Continues from: /forum-replies.cfm?t=2545833&p=-1#bottom
You realise that you are able to post your comment because of government owned telecommunications (and electricity), right?
Or I could move to country with private telecommunications and electricity companies and post it there. To believe that we require these things to be provided by the government to survive is childish and highly ignorant to the rest of the world.
And what if I was using a private Optus Cable service to post this? And was with one of the many private electricity companies out there? You have no argument to make
To believe that we require these things to be provided by the government to survive is childish and highly ignorant to the rest of the world.
Maybe I like the idea of ubiquitous broadband � 93% fibre expanding in the future. I deal with the lack of connectivity less than 150km from a state capital � today I had someone say "If I can't get decent broadband, my son won't live with me" as we discussed the mobile broadband options and considered 50GB for $150 via Telstra.
In case the "reporter" is still reading, Mike Quigley has provided the numbers and the quote:
What is clear is that every forecast regarding the NBN that the Coalition has made, for which there is now data, whether for their own MTM or for the original FttP plan � every one of them has been wrong.
Wouldn't it be nice if we forgot about the individual and thought about our country and our future?
Maybe I like the idea of ubiquitous broadband � 93% fibre expanding in the future.
I too would love to see this, and experience it too, but the future is where this lies for Australia. It just does not make sense to roll that out today and within such a small timeframe.
I deal with the lack of connectivity less than 150km from a state capital
I know what you mean, for the longest time my family had satellite with 300mb of data per month costing hundreds of dollars.
What is clear is that every forecast regarding the NBN that the Coalition has made, for which there is now data, whether for their own MTM or for the original FttP plan � every one of them has been wrong.
It's expected, politicians lie, it sucks but it happens; no doubt both sides made excessive claims as to what NBN could do or has been doing.
Wouldn't it be nice if we forgot about the individual and thought about our country and our future?
Exactly, like not spending billions of dollars that we don't have rolling out a national broadband network in a minuscule timeframe for the sake a future proofing, or worse, spending a similar amount in the same timeframe for something that is just enough for todays standards?
It just does not make sense to roll that out today and within such a small timeframe.
When then?
When then?
I'd like to have seen it rolled out by a private enterprise, but it definitely wont be, so I'd say FTTP rollout through major cities and the more built up towns and suburbs. Once that build is completed, and the company is profitable, then move on to the more sparsely populated areas, like much of Tasmania. Unfortunately, many of the small towns in Tasmania were the first to receive the new technology, and it just does not make sense.
I'd like to have seen it rolled out by a private enterprise, but it definitely wont be,
So in essence this is the main ideology of your views on how Australia's telecommunication infrastructure should be managed and your views on the wrongs of the NBN/MTM. It should be done by the private sector.
Even though history has shown in Australia that this has not effectively happened in the past (you may like to leaf through Paul Fletcher's Wired Brown Land?: Telstra's Battle for Broadband for some history as a starting point for this), and that it is highly unlikely that (with the private sector) it would have happened when Labor was looking for solutions in 2008/09 or that it would be a viable solution in the future.
I assume that this ideology extends to all public infrastructure, such as roads (major and minor / urban, regional and remote), water, electricity, sewerage, hospitals, schools, national parks, community centres, football grounds, parks, ..... the list goes on, ?
I also note that you are happy for people in regional areas to be provided with telecommunications infrastructure as a lower priority than people in CBDs or urban areas in your ideological strategy (whrl.pl/ReGnaV).
Or I could move to country with private telecommunications and electricity companies and post it there. To believe that we require these things to be provided by the government to survive is childish and highly ignorant to the rest of the world.
Meanwhile, back in the real world; when government services are privatised, prices to up and service goes down. Happens every single time. The goal of the utility changes from proving service to making profit. It only benefits shareholders (in a lot of cases, governments in other countries)
Not true, many places survive with those industries privatised. Most commonly is phone, electricity and rail but water, and roads have been done in the past and are quite successful.
That infrastructure would not exist if governments hadn't built it!
Or I could move to country with private telecommunications and electricity companies and post it there.
It's too late now.
And what if I was using a private Optus Cable service to post this?
Then you would need to look into the history of Optus.
https://en.wikipedia.o
To believe that we require these things to be provided by the government to survive is childish and highly ignorant to the rest of the world.
If governments hadn't built them then you would get a hodgepodge of different incompatible infrastructure elements, and many areas would get nothing at all.
And was with one of the many private electricity companies out there?
Such as...? Off-grid solar?
It just does not make sense to roll that out today and within such a small timeframe.
According to...? How fast do you think it will need to be rolled out when we absolutely positively do need it?
That infrastructure would not exist if governments hadn't built it!
How true...
Here's some more food for thought, for the last few years in Adelaide they have been going suburb to suburb replacing the gas mains, the gas lead in pipes to each premises, the gas meters and regulators. All at a cost comparable or greater than deploying fibre to these same premises. When they are done, there is no real improvement in service, we still get the same gas, there is no potential for increased revenue, the prices remain the same. It is being done through necessity, mainly for safety reasons.
My point � where safety or other inconvenience is involved there is no real economic argument about ROI, etc... things just get done. I'm sure if we removed morals, ethics and criminal charges from the equation, then the owners of the Gas infrastructure would have come to the conclusion that it would be cheaper to kill and maim a few people every so often than replace/upgrade their distribution network. The same can be said with respect to roads, electrical distribution and water distribution, etc.. � all infrastructure.
Now back to telecommunications.....
That infrastructure would not exist if governments hadn't built it!
Electricity, Roads, Rail, Hospitals, The copper network � all things built by government.
We wouldn't have society without government � businesses are not the saviors they claim to be � they are profit seeking enterprises who put profit before all else.
was with one of the many private electricity companies out there
Did they build the network � I think not.
