The NBN is Australia’s Maginot Line. An impressive series of defensive fortifications laid by the French after the horrors of WW1, the Maginot Line reflected the purely defensive stance of the Third Republic. It was rendered useless by the Wehrmacht as it simply bypassed the Line and the then superior French forces capitulated in six days.
So too with the NBN. As we watch the rolling out of 4G technology in Europe, Asia and the United States is Australia to be denied the benefits of 4G technology which renders useless (for most purposes) the NBN?
Australians – like most internet users – want wireless. They should get fast broadband wireless at low prices – they would except for the behemoth of the NBN.
The NBN: the most expensive and useless broadband technology in the world.
Kevin Rudd is telling wanna-be politicians that they need to know what they believe in.
The folly of the NBN and pink batts appears to be what Krudd believes in.
We must never let people forget that it was the Labor Party, and all that it stands for, that inflicted Krudd and the Liar on to this country.
johno
4 Sep 12 at 4:16 pm
You do realise that wireless is for all intents and purposes less capable than wired links? Wireless is a shared medium, and even recent theoretical advances where you get full-duplex (transmit and receive at the same time) transmissions between multiple clients and a central hub are decades away from commercial usage, they will still be a shared medium with limited scalability compared to the point-to-point links of wired access.
Just out of curiosity, how do you think the 4g connections in the rest of the world are connected to the internet? Because, according to you wireless is so good that they will stop bothering with cabling and will just use wireless links between towers and central networking data-centres.
Oh wait, they will be using fibre cabling to the base of all the towers and back to network concentration points!
The NBN is a massive investment, and whether or not it’s worth it or if the private sector is better suited to decide how to proceed is certainly worth debating. Hell, even comparing whether the speeds of a fibre to the wireless node model is a better long-term investment strategy than the NBN fibre to the home model is certainly worth consideration. But comparing fibre to wireless technologies, and saying wireless is better than fibre is an excellent way to display your ignorance regarding how basic networks actually operate.
Jason Cook
4 Sep 12 at 4:26 pm
but but it’s “future-proof” because Conroy told us it was. So really, when this boondoggle gets completed sometime in 2035, we’re assured today that technology won’t have advanced in that time and we’ll still be waaaay ahead of the rest. Ain’t Labor great?
Gab
4 Sep 12 at 4:31 pm
Jason,
I’d agree with you that wired is a faster, more stable technology. I can’t agree with you that it is better “for all intents and purposes”. Personally, my “intent and purpose” with internet use is to use my iPad, iPhone and laptop where ever I need to use them. I do not need gigabit in just one location, megabit in most locations is more than good enough.
Personally, trying to drag around a cable from my home is not the best way to use the internet.
To get the best out of mobile internet having a dark fibre-optic cable running past my home is no use at all – the cable internet I currently have does more than enough, and can be upgraded to be better.
Having several competitive FTTN networks (with the nodes being wireless base stations) would be much better (and a lot cheaper) than having a monopolist fibre supplier.
You might enjoy being tethered to your desk and need gigabit. If so, please feel free to pay the premium. Personally, I would like to be untethered and paying less.
Andrew Reynolds
4 Sep 12 at 4:42 pm
This is a no-brainer. Of course it is a better model than fibre to every home in a country as geographically spread as Australia, which is enormously wasteful. For most people and most purposes, wireless is what they want and what will do, especially with new technology improvements around 4G. The whole NBN thing, developed without proper advice on the back of an envelope by technofools, and picked up by the easy-money rent seekers, has had Da Hairy Irish Ape (who knows a ting or two here) laughing for the past two years – when he’s not crying into his beer to me about the turrible waste of it all.
Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.
4 Sep 12 at 4:42 pm
I think you are ignorant of consumer preferences. The NBN is like the VC-10. A more technically brilliant solution to long haul air services than the Boeing 707, but the 707 won out because it was cheaper, even though it was slower, nosier and less comfortable.
adrian
4 Sep 12 at 4:42 pm
4G and the NBN are complementary, not competitive products and cover quite different use cases. We will need both in the future, though 4G will rely on a good fibre backbone. And even decent mobile coverage is pretty spotty for hi speed connections now, especially during peak usage times. As well as that getting planning permission for towers is an impediment to decent coverage. Even the NBN is struggling with that – they’ve delayed deploying to some regional areas because they can’t find a place to put the towers up because of local council objections.
Chris
4 Sep 12 at 4:55 pm
the NBN in my view was only ever brought up as an election winner
one of those promises the Labor party hoped would win them the next election
and so it turned out
it won Tony Windsor over – remember his ‘fibre to the home’ speech
and I was thinking tonight looking at the news and seeing Gillard saying in WA that ‘the death of mining has been greatly exaggerated’ that if all you have is a media manager and no one on your side including yourself who has business experience you are disadvantaged and the people you purport to govern are disadvantaged
Gillard has no businesss experience
I don’t think anyone in her team has business experience
What the Govt is keen to do is rebut any concern that the public might have about Aust debt being in any way related to what this Govt have spent while in power
well check the Aust debt clock
http://www.australiandebtclock.com.au/
Australia was once the lucky country, we’re now becoming a basket case
remember Barnaby talking about ‘sovereign risk’ and it wasn’t all that long ago
val majkus
4 Sep 12 at 4:58 pm
Wireless is better than wired for the simple reason is that what customers want is mobility. How many teenagers even access the internet via a desktop computer anymore? They all carry around tablets and smart phones.
Other factors are hardly an issue at the moment since current bandwith is sufficient for the vast majority of users.
Quentin George
4 Sep 12 at 5:02 pm
Btw I think FTTN would have been a better solution than FTTP – at least initially. Could have upgraded to FTTP at a later date when it was really needed and gigabit speeds are required to the home. Probably would have been they way things went too if the Telstra privatization wasn’t stuffed up in the first place giving one company monopoly control over the last mile copper as well as compete in the retail market.
