Vash the Stampede

Yes, it's futureproof. Fibre can transmit vastly more data than we're currently pushing through it; we haven't even begun to explore half it's potential. Data transmission technology has not "changed unrecognisably multiple times over the past thirty years." We have two basic types: wired and wireless. Wired is still primarily via copper, which was installed more than 100 years ago. Wireless is still primarily via radio waves, which were introduced more than 100 years ago. The only major change has been in the medium; wired is now moving to fibre, while wireless is moving to satellite and microwave. These are not unrecognisable changes.

I'm not a Labor supporter and I'm not falling into "the Labor trap of reasoning... etc." I simply recognise that the private sector lacks the money and motivation to build a national fibre network, and has a strong incentive for keeping most of us on ADSL2+ for as long as possible, running the copper lines ragged while Telstra makes no effort to maintain them. There are people in Golden Grove (a metro suburb less than 30km from Adelaide) who still can't get ADSL2+ because ISPs can't be bothered to upgrade their infrastructure. That's a classic example of what I'm talking about.

There are some things that government must do because the private sector will never do them. Forcing greater competition by building a national fibre network is a great idea. Would you rather be held hostage by the private sector for the next 20 years? Would you be happy for Telstra to maintain its monopoly? Because that's what will happen if we don't get the NBN.

No it's not. $26 billion funded by government; $17 billion funded by private sector, and the NBN to be privatised after it's built. The low takeup in Tasmania is largely due to the locations of the early rollout; three of them are small semi-rural towns with ageing populations. They are not representative of the rest of the population and cannot be used to extrapolate the potential takeup in other parts of the country. In suburbs where fibre is already available via private sector, takeup rates have been much higher.

mulben

[QUOTE=Vash the Stampede;8795321]





No it's not. $26 billion funded by government; $17 billion funded by private sector, and the NBN to be privatised after it's built.

I think you will find that it has been costed by Labor at $4.6 billion to the public purse , the increase is still shown as an investment(non-current asset) not an expense.(current expense )

lapin_windstar

1) saying that data transmission technology hasn't changed much in the last 30 years because it's still either wired or wireless is like saying communication hasn't changed much since Gutenburg because you either still hear things or read things!

2) actually, you're exhibiting Labor's binary and reductive manner of reasoning perfectly: IF the market doesn't solve all the problems for everyone THEN the government must build everything; IF you don't want a Telstra monopoly THEN the government must build the NBN...

DunRoaminTheUK

It's infrastructure so it's bound to cost.....

JackTheLad

Nothing is future proof. If anything, the first adopters look laughable 30 years later.

As an example, the first underground was in Glasgow. God love it, but its tiny, cramped and smelly. Look at something designed and built 50 years later, say, Hong Kongs MTR. Its amazing, clean, large, efficient.

The first adopters of any technology, be it trains, undergrounds or wireless, end up looking like idiots 50 years later. So Australia want to look like the idiots of the 21st Century

JTL

IvanM

Fibre has been around for decades and FTTH is not new. I will shoot anyone who gives me a sat link. I have administered over sat and it is laggy, latency is high and packets drop.

spalen

Anybody who says that if they had the 15K offered to them and told - you can either spend this on your healthcare, your childs education, or faster downloads(etc) for rural people, and says "yes i would absolutely spend that 15K on faster downloads(and etc)" is a out+and+out BS merchant. Either that, or they should be living somewhere else.

Its a waste of money. People want to live in rural areas cannot possibly expect to have 1st class broadband. Anybody else can get what they 'need' for a hell of a lot less.

Abhorrent waste of money. Government tendering *never* produced anything good.

There is nothing on the planet that demands 100gb to the home let alone the 1tb that they are magically offering for the same price. And there is nothing that they have talked about (Videoconferencing to a doctor) that cannot be done already on todays infrastructure.

It is undoubtedly a sham waste of money and could be achieved for a hell of a lot less.
The fact that *nobody* will touch this with a bargepole based on any business investment criteria shows what a stupid waste it is. There are *plenty* of companies that will take a 10-20-30 year investment cycle on capital projects - yet nobody will touch this nonsense.

Can you imagine the disruption - the roadworks - the public digging the disruption - required to lay all this junk.

lapin_windstar

We'll have a megafast nationwide stagecoach network - we'll be the envy of the world!

spalen

They wont agree the gauge. You'll have to get off the coach at NSW border and change horses.

JackTheLad

But on the other hand, if they need a Sat link, they're probably living on a couple of hundred hectares of land, with a few thousand cows/sheeps/goats.

So you pays your money and you takes your choice. You can't have both. Or if I could I'd own a few hundred hectares of Brisbane and fast broadband.

But back in the real world....

JTL

JackTheLad

I think you meant donkeys

JTL

spalen

Whoa pal... who agreed on this Donkeys Vs Horses , we need a group of 150 random people to meet and decide that, its too important for our elected officials to decide on their own.

what are you ,some sort of communist.

GarryP

The thing about any National Internetworking concept is you need to know why you are building it. Maybe not every aspect, and you want expansion capability, but it is important to know what the step is between:

a) Build NBN
b) ??????
c) Profit.

So how's it going to make money/jobs?

It's a truism that any job that can be dependent on high speed networks can be offshored to India for even less costs - so how is it going to drive economic prosperity, really?

Not saying it shouldn't be done (I definitely think it should), but you need to define the rest of the story first.

JackTheLad

Okay the silly answer is b) Porn

But seriously, I think the web is fast enough, at least for me. I suppose if you have a high def tv and are trying to stream HD content, maybe its not yet. It will get there.

But ultimately, when there is a demand it will be built. I just don't believe there is the demand there yet. I also don't think it is fair that everyone has to pay $15,000 for some movie geek to be able to download Spiderman 4 in HD 3D with 7.1 dolby surround sound, whilst others are trying to save up for a chicken flavoured shaped drumstick for the kids.

JTL

IvanM

JTL NBN is not about your ability to download donkey porn. It is about business enablement. Thinking of NBN is for home use is like thinking a motorway is just for those in sports cars to go fast.

"The in it for me" is higher business productivity that a decent network gives business, education, government and other institutions.

As to point on Sat. If it were just paddocks needing it then NBN would not be the agenda. Next G has helped but that has its weaknesses and is really only good for a couple of people sharing a link and not good enough for business to operate.