The government funded the electricity network.
As they did for the copper network.
The only network that has been built by a private company was the hfc network � not everyone can get this as the roi wasn't enough.
Without government we wouldn't have roads, rail, electricity, hospitals, schools, the copper network etc etc.
If governments hadn't built them then you would get a hodgepodge of different incompatible infrastructure elements, and many areas would get nothing at all.
How right you are, Its rather strange some people hold on to the myth that private enterprises would do "better". Not to say that private enterprises are not worthy of some merits, just large projects isn't really one of them.
After Telstra was flogged it ended up just being profit driven instead of service and profit based.
Telstra being privatized has left it selling over priced mundane fixed line services to the masses.
No wonder our CAN is in dismal condition.
Jobson Innovation Growth writes...
Without government we wouldn't have roads, rail, electricity, hospitals, schools
Waits for someone to mention the NBN is too expensive and effecting all those.
;0>
Jobson Innovation Growth writes...
We wouldn't have society without government � businesses are not the saviors they claim to be � they are profit seeking enterprises who put profit before all else.
Nailed it, and all underpinned by Keynesian economic theory, neo-liberal theory on the other hand (conservatives favourite) has proven disastrous! Our roads, power, gas and water etc have all gotten more expensive where privatised!
have all gotten more expensive where privatised!
And customer service levels went down as well when it comes to utilities.
And customer service levels went down as well when it comes to utilities.
To true, although I must say that despite the off-shoring, David Thodey made some big improvements to Telstra customer service quality.
neo-liberal theory
Objectivism/Ayn Raynd (hypocrite who claimed government assistance in old age by the way) have done nothing for society.
The GFC proves that business' cannot self regulate and that we need governments.
We have had privatisation for 20 years, it has done nothing for our telco sector and has increased electricity prices 400% � because we have to pay back $45 billion which was spent to gold plate the electricity network.
We can afford a fttp network � if anything we cannot afford to not do it as neighboring countries are.
David Thodey made some big improvements to Telstra customer service quality.
He was old school and worked his way up to CEO.
Sol Trujillo ran an Orange SA into the ground and tried to do the same thing here.
Why can't we view the internet as essential in 2016 and get on with the best technology which provides an Return on investment?
Here's some more food for thought, for the last few years in Adelaide they have been going suburb to suburb replacing the gas mains, the gas lead in pipes to each premises, the gas meters and regulators. All at a cost comparable or greater than deploying fibre to these same premises. When they are done, there is no real improvement in service, we still get the same gas, there is no potential for increased revenue, the prices remain the same. It is being done through necessity, mainly for safety reasons.
Mind you � how quick did they do that. Their speed was impressive. Hire them, and they could have fibred up the entirety of Adelaide in a couple of years easy.
Whole suburbs done in weeks. It took more time putting up and taking down the overhead powerline warning flags than it did replacing the actual pipes.
I too would love to see this, and experience it too, but the future is where this lies for Australia. It just does not make sense to roll that out today and within such a small timeframe
I thought you said you didn't have a preference over one policy or the other ? this seems pretty clear that your preference is the current MTM you are clearly against the FTTP roll out. you seem to be contradicting yourself a lot.
I think this pickup from Javelyn got missed in the page cut off but deserves to be reiterated here
when you said
- carterdutton writes...
I can't believe this attitude. How can you not understand that sometimes it is better to take a little longer to do something if it means you are better able to manage your costs and reduce your debt?
and Javelyn replied
- I think that you're referring to Labor's NBN FttP.
That is EXACTLY right. you complain that they rolled it out to areas where there would be little return first like Tasmania and that it was the wrong way to do it. Well for a public (you would no doubt call it private, but there is no private company in the world with enough funding to perform infrastructure roll outs, they are all floated and get outside investments if they are big enough for this sort of job) Anyway for a company it would be mad because they wouldn't get any return.
Only thing is this was a government roll out so there is no requirement to turn a profit, its 'for the good of the nation' it would have, however turned a profit with its initial model, not so much with the current one.
Anyway so the government has a longer term view, well brave ones do, you want the brave ones because they progress the nation, the other type tend to look for ways that they can guarantee their re-election with short term thinking.
So the government looked at the situation and said, you know what we are going to service all these areas with FTTP, lets pick a challenging area that has been overlooked historically to start with to prove to ourselves and everyone that even in the toughest spots we are doing what we can to get you the best service.
imo its actually an enlightened approach, they had a budget, they had a time frame, they were on target to actually meet both of those and in fact come in under budget, that's even with the early delays with Telstra discussions and asbestos in pits etc.
So lets just assume a race between fttn and fttp if they both start at the same place in time then sure fttn will probably just pip fttp, but not by nearly as much as predicted due to the state of the copper that it requires and the extra challenges involved in the process. But still a bit sooner, for a bit less, with a much greater OpEx and a much lower return.
However taking a bit longer and rolling out FTTP would have produced much higher returns and so you are correct with your comment that
- sometimes it is better to take a little longer to do something if it means you are better able to manage your costs and reduce your debt
yes FTTP would without doubt have enabled us to better manage our debt
It's expected, politicians lie, it sucks but it happens; no doubt both sides made excessive claims as to what NBN could do or has been doing
The thing is, under the original NBN plan the figures all added up exactly how they told us they would, and under MTM every figure was wrong, not just a little bit wrong, VASTLY wrong, they also purposely misled the public when they said it would cost up to $90Bn to complete labors plan, that has been proved a total fabrication just a made up figure plucked out of the air that was actually trying to describe how much it would cost to stop the MTM and restart the NBN, however they left that info out to make people think that they were saving the country $60Bn+
It is a disgrace that no one has had to account for these lies, its disgraceful that a 'tech writer' either has no knowledge of this, or purposely omits this information from their work on the subject.