Chris
4 Sep 12 at 5:03 pm
Andrew, the technical argument against that is that FTTH means you can have smaller footprint wireless cells meaning that individual wireless client connectivity is better (fewer devices per shared medium). Is such a solution worth the $, that’s certainly worth arguing, but technically FTTH is still better.
Mind you as both Lizzie and Adrian have mentioned, and I implied in my original post, market forces may not result in the technically less capable solution being preferred for any number of reasons. That’s where the debate should be. Because wireless isn’t better technically, but it may be preferred for other reasons.
Jason Cook
4 Sep 12 at 5:03 pm
Adrian,
The VC10 also crashed a lot due to stress cracks around the windows, which didn’t help its commercial success.
woolfe
4 Sep 12 at 5:05 pm
The major cost of the NBN is the fibre up every street. Those of us with long memories can recall Rudd promising to spend $3 billion on a fibre network. About what they have wasted in the border shambles by dismantling perfectly good laws and then having to backtrack.
Anyone comparing internet connections solely on speed is showing ignorance.
Whenever there is an NBN post it brings out a shadow army of gamers and pirateers. They want the rest of us to subsidise their ripping and fragging activities. Well, if you want a high speed fibre connection, buy your own.
In the battle of formats, the technically best solution is rarely adopted. That’s because there’s always other considerations, including consumer preference, cost, flexibility and more.
Very few people in Australia need the types of speeds that fibre to their front door provide. It makes sense to wire up new estates with this technology. It manifestly does not make sense to rip up existing, working, technology to replace it.
And no technical reason provides an excuse for re-nationalising the telecommunications network.
brc
4 Sep 12 at 5:11 pm
It’s an apt simile, I hope liberation doesn’t take another four and a half years.
Correction: the fall of France took six weeks (mid May – June 22 1940) with est. 360,000 allied casualties.
manalive
4 Sep 12 at 5:17 pm
Jason Cook, what muddled thinking you have.
That’s for individuals to decide, not the government. You and others like to argue about this as if we’re debating the best solution from a consumer point of view. But it’s not. This isn’t a purchasing decision ,this is a forced supply situation where the government sells everyone their brilliant product whether they want it or not.
You personally might prefer FTTH on the grounds of speed and gold plated solutions, and that’s fine. But you want to make the decision on behalf of every citizen, that will be made on behalf of every citizen, and they will be charged the bill for it. That’s not how to run a modern market economy that’s soviet style planning, which is what the NBN is.
Second by purchasing an internet plan for every household and business in the nation, they’re locking us into a particular technology that might not even turn out to be the best way to go.
Third this is a solution to a non-problem; most of Australia – and most people in RARA have access to broadband, and the numbers are climbing.
dd
4 Sep 12 at 5:18 pm
Again – technically it is better if what you want is blazing fast internet at high cost. Personally, I don’t. Fast internet at low cost is much, much better.
Andrew Reynolds
4 Sep 12 at 5:19 pm
It is certainly ‘better technically’ for mobile users..
Lazlo
4 Sep 12 at 5:21 pm
I can’t believe this argument is being retreaded again…. not only that but that we could only achieve fiber with a government solution.
This same tired old argument has been showing up here for the past 4 years and gets smacked down every time.
I says ban the next fucker that tries this on. Life ban and no exception.
This site ought to commence the Fisk Doctrine as a show piece in how it ought to be rolled out.
JC
4 Sep 12 at 5:26 pm
Is the verb to fisk in the Macquarie Dictionary yet?
What exactly shoudl the entry be
“To right the unrightable
wrongleft”?WhaleHunt Fun
4 Sep 12 at 6:02 pm
No wonder this has been quoted so often, it sums up the thread. Ignorance preached like gospel.
m0nty
4 Sep 12 at 6:10 pm
Surely this is exactly the type of mathematical problem that telecommunciations IT people have been solving for over a century. Given two tranmission technolgies, one faster and expensive, and a second slower but cheaper and a particular distribution of customers, how far towards the customers should the faster expensive be laid before transferring to the cheaper slower in order to provide the most efficient balance between cost and service speed.
The filth in the brief flight where the policy was designed had and have none of the mathematical competence to consider the problem and if their’s was a competent solution they would have presented that and shut the argument up.
We are well rid of the poisoned dwarf and when the parliamentary fecal count is reduced at the next election we will all be safer and healthier.
WhaleHunt Fun
4 Sep 12 at 6:12 pm
With regard to high speed broadband I have invented a new law.
It’s called Ron Jeremy’s law: Internet download speeds only needs to be as fast as it takes to watch HD porn without lag or freezing. Any faster is superfluous.
Splatacrobat
4 Sep 12 at 6:12 pm
Continue pushing your own barrow there, Monster. Good to see things never change for the GetUp crowd.
JC
4 Sep 12 at 6:13 pm
Hey JC, why don’t you tell us again how you fibred up your house & it didn’t make the internet any faster?
badm0f0
4 Sep 12 at 6:15 pm
dd – seriously where in any of the words I’ve typed did I say that I preferred for myself anything? I happen to agree with everything you just said, where did I disagree? My point was that FTTH is the best technical solution – and you apparently agree (you called it the gold plated solution, implying it was the best). That doesn’t mean it is the most commercially competitive or viable, but it is technically the best.
Andrew – agreed, price vs performance vs ease of rollout and ease of use is the debate.
Lazio – I refer you to my cell size point, technically the best wireless would have cell sizes of one client device to one hub (and some providers provide point to point wireless links that do exactly this) but it is far from practical or desirable from a market perspective. So stick to arguments re price vs performance.
