nearly the same as download speeds, unlike your garbage non-solution.

And if everyone took up this third rate 4g wireless and they had to build a tower in every street (that is what it would take to be ubiquitous) and backwire each tower then your (non)solution would be MORE expensive than the NBN! And your service wouldn’t be symmetric. No thanks to that junk!

[Jovial Monk]

How can a high bandwidth, symmetric and ubiquitous system be a white elephant? Because you want to force slow, asymmetric wireless onto everyone. Tho that offers less and costs more!

Don’t mention cloud computing because it won’t work with your 2-cans-on-a-string non-solution because it is not symmetric!

With the NBN data caps will be 2terabytes/month, effectively unlimited for most.

So the NBN costs less and does more.

[Jovial Monk]

The NBN is also future-proof. Whatever signal has to be sent out, e.g. from quantum computing to take a really radical alternative. Well, the signal from that service needs a waveguide! Fibre optics provide an excellent, an outstanding waveguide. The NBN, not wireless, is future proof.

Have some imagination: 5 years after the NBN is rolled out pretty much all TV will be IPTV, offering a huge number of channels. high quality videophone calls will be commonplace and a real move to working from home will be on the way, greatly reducing congestion on our roads, helped maybe by increasing petrol prices and congestion taxes. Cloud computing will make working from home even easier.

Then there are the uses we cant even think off right now but are being developed as we argue.

No, you are lying and rationalising SN.

[IQSRLOW]

1. Is it value for money - i think not

Just so fuckface JM actually understands

[Super Nova]

No it isn’t! You want to nobble everybody to fit in with your hobby horse of wireless! You said clearly “nobody needs more than 12mbps!” Well, fuck you, I want more than that!

It will also need a tower in every street, so will be MORE expensive than the NBN!

Wireless is not my hobbyhorse. It is just a capability for those areas that are remote.

Want is different to need.

A wireless solution could use GSM type towers or something else less intrusive.

As to price, you are not thinking!

A 1Gbps service like the NBN (1Gbps, not a lousy 12mbps!) can service 40 homes with one hair-thin fibre offering more than double the lousy 12mbps you want to force down everybody’s throat! Or ten homes at 100mbps. These would be symmetric with upload speeds nearly the same as download speeds, unlike your garbage non-solution.

And if everyone took up this third rate 4g wireless and they had to build a tower in every street (that is what it would take to be ubiquitous) and backwire each tower then your (non)solution would be MORE expensive than the NBN! And your service wouldn’t be symmetric. No thanks to that junk!

I can get the same from a fibre running to the end of the bloock, haqving a wireless router and the 40 homes connected via wireless. I would save money on the last mile of delivery. Lots of money. So i don't see your point here.

4G wireless is mobile phone technology and is not the best for data so i would propose that except where 4g is the only wireless available.

How can a high bandwidth, symmetric and ubiquitous system be a white elephant? Because you want to force slow, asymmetric wireless onto everyone. Tho that offers less and costs more!

Don’t mention cloud computing because it won’t work with your 2-cans-on-a-string non-solution because it is not symmetric!

With the NBN data caps will be 2terabytes/month, effectively unlimited for most.

So the NBN costs less and does more.

A white elephant is an expensive govenment infrastructure programme that does not delivered the benefits and over runs on it's costs. I think this will fill this criteria.

Cloud computing definitely will meet the requirements because all the grunt is done away from the client end and only screens are communicated. It does not need a symmetric communication network. That is it's benefits.

"With the NBN data caps will be 2terabytes/month, effectively unlimited for most."

That is not a lot in you new world of huge data comms being required by data intensive application. i have a terrabyhte drive now. that is not alot of data. That limit will not be useful when you are recieving all you TV and other media via NBN. There are already more cost efective mechanism for TV. i do not believe this will be effectively unlimited for most in the world you envisage.

The NBN is also future-proof. Whatever signal has to be sent out, e.g. from quantum computing to take a really radical alternative. Well, the signal from that service needs a waveguide! Fibre optics provide an excellent, an outstanding waveguide. The NBN, not wireless, is future proof.

Have some imagination: 5 years after the NBN is rolled out pretty much all TV will be IPTV, offering a huge number of channels. high quality videophone calls will be commonplace and a real move to working from home will be on the way, greatly reducing congestion on our roads, helped maybe by increasing petrol prices and congestion taxes. Cloud computing will make working from home even easier.

Then there are the uses we cant even think off right now but are being developed as we argue.

No, you are lying and rationalising SN.

Future-proof... well i don't buy into that. If you change how you will transmit down the fibre you will have to change the whole equipment chain where that is implemented. That can not be cheap. It is a myth that data comms to home will reduce road congestion. Never been proved anywhere yet. You paint a picture that can be delivered with alternative to NBN.

I am definitely trying to be rational. I am expressing a view that is my opinion. Please point out where i am lying. I would be happy to clarify. If by lying you mean my views don't agree with yours then your definition of the word needs to be discussed.

My point is and only is that i think it is NOT value for money. That is it. Nice bid of kit and technology... no doubt. Value for money ... I think not.