Exactly, like not spending billions of dollars that we don't have rolling out a national broadband network in a minuscule timeframe for the sake a future proofing, or worse, spending a similar amount in the same timeframe for something that is just enough for todays standards?
ok so this is weird, you actually want NO upgrades, you want to stay on ADSL... that's a really odd position for a 'Tech writer'
Can we get you to, as concisely as possible, re define your stand on this issue ?
Apparently you want some private (public?) company to roll out infrastructure but only to places where it can turn a buck from. because ....errrm that makes competition ? but if a company lays the actual cables, then they can charge whatever they like, because they own it, and ther eis no other way for you to get anything ? unless you think a second or third company will come along and lay more cables to offer you something different ? I don't get how it is supposed to work without government?
I don't understand why you would NEVER want a government created telco ? the government had one before, then it sold it .. funny though, that one the government had, is now one of the most profitable companies ? just imagine if the government owned something like that .. could make a nice dent in the amount people get taxed each year, which would give them more money to spend on stuff ... but yeah ... its better we have a monopolistic company, just as long as you have shares eh ;)
Seems like churning from one RSP to another with FTTN is another complicated mess the consumer has to endure.
FTTN
The negatives are outweighing any kind of positive what FTTN can bring.
Which is really SFA positive.
The negatives are outweighing any kind of positive what FTTN can bring.
But it's not something Labor implemented and it's "cheaper" "faster" "sooner" (I needed a bucket as I was retching).
The LNP have now been in for nearly 3 years � when the nbn turns to shite (and it will in 2017 at the latest) I will be here to do the I told you so dance.
Mind you � how quick did they do that. Their speed was impressive. Hire them, and they could have fibred up the entirety of Adelaide in a couple of years easy.
You have a very good point there � contract APA to do the NBN rollout :)
In reference to this post.
This is a ADSL2+ user which then anticipated FTTN coming. He guesstimated he should be receiving 50mbps.
It ends up, between 3 houses they all combined to a pathetic 16mbps down 3mbps up. (2km run from the node).
Looks like he will be stuck on this for the next 2 decades until the FTTN gets paid off.
He was forced to play node lotto (courtesy of LNP and lost). Expect more like this to come. I'm actually beginning to like to watch such train wreaks coming. "We told you so". I guess Wisdom doesn't come until people experience it and it hurts.
LNP hurry up and roll out more fraud, more people will wake up to this scam.
Hire them
That's not a bad idea.
Get the electricity companies to rollout the fibre � it could work.
Not much digging required for fttn..?
contractors boring and digging trenches, installing new pits, constructing cabinets, hauling, splicing and testing fibre cables, copper jointing and interfacing the copper network with the fibre network,"
and this irks me... grrrr. On fttn? I don't think so.
Whole families will be able to be online at the same time, using multiple devices and all enjoying the same fast speeds.
"And for businesses, be it e-commerce, sending and receiving files, accessing online services, internet and data security, cloud based sharing or communicating with staff and customers, all aspects will be faster and more efficient with the nbn� (sic) network."
Not much digging required for fttn..?
Another LNP lie exposed, Oh well someone who mentions that FTTN does not require "digging" can show them this.
Whole families will be able to be online at the same time, using multiple devices and all enjoying the same fast speeds.
They must be talking about another technology � fttn and hfc both have issues with multiple users.
this seems pretty clear that your preference is the current MTM
Please show me where I said that. Go on, I dare you. You, and every other person on this forum seem to share the idea that, if you're not with me, you're against me.
Anyway for a company it would be mad because they wouldn't get any return.
That's a great indicator that you shouldn't do it.
'for the good of the nation'
I hope you're a young person, so you can spend your long years paying off this 'good of the nation' debt.
they had a budget
That blew out (is blowing out)
they had a time frame
That blew out (is blowing out)
they were on target to actually meet both of those
Absolute lie.
a race between fttn and fttp
FTTN lost, and I don't give a rats ass about this race, FTTN is inferior, I never said otherwise.
ok so this is weird, you actually want NO upgrades, you want to stay on ADSL... that's a really odd position for a 'Tech writer'
No, I don't think rolling out infrastructure to the CBD's that are as capable as some farmer in the middle of nowhere in Tasmania is a smart move, or necessary. And I never called myself a 'Tech writer' so I don't know where you got that from.
Apparently you want some private (public?) company to roll out infrastructure but only to places where it can turn a buck from. because ....errrm that makes competition ? but if a company lays the actual cables, then they can charge whatever they like, because they own it, and ther eis no other way for you to get anything ? unless you think a second or third company will come along and lay more cables to offer you something different ? I don't get how it is supposed to work without government?
Just about every other country in the world did it this way. We lagged behind on the privatisation of Telstra and then did it in an appalling manner that created a telecommunications monopoly. That's why when every other country was rolling out new infrastructure a decade ago, we weren't. But does that mean that things can't change? Absolutely not. In this instance the government should have interfered with Telstra and forced it out of it uncompetitive attitude and monopolisation. With that done, we could continue on like the rest of the world, with a (or several) privately networks in which a competitive market exists. Remember now we have TPG rolling out FTTB so theres evidence of such a ideology woking right now. Look at the US, rolling out Fibre to all these major cities, several companies owning large networks, low prices and high competition. And at zero cost to the people. Stop living in the stone age.
Jobson Innovation Growth writes...
That's not a bad idea.
Get the electricity companies to rollout the fibre � it could work.
It was working here in Sth Aust:
Unfortunately the 2013 election result put a halt to it.
AFAIK, the SAPN contract was either paid out/cancelled or rejigged to issue subcontracts to McMahon for cleaning up Telstra's asbestos
Exactly, like not spending billions of dollars that we don't have rolling out a national broadband network[.]