JC – If you read my post, I agree with you in that the debate on whether or not this should involve got intervention and is commercially viable or desirable. It is however better technically than current large scale wireless deployment on any technical measure. But so was betamax.
Of course, life-banning people who disagree with you even if they were wrong (something I don’t acknowledge) is not something any decent conservative should consider.
Jason Cook
4 Sep 12 at 6:16 pm
It didn’t because there are copper wires outside. However, because I live in the city I thought there would come a time when a full fibre service would be offered by one of the bidders (remember the bidders?). It’s a different expectation than the NBN, you dingbat.
JC
4 Sep 12 at 6:21 pm
You are missing the point. You said that wireless “isn’t better technically” than fibre, where presumably your (sole) metric is bandwidth.
For roaming users of mobile devices fibre is not a technical option. You cannot drag a fibre connection around town. So in that case wireless is the only option and is certainly “better technically” than fibre. It is nothing to do with price.
Lazlo
4 Sep 12 at 6:27 pm
Lazlo – if you have cell sizes around the size of individual houses by having FTTH and then microcells (which exist today), you will get much better coverage and connection capability compared to cell sizes comparable to suburbs. In fact, many people and households effectively do exactly this with the various smaller range 802.11 wireless solutions for better performance in their homes now.
Of course doing it commercially for all households would be ridiculous. It would be prohibitively expensive, commercially ruinous, but smaller cell sizes is technically better.
Jason Cook
4 Sep 12 at 6:37 pm
I don’t care whether its NBN or wireless, as long as I can play World of Warcraft and download porn faster.
Fred
4 Sep 12 at 6:44 pm
Look, the NBN doesn’t actually magically give you 100 mbps on every web page you download. Even video movie streaming is only around 6-10 mbps. For most people, around 25 mbps would be the most they would need, and I have seen 4G at over 60 mbps in real life usage (usually around 40).
On my cable, the only time I approach maximum 115 mbps speed is downloading the latest OS from Apple’s massive servers, or marginally slower, a widely seeded torrent on channel BT. And all for the same price (funny that) for equivalent service as offered on the [massively subsidised] NBN.
But the central point of the original post, is that wireless is more functional for most users, which is certainly true for us as we are rarely in the house but are always connected. For this reason, I am thinking of ending my cable service and switching to 4G only. We can’t afford both.
entropy
4 Sep 12 at 6:49 pm
The NBN will be bonzer ‘coz Tony Windsor said it would be. And he’s not an idiot.
Is he?
H B Bear
4 Sep 12 at 7:09 pm
entropy – you can get a wireless modem inside for cable use.
for outside, you can package a 4G card with your cable bundle and save $
I just got a $20/month discount from Telstra. I didn’t ask for it – they just rang, upgraded my plan to the latest one and gave me a sweetener for it
however, I’ve now discovered I have cable here and will upgrade to it – just annoying changing email for a month
my view re fibre – make it to the street – have 30% of street sign up to cable plans then qualify to have it cabled to the home
pete m
4 Sep 12 at 7:11 pm
People have been having these types of arguements for a long long time
They were actually settled in 1508 by Cardinal Cajetan ” The just price is the common market price reflecting the estimation of the buyers” Cajetan then went further to purge scholastic economics of any “station in life” or labor theories of value
Ref Rothbard “Economic thought before Adam Smith p101″
RodClarke
4 Sep 12 at 7:18 pm
We need a mix of technologies, not the one super expensive, super fast solution to fit or misfit everybody. The media were cheering on this “one super size fits all” madness for ages. Craven bastards. Now it’s revealed that alternative methods are creeping back into the picture, as a result of reality biting them on the bum. But in the meantime existing networks have been sidelined or earmarked for that, not just the old copper ones, but everything that the NBN can’t have its hooks into or which might offer a perfectly workable alternative for your average user.
So the conservatives need to scrap/amend the NBN madness as well as the AGW madness.
blogstrop
4 Sep 12 at 7:52 pm
I have to de-lurk… Adrian is quite right. The VC10 was a superb aircraft and as a kid I flew many thousands of miles (as it was then) on BOAC and East African Airways liveried planes. Woolfe is getting the VC10 mixed up with the Comet.
The two accidents that the plane had where loss of life was involved were attributable to pilot error in one and a tragic chain of events starting with FOD on the runway and brake failure caused by poor maintenance.
http://www.vc10.net/History/incidents_and_accidents.html
I flew on the 707 too – and the VC10 crapped all over it. Quiet…. That is what I remember about it. Quiet.
Arnost
4 Sep 12 at 7:52 pm
The NBN is not about delivering world best broadband to everyone in the country. It is purely about control. It’s the totalitarian way.
big dumb fu
4 Sep 12 at 8:02 pm
And Fiber to the node is the way to go. If a hospital, or Uni or a finacial institution needs secure and fast connection, they can pay for the addional cabling.
And on the topic of planes…
I remember that someone once described the NBN as a superfast railway. I did have to laugh – everyone was building railways and engines at the turn of the century like mad. But guess what – the speed and convenience of airplanes relegated the railways to bulk carriage of goods. People typically only use the railways fo long distance travel by choice and not necessity. [well maybe the $1 pensioner fares are also attractive]
Arnost
4 Sep 12 at 8:02 pm
Chris,
There already is a good fibre backbone for 4G nodes. Independent of NBN.
ar
4 Sep 12 at 8:08 pm
Arnost,
agree the VC10 was much quieter than than the 707, but I enjoyed flying both – one problem with the VC10, was a weight and balance problem, with engines in the tail, if you unloaded cargo from the front before cargo from the tail, it stood on its end – embarrassing, solved the problem on 747-Combis with a Tail Jack.
To Jason Cook,
I currently have 100Mbps Internet through Optus Cable, with 1 Terabyte per month download, plus Telephone Rental, unlimited Phone calls, Mobile, Local, National, 13, 1300 all for $114.95 per month.
having looked at NBN proposed pricing, I will be paying more than double than I pay now.