Wow... showing you have zero grasp of the NBN funding arrangements (and even economics in general) really doesn't help your argument.
Wow... showing you have zero grasp of the NBN funding arrangements (and even economics in general) really doesn't help your argument.
Well some peoples job devoted to spreading ignorance. And it certainly sky rocketed recently.
But see that some has set aside special times to humiliate themselves in a public forum. :0>
Wow... showing you have zero grasp of the NBN funding arrangements (and even economics in general) really doesn't help your argument.
Maybe if no one replies it will stop. I have a cold and the stupid isn't fun any more.
Please show me where I said that. Go on, I dare you.
Easy
( whrl.pl/ReFvF3 )
As well as this is the fact that FTTN is treated like its the devil's personal broadband of choice. It's not perfect, it's not fibre, but it is however the same step just about every other country in the world took before thinking about a majority fibre network. Honestly, if you don't believe me, do the research, it's a decent interim step and achieves more than adequate performance for the majority of internet users. In fact, most of those on FTTN will achieve far better performance than I could hope for, and certainly better than those on satellite
And then some more on the same thread.
Though, of course, you'll deny it anyhow, just like most MTM supporters *now* faced with what a mess (as they've been told it would) MTM/FttN turned out to be...
Exactly, like not spending billions of dollars that we don't have rolling out a national broadband network
One more time with feeling � Is the nbn on budget?
Is the government funding it from the budget?
Is the nbn being paid for with tax payers money?
This has already been shown to be untrue!!!!!
Although with the MTM it may come to be on budget as FTTN doesn't provide a return on investment.
Next you'll be saying that 5g will make fttp outdated.
No, I don't think rolling out infrastructure to the CBD's that are as capable as some farmer in the middle of nowhere in Tasmania is a smart move, or necessary. And I never called myself a 'Tech writer' so I don't know where you got that from.
You seriously think that because you don't have vision or innovation or foresight.
There are many reasons why a farmer should have an FTTP capable connection similar to the CBDs.
Would it be innovation to actually have ultra high definition cameras to monitor live stock? monitor farm crops. Allow scientists to innovate and sell services to these farmers to improve their yields?
What if the farmer needs a vet or has simple questions in regards to some live stock, they can get assistance over the internet and pay for it. The vet does not need to visit the farm that is remote and out of reach without paying $1000s in travelling costs. They get immediate assistance and possible answers to some of the issues they are facing.
Scientists can monitor and suggest improvements to be made to the crops to aim for higher yields. UHD video streaming and collaboration will definitely help and work towards these goals.
This is just a small part of a digital economy going forward. Real time video streams, remote help and advice, professional services. All to improve productivity and growth as well as innovate.
There is no reason why these services cannot be sold globally over the same FTTP connection.
A farmer will be more competitive with a reliable, fast and scalable network. There is a need for this and more farmers will come on board if the infrastructure is there.
The internet is not just for netflix. Netflix is video transmission. Any Video can be for productive purposes. Security feeds is another one of them.
Jobson Innovation Growth writes...
Next you'll be saying that 5g will make fttp outdated.
I wonder if doctors have the same problems on their forums? People with opinions and near zero medical knowledge arguing with them about things they spent years at uni and then decades learning. Maybe IT people need their own forum on WP to keep out this sort of crap.
I mean even his premise that 100Mb won't be needed. Speeds over the last 10 years speeds have increased nearly 200 fold, people have migrated from dialup to ADSL2+, they need and use the extra speed, but some how these backward looking naysayers find it impossible to imagine speed requirements increasing 3-4 times over 5 years. Unbelievable.
As well as this is the fact that FTTN is treated like its the devil's personal broadband of choice. It's not perfect, it's not fibre, but it is however the same step just about every other country in the world took before thinking about a majority fibre network
oh, I missed this statement from you.
It shows total misunderstanding of the NBN
all those other 'countries" that went FTTN on the path to FTTP were the incumbent Telco Companiess wringing the last dollars out of their already installed assets, it is also plainly false because the likes of Verizon never went the FTTN approach. Verizon have now gone straight to FTTP, in fact in a lot of areas now if a customer has a copper fault, they will not repair it, they are forcing a fibre install to replace the copper because fibre is CHEAPER operate.
Also can you tell us all which Telco Company anywhere in the world purchased a copper network to convert it to FTTN?
I am only aware of one, our nbn� under instructions of the then Minister for Communications the Right Honourable Malcolm Turnbull
This thinking is also funny in a way, these other countries are going to fibre, but we still seem to have to take the same steps as them, we can't bypass a stage and leapfrog them.
Remember when they started rolling out FTTN it was "cutting edge" now even FTTP is no longer cutting edge, but because the steps seem to have been
Exchange bassed xDSL
Cabinet based xDSL
FTTP
the Liberal mantra is that we still have to take those steps, even if the tech is now old and outdated
So much for being innovative, always playing catch up
Won't somebody think of the rose gardens!!!
Won't somebody think of the rose gardens!!!
Yes, roses need bandwidth too:
http://www.sciencefriday
Please show me where I said that. Go on, I dare you
double dare ? Well as has already been pointed out I gue sI don't need to duplicate that.
That's a great indicator that you shouldn't do it.
if you are a business beholden to shareholders, for sure it would be risky, but this was not a for profit public company. I had this area already assigned to the 93% its like when your mum used to maek you dinner and you'd eat the spouts first because you didn't like them and wanted to get them out the way so that everything after the sprouts seemed extra delicious seeing it wasn't sprouts. When you are rolling out brand new tech, its not a bad idea to start with a challenging area to give the teams performing the roll out as much training as possible early on. I am not saying that IS the reason, but it is one valid and good reason to start there.
That blew out (is blowing out)
yes, under the MTM I totally agree, however under the NBN that I was refering to, no there were no cost blowouts, it was on budget, the evidence is available that proves beyond doubt that it was in fact going to come in UNDER budget.
That blew out (is blowing out)
The time frame
again has been proved was on target to meet its roll out target, the hardest part of the job had been completed, building the company and then processes, and the software and the backhaul, it was done all that was left was ramping up the laying of actual fibre
Absolute lie.
No it isn't
those are verifiable facts
sorry about getting you temporarily confused with charliecantserfcozhehasfttn I found it difficult to imagine there were two people with such selective blindness.
As for this 'everyone else in the world did it that way', 'its a good inter5eim step'
LOL really.. quite apart from how its not an interim step, its just what happens when big business has the monopoly over an infrastructure network. they leave actual upgrade/replacement to the very very very last possible moment before actually rolling it out. They wait until ther eis such intense pressure from governments that they are forced to.
Telstra was playing that game well with its rejected fttn proposal before all this nbn offering to make a network if they could charge what they wanted and lock out all competition. ooh yes please :/
the funny thing is it seems that the same people on the one hand say
"You cannot compare Australia to Europe or elsewhere in the world because its uniquely different"
then saying " But everywhere else in the world did fttn first so it must be right"
That blew out (is blowing out)
Lie � the NBN was within budget and roughly on time. It is the MTM that is nowhere near budget or timeline.
Just about every other country in the world did it this way.
It was the ones that didn't that did the job properly.
We lagged behind on the privatisation of Telstra
Why do you (or anyone) believe that selling off revenue generating public infrastructure is a good thing?
In this instance the government should have interfered with Telstra and forced it out of it uncompetitive attitude and monopolisation.
I think you need to do a lot of research into Telstra and their interactions with the government of the day.
Remember now we have TPG rolling out FTTB so theres evidence of such a ideology woking right now.
Wrong, the fact that TPG are rolling out FTTB is evidence of the MTM policy failing before it's even got off the ground.
Stop living in the stone age.
I dare you to go for a day without taking advantage of any government built or funded infrastructure.
To believe that we require these things to be provided by the government to survive is childish and highly ignorant to the rest of the world.
Just not true...real high speed broadband adds a huge amount to our GDP, so investment by the Government would bring a return far greater than the cost of the rollout. It is on par with creating roads back when the automobile was invented...
As to the rest of the world, most countries are currently subsidizing FTTP rollouts...in the US, Singapore, NZ, France, Germany, Kenya, Turkmenistan, just about everywhere.
And what if I was using a private Optus Cable service to post this? And was with one of the many private electricity companies out there?
A startup funded by government you mean?
Wrong, the fact that TPG are rolling out FTTB is evidence of the MTM policy failing before it's even got off the ground.
agreed, these recent signs of activity from telcos is actually a signal of the failure, Telstra are actually spending money on their ADSL infrastructure right now because FTTN is a complete failure lol ADSL ffs.
TPG only bothering to do FTTB for the same reason, they see a market where the nbn has failed, and reaslise that they will be able to get all those customers because no one would pick the nbn over another provider with a much shorter copper length
That blew out (is blowing out)
That blew out (is blowing out)
Absolute lie.
Sorry, but no matter what the shock jocks and Coalition memorandum tell you, you are quite wrong...
The documentation of just how wrong you are is provided by Mike Quigley...
https://11217-pres
I suggest you give it a thorough read...he also adds in his sources (unlike those shock jocks and the Coalition).
Sorry, but no matter what the shock jocks and Coalition memorandum tell you, you are quite wrong...
The documentation of just how wrong you are is provided by Mike Quigley...
There is only one thing blowing out, and that is the cost of MTM. Remember, remediation is 10x that of what was budgeted. And judging be the experience of users and the reports from on here, its only going to get worse.
No no the $64m copper bill was $64 million like they said... just plus 1 decimal point.
Simples!
I suggest you give it a thorough read...he also adds in his sources (unlike those shock jocks and the Coalition).
Mike Quigley was NBN Co CEO when Syntheo collapsed.
How would NBN Co deliver on time if construction partners were disappearing?
How would NBN Co deliver on time if construction partners were disappearing?
Obviously by assigning that work to other construction partners... it's not rocket science.
How would NBN Co deliver on time if construction partners were disappearing?
So Quigley is responsible for Syntheo's fibbing about being able to do the rollout? Here is a hint, like the copper Syntheo was not fit for purpose.
Roll out was still being ramped up however just as predicted.
A trillion dollar mess by the that time it is completed, the 64 Billion is likely in Skope of 640 billion, to above 6.5 trillion looking within the delayed delivery projection costs across the 30-50 years..
Realise this that the delivery of labor plans were a 1st installment where and when more cost had to come, then Malcolm ran a scare compaign only going to cost this much then tries to discredit labor's plan when the physical cost was actually more than stated...
A trillion dollar mess
When taking into account all costs � it will be much more than nbn mk I would have ever cost.
Upgrading to fttn and then fttp within a decade is madness.
How would NBN Co deliver on time if construction partners were disappearing
With things like Project Fox and other contingencies...trying to judge a ramp during its first year of 10 is pretty silly.
real high speed broadband adds a huge amount to our GDP, so investment by the Government would bring a return far greater than the cost of the rollout.
A key point, and one which tends to be completely overlooked by the seriatim 'specialists' who wander in here from time to time to give us the benefit of their inexperience.
Real high speed broadband, aka the NBN, would have maximised the benefit to our GDP from day one. But much more importantly, the ready scalability inherent in the NBN architecture meant it would have continued to achieve that return for literally generations to come.