This is progress? – Like all Labor schemes a sheer waste of Money
As at last Friday, Labor have hosed $245.326 Billion up against the wall with nothing to show from it, all from a $20 Billion Surplus, and that does not include NBN
OldOzzie
4 Sep 12 at 8:19 pm
I think Samuel should stick to what he knows, which is clearly not networks. Bandwidth and cell congestion are major limiting factors of wireless. I can really see all the internet connections in the CBD working on the cellular network (not).
SteveC
4 Sep 12 at 8:22 pm
Yes Pete, I have wireless N modem on my cable for home use, and discounts on two iPhones and an iPad with data by bundling with the cable.
But the point is that even with the discounts, I am paying more for both. I could go for a slightly more expensive data package for the phones and get a higher download limit, and tether for all other internet use. And ditch the cable and home phone, thereby saving about $80 a month.
And be prepared switching to cable. If telstra can find a way to stuff it up, it will. After promising a seven day switch, it took three months to get it all sorted (well, the brisbane floods happened then too). Similarly, when I upgraded to 100mbps, something that should have taken a couple of days dragged out over a month, a boring story that doesn’t need the details.
entropy
4 Sep 12 at 8:23 pm
Bandwidth and cell congestion are major limiting factors of wireless.
But the NBN uses wireless? And they claim to be managing this issue? Are they lying to us, or can wireless be used in this way?
John Mc
4 Sep 12 at 8:27 pm
I
Yeah, now what about in Charleville?
manalive
4 Sep 12 at 8:29 pm
can really see all the internet connections in the CBD working on the cellular network (not)…
I suppose there is no way the CBD could get fibre with out the NBN, though. It’s not like normal ISPs would be offering it.
John Mc
4 Sep 12 at 8:32 pm
I dont normally respond to idiot trolls, but really:
Is so mentally challenged it is just sad. The true bit:
Apparently justifies $B laying thousands of km of pipes, buying out telstra and Optus for more $B and connecting that pipe to every home, because in SteveC’s world that makes more sense than adding capacity at each tower for a much smaller amount of Other People’s Money. What a putz.
entropy
4 Sep 12 at 8:32 pm
entropy, quick question, how many simultaneous connections can a single cell handle?
SteveC
4 Sep 12 at 8:35 pm
Nobody’s suggesting that, doofus. You really are a vexatious idiot (on purpose is a generous assessment, can’t help yourself is a less generous one) and a waste of space.
blogstrop
4 Sep 12 at 8:38 pm
Moderators, please explain yourselves why this fuckwit is still here.
blogstrop
4 Sep 12 at 8:39 pm
Is it simply because he’s not offered to poke Tom’s eye out with a screwdriver or gang bang lizzie, like that last moon-crazed piece of shit?
But really, you are letting this site get trolled so often it’s a joke.
blogstrop
4 Sep 12 at 8:41 pm
Goodnight.
blogstrop
4 Sep 12 at 8:42 pm
entropy, quick question, how many simultaneous connections can a single cell handle?
entropy
4 Sep 12 at 8:42 pm
Geez, Steve, is there a single number. What is it?
John Mc
4 Sep 12 at 8:43 pm
This is the twaddle I was objecting to:
As we watch the rolling out of 4G technology in Europe, Asia and the United States is Australia to be denied the benefits of 4G technology which renders useless (for most purposes) the NBN?
SteveC
4 Sep 12 at 8:45 pm
SteveC – yes even now on 4G networks in the CBD it’s not uncommon to see people complain about dial up type speeds because of congestion. Mobile wireless is great when there is hardly anyone using it but becomes next to useless if a lot of people are – which is one of it’s big downsides – lack of reliable performance. If say you’re doing a demo at a client which requires a decent amount of bandwidth you can’t rely on it because you might get unlucky and have a bunch of other high usage users in your area at the same time. Or you might just end up in a blackspot for that provider – which also is not uncommon. So you end up having to subscribe to multiple providers just in case.
JohnMc – the NBN are using wifi towers (not mobile wireless) where the density of potential users is low. Though they will have similar problems if usage becomes high enough. Presumably the plan would be to rollout fibre when demand becomes high enough.
Chris
4 Sep 12 at 8:47 pm
Regardless of which format or technology is commercially dominant, in the very near future the majority of the people in the CBD will be using a wireless connection that will offer at least 20Mb/s. This will get faster, and although lots of users may still choke bandwidth, this will considered unusual.
John Mc
4 Sep 12 at 8:49 pm
Let’s say after the NBN everyone can access a 1 Gb/s connection. What new things can we expect to be done better in the short term i.e. quicker that the market would currently deliver it?
John Mc
4 Sep 12 at 8:52 pm
the NBN are using wifi towers (not mobile wireless) where the density of potential users is low.
The NBN is till rolling it wireless in suburbia though, this is not Charleville we’re talking about.
I suspect they’re doing it so they can say the NBN is operational, because it’s not providing any service that users can’t already obtain (noting that it’s a fixed wireless connection, which is how they’re managing the bandwidth).
John Mc
4 Sep 12 at 8:54 pm
I use a 4G network provider whenever I’m in the States. Fast enough for what I need, works whether I’m in Houston, Syracuse or Raleigh. I get unlimited data for $50/month with no fixed-term contract. If I were happy to accept slower speeds, I could get the same unlimited data plan for $34.99/month.
It’s reasonably estimated that 97% of the population of the USA will have 4G coverage within the next few years. All somehow – magically! – done without the State having nationalised the nation’s communications network.