With the woeful MTM, the non-NBN parts will be obsolete by the time it's eventually finished � and it will never have the upgrade capability needed to boost GDP into the future.
Good on them! They're a large multinational company that began a rollout of a fibre network to select areas in a country with a much bigger market for such services. You're comparing apples to oranges here.
gee, in the state of Massachusetts the main city, Boston has a population of 1/3rd that of Perth WA
Boston/Population 645,966 (2013)
Perth/Population 1.834 million (2012)
I don't think I am comparing apples and oranges.
According to Deloitte, over 600 Million homes will be on a gigabit enabled internet by 2020...that is then vast majority of homes in the world.
I wonder how much of those will be Australians.
@Delphi and carterdutton. If copper was in decent shape and we had actually rolled out FTTN in say 2007-2008 i might agree with you that FTTN may not have been a bad idea. The fact is that the copper is in a shit state that telstra doesn't even bother maintaining it, they are not using the new copper to conenct homes to the nodes, and everyone in the world is going FTTP. Whats the point of doing the inferior step costing us more in the long run than doing it the right way, getting us the return faster and providing better services for all?
There seems to be an overwhelming number of low post count pro MTM posters since the election.
All blindingly singing from the same old song sheet we've heard from for years and swiftly been debunking for longer.
It is getting so old to have such blind stupidity come up time and time and TIME..... and TIME again.
One thing i have correlated however. Is that "The NBN Effect" sure as hell has a direct correlation to the exact same SJW/Feminist/BLM/Peaceful Religion stupidity taking over!
Don't worry about facts or reason.. just listen and believe! And when that gets challenged, just call them a racist while you stick your fingers in your ears.
Whats the point of doing the inferior step costing us more in the long run than doing it the right way,
No point besides it being a Political gimmick and making us looking like a pack of A Grade Morons when it comes to doing Telecommunications work.
You misspelt unnecessary. Besides you're insane idea of how farming
I know you were being sarcastic but you really did misspell *your
I am interested in if you can name an advantage off fttn over fttp ?
I am interested in if you can name an advantage off fttn over fttp ?
Maybe he can use the classic "FTTN is better than FTTH because the network can be upgraded in future by rolling out FTTH, where as with FTTH you don't have that option"
You misspelt unnecessary. Besides you're insane idea of how farming works, and for whatever reasoning you go through to try and justify why one would need not just a video stream, but an UHD video stream (which by the way would be done on a local network I'd assume so the internet is redundant in this case), there are technology options out there for the "remote areas" fixed wireless and satellite work wonders for rural areas.
Have you ever had the thought of outsourcing your live monitoring to another company? or asked for advice when you have issues with yield and farming issues?
UHD is required because of how big a farm is, the ability to zoom in and monitor / account for your live stock on the paddock. Why are my cows dying on the field at night? whats eating them up?
Its not a justification, its called vision and innovation. Companies will exist to monitor feeds for a desired outcome by its client. This is one industry that will happen come with FTTP. Try feeding a stream to one of these monitoring companies with satellite? good bye quota over night.
Your lack of vision does not equate to others having insane ideas. Build the infrastructure and I bet there will be things that you would not have dreamt of being possible today.
I said it the other day, I'll say it again. I recorded on my Gopro for 4.5 hours 1080p at 60 frames, this generated 50gb of data. Try uploading that as a feed using satellite? This is 1080p, 4k is already here. It will generate twice as much data at 30 frames. What happens when it moves to 120frames a second for the ability to review slow motion or process it in real time? Think about having multiple cameras on your farm?
Anyway innovation comes from thinking outside the box. You may think things are insane, I don't. I would welcome these opportunities if a proper FTTP was built.
I am interested in if you can name an advantage off fttn over fttp ?
Can i possibly weigh in on this Chicken,
There is one distinct advantage FTTN will always have over FTTP.
Anyone with a shred of common sense would love to see it the the back of it. FTTP not so ?
Note to simpathizers of the LNP, you do not vdsl and ADSL problem by deploying fttn when you start to look at cable lengths in the 36-40 km range..
And fttdp has a whole host of issues, speed past 100 meters also is a factor delivery speed..
Current estimation is between $5,000-$7,500 x 300-1,800 to deliver from a metro node or fttdp solution, upwards of a total spend exceeding $12,000 to a complete conversion to fibre..
These costs Malcolm left out of his delivery model
There seems to be an overwhelming number of low post count pro MTM posters since the election.
That's a troll if I ever heard one!!
36-40 km range..
redlinehost, back in the old days....
Used to look after low-speed analogue modems over distances much longer than that, think 100 km's for telemetry/SCADA systems.
Am i happy to see the end of that stuff, just say yes.
Also had the pleasure of 75/150 baud rate modems over service channels on your favourite radio system of choice, noisy as hell, that bad we had to get the text-books out to calculate the SNR and see if it was really viable!!
I know you were being sarcastic but you really did misspell *your
I would have thought it was obvious that this was an oversight when I changed my sentence structure.
we had to get the text-books out to calculate the SNR and see if it was really viable!!
Pah, back in my day I commissioned Subs Service Over Carrier systems. THEY were a nightmare, laddy!
:P
Srsly though, I did some of those. I even installed and tested an exchange replacement IRIM over open wire (leased from Westrail). I knew very little about open wire � as you would expect � so when I rang up the "Big T's" open wire expert for advice, to say that he was surprised by my enquiry was an understatement!
Back on topic, I sometimes feel that we will be slipping back to a modern version of "The Bad Old days" with this MTM mess. The added bonus of NBNCo fighting with the RSP's and Telstra as to who needs to be engaged to fix all the Copper CAN faults that will no doubt emerge, due to Ziggy and Sol's neglect of the CAN during their tenures!
I am interested in if you can name an advantage off fttn over fttp
But did you REALLY misspell of? It's easy to overlook simple errors when typing these things, I'm sure we don't all proof read what we type for spelling and grammatical errors. Simply put, the cost per premises is less and the roll out times should be reduced (although I understand neither of these were actually achieved by the LNP). And I know I've seen a lot of "FTTN has absolutely no ROI" posts on here, but is this really true? If there is one fixed network available, doesn't that mean that people who want fixed broadband will have no choice but to take up that service? Otherwise it's mobile, which functions more like satellite at this point in time and isn't really viable for most. If someone could post an article with something regarding this I'd be happy to read it as I'm genuinely curious.
Subs Service Over Carrier systems
SSOC, are you talking relay set's, or how to provide them over VF channels, lol.
I knew very little about open wire
As a new tech in those days, we had a link which extended 1200km's south to Perth, amazing stuff in this day and age!! Somehow there were 24ch VFT systems crammed in as well!!
Back on topic, I sometimes feel that we will be slipping back to a modern version of "The Bad Old days" with this MTM mess.
I agree totally, but unfortunately, I'm an MTM supporter, so I have to duck and weave in threads like this.
That's a troll if I ever heard one!!
Exactly. Thats why i noticed their rise in attendance and said something.
Simply put, the cost per premises is less and the roll out times should be reduced (although I understand neither of these were actually achieved by the LNP).
So you're saying that the advantages of FTTN over FTTP are not actually advantages?
And I know I've seen a lot of "FTTN has absolutely no ROI" posts on here, but is this really true?
Yes. The revenue is constrained by the technology and the state of the copper, while the ongoing costs are ever increasing due to the power required and the state of the copper.
And I know I've seen a lot of "FTTN has absolutely no ROI" posts on here, but is this really true?
I think you are confusing revenue with return on investment...
Since the FTTN, ROI calculations have been steadily declining. The problems for FTTN are myriad...
1. It is 12 times more expensive to operate
2. It has a far lower bandwidth ceiling, so enticing folks into higher bandwidth products (which bring in more profit) is much more difficult.
3. The interest must be paid for, so speed of return is very important...that is far lower with FTTN.
4. The cost of the deployment is already near double the original estimate, and there is nothing to say that it won't go higher.
5. Global competition tells us that in order to keep up with the rest of the world in communications, we must replace the entire network in the next 5 years or so. FTTN cannot do 1Gbps to the homes...
When you look at both sides of the D/A 1 wonders what the final distance would be, when you consider 50-80 pits averaging 5 pits per kilometer of cable???...
the state of the copper
In other Whirlpool threads, they are deliberately knocking off / handballing services to LTE and Sky Muster in metro areas. It won't be an NBN issue until SkyMuster/LTE gets congested.
Don't agree with it myself, but the figures are what it's all about.
The problems for FTTN are myriad...
That's interesting actually, how are other countries able to maintain these networks? Are issues 3. 4. and 5. pretty well MTM specific?
So you're saying that the advantages of FTTN over FTTP are not actually advantages?
No I'm saying OUR FTTN has no advantages
LTE and other wireless based services aren't a remote usability due to lack of quota those services has..
due to lack of quota those services has..
Haven't those data limits been on the rise quite dramatically in recent years? I remember 5gb limits on 3g costing about the same as the 50gb 4g around 4 years ago.
That's interesting actually, how are other countries able to maintain these networks?
Not sure about overseas, but in Australia NBN and Telstra spent 2 years with the country's best lawyers resolving this.
Let's hope they got it right.
Are issues 3. 4. and 5. pretty well MTM specific?
Yes, entirely.
No I'm saying OUR FTTN has no advantages
I'm glad you finally concede that FTTN is the worst possible option in Australia.
I'm glad you finally concede that FTTN is the worst possible option in Australia
I wouldn't put it past politicians to always find something worse for the general population.
I'm glad you finally concede that FTTN is the worst possible option in Australia.
There is so much else wrong with the NBN. Think economics, lack of big business accounts, political influence, etc.
Poor old FTTN, decades old tech, will possibly pull the weight.
That's interesting actually, how are other countries able to maintain these networks?
They actually are all going FTTP. Remember that everyone else built those networks a decade ago...
Fibre was vastly more expensive to deploy back then. For example, when Verizon began FTTP deployment, their cost per premise was about $4600...now it is $800.
Are issues 3. 4. and 5. pretty well MTM specific?
Pretty much...
Keep in mind that this is discussing the issues for the GBE known as NBN Co, not the issues for the country of Australia.
NBN Co can go flat broke, but the network itself would still be a money-maker for the country because of the GDP generation from increased broadband.
Think of it like roads...if we had a GBE make all of our highways and charge a small toll, that company's finances would be much less important to the whole country's economic situation than the roads we all use for commerce, medicine, entertainment, and education. What WOULD be important is their choice of roads made...dirt tracks would be cheaper and quicker to make, but it would do far less for our economy or way of life. And eventually folks would migrate from the dirt tracks they were used to and onto the 8 lane superhighways...fairly quickly actually.
I remember 5gb limits on 3g costing about the same as the 50gb 4g around 4 years ago.
Have you got any more of those magic mushrooms?
50GB mobile broadband 3G/4G on Telstra was released on the 28th of June 2016 for $150/month.
50GB mobile broadband 3G/4G on Telstra was released on the 28th of June 2016 for $150/month.
On my personal plan, I hit $260 last month, about 20G, I just pay the bills these days...
Have you got any more of those magic mushrooms?
50GB mobile broadband 3G/4G on Telstra was released on the 28th of June 2016 for $150/month.
I was a little off, back in mid 2012 $150 would buy you 10gb of data over a 365 day period. Times have certainly changed.