They’re working on an LTE 4G system that’ll deliver consistent 100 Mbps speeds in a moving vehicle. They’re not there yet, but it certainly can be done. And since it’s private enterprise doing it, you can bet they’ve done their research and have found that there’ll be a market in it. Because that’s what people want, and what people will voluntarily pay for.
Yes, this is the sort of thing that most 21st century citizens want – not being tethered to a cable at a desk in their home or office, or having to set up wanky little DIY “home wireless networks” that every man and his dog can hack into or which they discover can’t even be used on the back patio if their home has double-glazed coated windows, let alone from the park down the street.
The rest of the developed world will be driving a dazzling variety of cars, with each person making their own choices and balancing his or her desire for speed, price and other features; and Australians will be stuck with the choice of a Rolls-Royce-priced Trabant or a Rolls Royce-priced Trabant, in any color you like so long as it’s black.
*slowclap*
sdog
4 Sep 12 at 8:57 pm
New York City has more than 8 million people. If 4G can be made to work there (as it has been, and as it does), it can be made to work in any Australian city.
sdog
4 Sep 12 at 9:00 pm
I seriously hope you accidentally left the sarc tag off that comment.
boy on a bike
4 Sep 12 at 9:00 pm
No shit dude.
John Mc
4 Sep 12 at 9:01 pm
And nobody’s even brought up the issue of the Australian government ripping up all the existing copper lines, forcing everyone onto VOIP (over government-monopoly infrastructure) for their communications needs.
We’ve already seen the goat rodeo of providing and installing “free” set top boxes to millions of people so that they can access digital TV. How’s that worked out?
Now imagine the State having to provide “free” VOIP phones and training everyone – including the elderly and the disabled – to use them. Phone service, quite rightly, being seen as far more of a “vital basic service” than being able to watch TV.
I’m picturing the first time an elderly person has an emergency and either can’t work out how to contact 000 over their government-provided government-installed VOIP, or something goes wrong with the (government-monopoly) system and they can’t get a line out, to anyone. Oy.
sdog
4 Sep 12 at 9:10 pm
We all know mobile wireless suffers congestion (try using it at the footy stadium after a try is scored). But the fact that it’s mobile is what makes it infinately more useful to people who want a mobile solution. And that’s a lot due to behavoral changes.
The gubmint has a vested interest in hobbling wireless takeup in order to boost numbers for it’s new whizz bang, one size fits all solution.
Derp
4 Sep 12 at 9:52 pm
It’s not even “vested” – under the NBN agreeement the government signed with Telstra, Telstra isn’t allowed to promote wireless as a substitute for the NBN.
benson
4 Sep 12 at 9:57 pm
Benson
surely an agreement like that doesn’t carry any weight?
JC
4 Sep 12 at 10:07 pm
Yep, it’s a travesty, taking away choice by decree.
And worse, it’s dressed up as exactly the opposite.
Derp
4 Sep 12 at 10:10 pm
Well, it seems to be in the agreement. Apparently the ACCC doesn’t like it, but this was all a year ago.
benson
4 Sep 12 at 10:11 pm
Still amazes that some people believe the NBN is a good idea and will be efficient and lower cost than anything else on the market, either now or in 15 years time when it is completed. How people can believe this government will deliver on their NBN promises is just bewildering. The $16.2billion BER was a failure and even today taxpayers are still paying for contractors to fix the stuff-ups – all on the quiet mind as the government has demanded each subbie must sign a confidentiality agreement to ensure the general public is unaware of the repairs being carried out to fix up the many many mistakes carried out in a rush in order to get the BER money, and whether schools wanted it or not.
$16.2billion for school halls and tuck shops, what a waste! Imagine how easy it would be now to fund the school “crusade” from the Gonski review had that money not been wasted. What did it say it would cost? $6billion, and we’d have $10billion left for the NDIS or whatever.
And now this government is telling us that a minimum of $43billion of our money will be spent on the NBN and people are stupid enough to believe it will be completed on time and within budget and still be “future-proof”. My God but this country can boast of many gullible imbeciles among the population.
Gab
4 Sep 12 at 10:16 pm
The VC10 also crashed a lot due to stress cracks around the windows
I think you’re getting the VC-10 confused with the DeHavilland Comet, which did crash for this reason a lot, until they discovered the reason and fixed it.
And then, poor things, they passed this knowledge on so the same fucking awful disaster wouldn’t happen to anyone else. And in being thus moral and ethical, they lost the skies to Boeing and Douglas.
perturbed
4 Sep 12 at 10:25 pm
There is significant techno dissembling on display here. I don’t want to start shouting in capital letters to people who do not, or deliberately pretend not, to understand.
As dd has stated, the NBN is a Soviet era monopoly, approved by I-like-to-pick-winners thickos like Rudd, Conroy and Gillard. They believe they are ‘making a difference’ just as they do so with Da Carbon Tax, Ejucashun, Teef, cripples etc. All without any accountability, just trust the magic pudding.
The NBN is also a magnet for rent seekers and the biggest pork barrel in the land. Perfect for this band of corrupt idiots.
Oh, and the best solution for connectivity is a heterogenous mix of networking technologies, supported by a fibre backbone (which the Telcos already have in place) and a variety of last-mile tails – cable, ADSL, wireless. This solution is called The Internet, it has been coping with this problem now for years.
I put my trust in the free market and the Internet architects. The enlightened alternative, we are told, is dullard bureaucratic nationalisation of the comms infrastructure.
Lazlo
4 Sep 12 at 10:32 pm
45% according to the most recent estimate..
Lazlo
4 Sep 12 at 10:49 pm
It was the De Havilland Comet 1 which began service in May 1952 and suffered 3 catastrophic losses in 1953 and 1954 owing to design weaknesses around the windows. It took six years to solve the problem by which time the replacement Comet 4 was no match for the new Boeing 707.
Ubique
4 Sep 12 at 10:58 pm
Re the vickers – it might have been a fine piece of engineering but the poms nationalized their airplane industry, and it was only a matter of time before they all went bust due to central planning and unions, just like the shipping and car industries. They were good at engineering but crap at everything else.
brc
4 Sep 12 at 11:09 pm
It’s simple economics. Use fibre up until you reach it’s marginal value, beyond which we switch to wireless.
As it is, the NBN is a gross misallocation of resources, and is costing us far more than it needs to.
Of greater concern is Roxon’s total invasion of privacy with her proposed Internet records. It’s akin to the government opening every letter we send and taking a copy of it. The totalitarian bitch.
Twodogs
5 Sep 12 at 12:28 am
sdog – you don’t need to do anything different for voice with the NBN. Although its VoIP underneath you can still plug your old POTS phone in and 000 will work as normal. The big downside is the backup battery required if you want a phone service when there is a power outage. But with the prevalence of cordless phones these days most households would rely on mobiles in a power outage situation anyway because their cordless phones won’t work of the base station doesn’t have mains power.
Only if you’re unlucky enough to be in the 7% not covered by fibre. You’ll still have 4G though if a telco can be bothered to cover you.
I do think the anti competitive aspects of the deal are really bad. They should not have forced Telstra/Optus to turn off their cable/copper as the NBN rolls out. Nor compensated them for doing so. Especially Optus – at least with Telstra there was a vague reason in order to access the conduits. But the Optus compensation looks simply like corporate welfare in exchange for publicly supporting the NBN in its earlier stages.
Chris
5 Sep 12 at 1:02 am
So you don’t even need an adapter? Which costs about the same as a set-top box (~$50) and will cost the taxpayer about as much to buy and install as the set-top box (~$300)?
This is why many households, such as mine and several others I know of, keep an old-style phone around. Which the Australian Labor Government, in all its wisdom, is about to render useless… for no good reason except to ensure themselves a monopoly over both home voice and data communications nation-wide.
But you can bet your bippy, if it was a “MORAL IMPERATIVE!” that taxpayers pay for union/labor maaaaates to supply and install set-top boxes for all pensioners & the disabled lest they miss out on TV, it will be even more of a “MORAL IMPERATIVE!” for us to pay for union/labor maaaaates to supply (and install where necessary) either battery back-ups so that people can have the same emergency phone service they have now, or to buy cellphones for them all so that they can have the same emergency phone service they have now.
It’s a disaster waiting to happen.
sdog
5 Sep 12 at 1:25 am
I also note that the NBN fanbois didn’t have any good counter to my example of how internet provision works in less Soviet countries such as America.
The free market works, bitches.
sdog
5 Sep 12 at 1:30 am
And since they’re now going to force all of our voice calls to be routed over the Government network, they get to not just open, copy and save our every letter but our every phone call as well.
Totalitarian bitch indeed.
sdog
5 Sep 12 at 1:33 am
Totalitarian bitches, folks.
Plural.
Abbott’s on board.
Nice to have a Liberal Party, hey?
C.L.
5 Sep 12 at 1:47 am
Actually, the theoretical limits of wireless are much greater than that of fibre. Fibre optic has an extremely high capacity, granted, but it is limited which cannot be said effectively for some forms of wireless (not wifi of 4G). The future and present is wireless. We will still use wired / fibre connections for major trunks for some time but in time (perhaps not so many years distant) there will be no wired connections whatsoever (we will be using laser etc). The NBN is a dinosaur.
Samuel J
5 Sep 12 at 2:14 am
Sigh.
sdog
5 Sep 12 at 2:15 am
They’re scared of free markets – doesn’t involved the government. You see, they believe if the government builds it, it will be cheaper and more efficient. The morons have learned nothing from history.
Gab
5 Sep 12 at 11:04 am
As mentioned above, for mobile users, wireless is technically better than fixed fibre. End of technical argument. And most people want to be mobile, the market has spoken. This news released today:
http://accan.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=489:new-study-confirms-mobile-is-australians-number-one-communications-device-&catid=111:general-communications&Itemid=113
Stan
5 Sep 12 at 11:24 am
That news is about phone lines not broadband internet, Stan you idiot.
m0nty
5 Sep 12 at 11:31 am
No, you won’t need an adaptor. The NBN fibre termination box has POTS ports on it already (much like many ADSL modems do these days). It also comes with space for a backup battery, though IIRC they are now only installing the backup battery for those that want them. Increasingly people are doing away with their ordinary line rental anyway because they don’t use it and have mobiles as backup so don’t care about their “landline” working during a power failure. I would drop my POTS if I didn’t have a back to base alarm system. I have an old corder phone for emergencies, though I’d most likely go to the mobile first. At least in the cities if that isn’t working as well then its likely something Really Bad (TM) is going on and the chances of me getting emergency services anytime soon is pretty low regardless.
The NBN infrastructure will be at the wrong layer to do decent monitoring – they’ll need the cooperation of the ISPs/Telcos regardless. And they need to cover mobile wireless too which the NBN isn’t doing.
I agree the data retention scheme is a HUGE concern. And I’m very disappointed that the Liberals are supporting it. The Abbott led party does not have the internet privacy and rights outlook that the Howard government did. For example under Howard, they had a very sensible approach to internet filtering – give the tools to the individual households do implement if they want to. And they were opposed to compulsory filtering. I think they were even opposed to opt-out systems (I’ve no problem with opt-in systems).
Now the only federal party with MPs opposing the data retention scheme are the Greens. In general the Greens are way ahead of both of the other parties when it comes to preserving rights to privacy and access of internet users.
There are ways to fight against this scheme though. I’d encourage everyone to PGP encrypt their email even for everyday conversations. Teach your friends/family how to encrypt their email. Use TOR. Run a TOR node if you can. You can get all the tools to do this for free (along with the source code if you care) If you run a website support https if you possibly can. If you need technical help go to one of the local crypto parties that are being organised.
The more encrypted and anonymous traffic we have on the network the less effective the data retention scheme will be.
Chris
5 Sep 12 at 11:31 am
Samuel, you have no idea how the Internet works. No idea at all.
m0nty
5 Sep 12 at 11:33 am
People want wireless phones but wired computers, hey Mont?
C.L.
5 Sep 12 at 11:45 am
They want wireless devices that use wifi to leverage more reliable wired connections. There is no dichotomy between the popularity of wireless devices and wired broadband internet. They enable each other, it’s a symbiotic relationship. Wifi-only devices are taking more market share. The trend is towards tablets that are kept around the home, connected via wifi to wired broadband.
m0nty
5 Sep 12 at 12:03 pm
Yep, I don’t even bother buying mobile wireless capable tablets, just wifi support. When I travel and can’t get wifi (and I think wifi hotspots will become more prevalent as the NBN rolls out) then I use my phone as a hotspot, with a mifi on another provider as backup if coverage/congestion happens to be bad for my mobile.
Its way more expensive to have a mobile wireless plan for every device you might want to connect when travelling.
The other thing to note is that mobile data is about an order of magnitude more expensive than data via a wired plan. I work from home and commonly use around 50-100Gb on work related data transfers – at mobile data rates that would be around $500-$1000/month which is not particularly practical.
Chris
5 Sep 12 at 12:34 pm
I don’t think M0nty has ever ventured beyond a Commodore 64.
Samuel J
5 Sep 12 at 3:26 pm
You’re just embarrassing yourself now, Samuel.
m0nty
5 Sep 12 at 3:37 pm
Sorry M0nty, I meant ENIAC was your most recent IT experience
Samuel J
5 Sep 12 at 4:07 pm
Definite case of Dunning-Kruger. You should get that looked at Samuel, rather nasty.
m0nty
5 Sep 12 at 4:30 pm
The Dunning-Kruger effect is particularly evident among leftists who “work” at sheltered workshops like the ABC. They are really welfare dependents.
Samuel J
5 Sep 12 at 5:38 pm
Samuel don’t take any notice of that nasty low-rent troll.
Gab
5 Sep 12 at 5:39 pm
See my comment above about the cost of the no-contract 4G data plan I use when I’m in the States. It works via USB stick and/or mobile hotspot – you don’t need dozens of different plans, just the one. For the average internet user who wants to access data wherever they are, without being tied to a desk, it’s absolutely fine.
That you think the architects of the pink batts, school halls, MYKI, Qld Health and set-top box fiascoes are better placed to lower Australia’s data prices than the free market is… is just plain delusional.
Besides, if you work from home and thus want/need high-speed wired broadband, why the hell can’t you buy it yourself? Why demand that the Government saddle our children and our grandchildren with crippling multi-generational debt for your commercial benefit?
sdog
5 Sep 12 at 6:05 pm
Samuel J,
re your comment
“Sorry M0nty, I meant ENIAC was your most recent IT experience ”
I assume you meant to say SILLIAC at the Sydney Uni Dept of Physics, where he would been bored sh*tless by Prof Harry Messel, who used to recommend we take No-Doze for his lectures
OldOzzie
5 Sep 12 at 6:05 pm
What is going to happen to all the monitored smoke alarm/medical alarm/burglar alarm systems that require the traditional phone lines that our caring and thoughtful government is going to rip out?
Who’s going to be responsible for finding — and funding — a solution to that humongous problem?
sdog
5 Sep 12 at 6:22 pm
“I can really see all the internet connections in the CBD working on the cellular network (not).”
Yeah, cause without the NBN, no CBD will ever get fibre.
This is a non-argument based on a gigantic false premise. the simple fact is the market will provide fibre wherever it is profitable to do so, and the government funded NBN has sworn and declared that it will do exactly the same thing.
This brings us then to the empirical facts about government provided services: they are usually worse, and almost always a great deal more expensive.
I leave it to the various defenders of the NBN to detail why, exactly, it needs to be a government project?
wreckage
5 Sep 12 at 10:29 pm
Isn’t it nice that you have a choice? What a novel idea, to let people prioritise and pay for such services as suit them. It’s a wonder nobody thought of it several hundred years ago.
wreckage
5 Sep 12 at 10:31 pm
I know IT is not your strong suit, but the connection speed of that wifi is much slower than copper wire broadband, and orders of magnitude slower than FTTH. A trend toward wireless networks in the home actually does signify with regard to demands for outright speed. The more people tend towards wireless in the home, the more they are likely to want mid-speed broadband with very cheap data.
wreckage
5 Sep 12 at 10:34 pm
Except that we simply don’t have unlimited data plans in Australia – mobile or fixed line. One of the reasons for that is that we have to pay per megabyte for connectivity to the US, but the ISPs over there don’t pay anything to connect to us.
And in practice they don’t really have unlimited wireless plans in the US either – I’d read the fine point of your contracts. For example AT&T say they may start shaping you (hello dialup speeds!) if you’re in the top 5% of users (>3GB/month). Or companies like T-mobile’s unlimited plans say you can only access the data via smartphone (no using it as a hotspot) – eg code for we’ll shape you or at worst cancel your contract if we think you’re using too much data.
For reference AT&T charge about US$10/GB/month if you don’t want to be shaped. Other providers are similar and its really not that much cheaper than what it costs in Australia.
Users in the US won’t be giving up their ADSL connections anytime soon – and its common to hear complaints from US people too about difficulty finding housing with decent internet connectivity (yea that’s a #firstworldproblem)
Well put things in a bit of perspective. We’re talking about $38 billion for the NBN, with the government putting in about $28 billion. And also take into account the expected rate of return (people will have to pay for the NBN services if they want them) is around 7%.
So even with 0% return, its $28 billion of government funding over 10 years, say $3 billion/year. In contrast the governments in Australia spend around $14 billion dollars every year on road construction and maintenance.
re: alarms – it is an issue. Some alarm systems just work on top of VOIP. Other’s don’t – they’ll have to use the copper lines until Telstra turn them off and reclaim the copper at which point they’ll probably have to upgrade to IP based systems or wireless based systems. Those who really care about reliability have mobile backup connectivity anyway.
Chris
5 Sep 12 at 10:34 pm
You might want to compare the economic productivity of roads to internet connections.
Moreover you might want to compare the cost/benefit of upgrading some of our woefully inadequate roads, which impose repair and maintenance costs, cause accidents, slow deliveries, and hamper emergency services resulting in property loss and death, to making good broadband services excellent; which is largely what the NBN proposes to achieve.
wreckage
5 Sep 12 at 10:42 pm
Comprehension doesn’t appear to be your strong suit. The “connection speed” of a home wifi network is primarily determined by the speed of the connection that the router hooks into. Standard 802.11g gives a 54Mbps network connection, newer -n will give 100-150Mbps per stream (with up to 3 streams) & the even newer -ac is supposed to provide 450Mbps in a single stream & over a gigabit in multiple streams. All of these are “faster” than copper but, like having fibre through your home, none make any difference to “connection speed” if your router is hooked to a 2.5Mbps ADSL line.
badm0f0
5 Sep 12 at 11:48 pm
Pfft… people’s phones run faster than that these days.
Try again.
.
5 Sep 12 at 11:54 pm
“And also take into account the expected rate of return (people will have to pay for the NBN services if they want them) is around 7%.”
Chris, so the government is going to borrow at roughly 4% for the capital costs, which it repays via taxes on us, and then also charge us for the use of the network at prices sufficient to extract a 7% return, and we’re supposed to be happy about it?
“Standard 802.11g gives a 54Mbps network connection”
You wish. 54Mbps is a theoretical maximum, never reached in practice due to network overhead, distance from the router, and obstructions degrading the signal.
Jarrah
6 Sep 12 at 12:20 am
“And also take into account the expected rate of return (people will have to pay for the NBN services if they want them) is around 7%.”
Chris, so the government is going to borrow at roughly 4% for the capital costs, which it repays via taxes on us, and then also charge us for the use of the network at prices sufficient to extract a 7% return, and we’re supposed to be happy about it?
“Standard 802.11g gives a 54Mbps network connection”
No. 54Mbps is a theoretical maximum, never reached in practice due to network overhead, distance from the router, and obstructions degrading the signal.
Jarrah
6 Sep 12 at 12:24 am
Test.
Jarrah
6 Sep 12 at 12:28 am
“And also take into account the expected rate of return (people will have to pay for the NBN services if they want them) is around 7%.”
Chris, so the government is going to borrow at roughly 4% for the capital costs, which it repays via taxes on us, and then also charge us for the use of the network at prices sufficient to extract a 7% return, and we’re supposed to be happy about it?
“Standard 802.11g gives a 54Mbps network connection”
54Mbps is a theoretical maximum, never reached in practice due to network overhead, distance from the router, and obstructions degrading the signal.
Jarrah
6 Sep 12 at 12:29 am
Dammit, why won’t my comment appear? There are no swear words, no links, and reposting gives the “duplicate comment” error. Bloody WordPress!
Jarrah
6 Sep 12 at 12:30 am
One last time.
“And also take into account the expected rate of return (people will have to pay for the NBN services if they want them) is around 7%.”
Chris, so the government is going to borrow at roughly 4% for the capital costs, which it repays via taxes on us, and then also charge us for the use of the network at prices sufficient to extract a 7% return, and we’re supposed to be happy about it?
“Standard 802.11g gives a 54Mbps network connection”
You wish. 54Mbps is a theoretical maximum, never reached in practice due to network overhead, distance from the router, and obstructions degrading the signal.
Jarrah
6 Sep 12 at 12:37 am
Yes, 54Mbps is a theoretical maximum of the oldest 802.11g standard. In practice speeds over a wifi network will generally average half that, which is still faster than almost all copper connections into which a wifi router will be plugged. Which is the actual point when it comes to claiming that a home wifi network suffers & indicates a preference for slower “connection speeds”; the speed of the local network is a secondary consideration to the speed of the connection from that local network to to the internet.
badm0f0
6 Sep 12 at 9:42 am
I like how wreckage starts off telling me how IT isn’t my strong suit, and then in the same breath completely buggers up the technical detail in his argument. What a moron.
Also, if people do end up wanting mid-speed broadband with very cheap data, they are sure as hell not going to get that from wireless broadband, given the exorbitant fees carriers charge. That is the real agenda here: carriers like Telstra and Optus want wireless broadband to dominate because they have established ridiculously high data fees. You lot are running the corporate line from the anti-competitive Telstra monopoly.
NBNCo is the only player here which is able to deliver a full and fairly priced broadband solution for all Australians – not just the denizens of the CBD. You can’t secure those cross-subsidies from lightly regulated private companies, especially not in the current mess the telco sector is in after decades of mismanagement by both sides of politics. You lot all know this, but you can’t admit it due to your ideological bent against any and all forms of government intervention. Typical.
m0nty
6 Sep 12 at 3:13 pm
What a crock of shit. 12 MB satellite services in 2030.
.
6 Sep 12 at 11:18 pm
18 years ago in 1994, we were all excited about the ratification of the V.34 standard for 28.8k modems. By 2030, 12 Gbps won’t be enough to keep up with demand. 12 Mbps isn’t even good enough now. You are completely and utterly ignorant, Dot.
m0nty
7 Sep 12 at 4:06 pm