Maybe he can use the classic "FTTN is better than FTTH because the network can be upgraded in future by rolling out FTTH, where as with FTTH you don't have that option"
Yep, FTTN can be upgraded to FTTH. With FTTH you can't do that! Score win for FTTN!
It's a bit like saying "Hitler wasn't all bad. After all, he did kill Hitler!"
Yep, FTTN can be upgraded to FTTH.
Satellite can't be upgraded to FTTP,
LTE can't be upgraded to FTTP,
HFC can't be upgraded to FTTP,
FTTB can't be upgraded to FTTP,
FTTN can't be upgraded to FTTP.
Welcome to network upgrades. FTTP is a replacement network, let me repeat that, OK, I won't bother...
On my personal plan, I hit $260 last month, about 20G, I just pay the bills these days...
Dare I say, more fool you? Even Telstra (the most expensive) has 25GB for $105 these days. https://www.telstra.com.au/br
I was a little off, back in mid 2012 $150 would buy you 10gb of data over a 365 day period.
Maybe prepaid � it was $160 for 12GB 365days and then increased to $180 later on. On a plan was different.
What matters is you don't know the facts of your argument and that lets you down. You are posting on emotion and ideology, not facts.
So in essence this is the main ideology of your views on how Australia's telecommunication infrastructure should be managed and your views on the wrongs of the NBN/MTM. It should be done by the private sector.
Oh there's that word. "Ideology".
Even though history has shown in Australia that this has not effectively happened in the past (you may like to leaf through Paul Fletcher's Wired Brown Land?: Telstra's Battle for Broadband for some history as a starting point for this), and that it is highly unlikely that (with the private sector) it would have happened when Labor was looking for solutions in 2008/09 or that it would be a viable solution in the future.
Paul was CEO of Optus. Of course, he wrote that. Do you hear him complaining as Liberal MP about the MTM now? Are we starting to see what point I was making?
I assume that this ideology extends to all public infrastructure, such as roads (major and minor / urban, regional and remote), water, electricity, sewerage, hospitals, schools, national parks, community centres, football grounds, parks, ..... the list goes on, ?
Not one of these (with the exception possibly of hospitals) generates a commercial return. The rest are paid for by levies. How on earth does a National Park become an infrastructure project? The rest is social infrastructure and I'm pretty damn sure Allianz stadium is not a good will exercise. So are you asking for GBE to be scrapped and that broadband simply be a public service with no ROI? If so, that's fine. If that's what people want that is totally fine. But goodbye to the entire telco industry and I would suspect 90 per cent of the jobs of the people who frequent WP. Think about it.
I also note that you are happy for people in regional areas to be provided with telecommunications infrastructure as a lower priority than people in CBDs or urban areas in your ideological strategy (whrl.pl/ReGnaV).
I cannot speak for the person to whom you are responding but has anyone actually gone to those areas and asked what their priorities are? Just because I'm the sort of person that happens to do a bit of travelling in those areas )resorting to CB radio and so on) I can anecdotally recount that they care most about mobile service. They like to have the option to be able to tell their neighbors when dangerous fires are approaching or floods or...whatever. They actually don't care so much about Netflix and their agrarian businesses don't need much bandwidth at this stage. Super fast broadband is not the thing you seem to think they care about. This is exactly what I mean when I talk of an elite urban minority. Javelyn, really Go there. See how you feel then comment on behalf of all of Australia.
Dare I say, more fool you?
For the sake of saving $12 a week, $2 a day, I really can't be bothered ;-P
They actually don't care so much about Netflix and their agrarian businesses don't need much bandwidth at this stage.
Really? I work with farmers that ask how far they can spread wifi sourced from NBN FW over their farms. They hear about IoT. They want data to their haysheds, dairies, grain silos, temperature probes, moisture sensors over tens of square kilometres. They want this uploaded and analysed and fed to machines. They want the graphics, the video, the results.
Do you have any concept of agribusiness that provides variable measures depending on requirements on demand? Most large farms do and are struggling with lack of internet to provide this.
Farmers are innovators and have always made things work when and where they can. Give them bandwidth and they will use it to feed the world.
For the sake of saving $12 a week, $2 a day, I really can't be bothered
Tip of the hat to you Malcolm. Please don't step on us serfs as you pass by, m'lord.
Paul was CEO of Optus. Of course, he wrote that. Do you hear him complaining as Liberal MP about the MTM now?
That hypocrisy unexamined by the media is fine?
he rest are paid for by levies.
Wrong, they are paid for by usage charges, just like... wait for it... the NBN would have been.
This is exactly what I mean when I talk of an elite urban minority.
In other words, you are claiming that everyone outside the capital cities is a technophobic hick.
I can anecdotally recount that they care most about mobile service.
I can assure you that it's a huge issue.
Black spot program funding and outcomes may be a passing interest to most metro people, but I can assure you, it's a big issue in rural and remote area's.
Please don't step on us serfs as you pass by, m'lord.
???? That's less than a beer a day???
..
Fibre was vastly more expensive to deploy back then. For example, when Verizon began FTTP deployment, their cost per premise was about $4600...now it is $800."]
Evidence? US dollars or AUS? Urban density? Changes in urban density? More info please.
["Pretty much...
Keep in mind that this is discussing the issues for the GBE known as NBN Co, not the issues for the country of Australia.
NBN Co can go flat broke, but the network itself would still be a money-maker ...
It can go flat broke? It *IS* flat broke. It does not turn a profit. *WE* are funding it. That's why it keeps going. And please show me the crystal ball that proves it will make money from "GDP generation".
Think of it like roads...if we had a GBE make all of our highways and charge a small toll
Oh you mean like all the gouging roads in Sydney (sorry small detour)
, that company's finances would be much less important to the whole country's economic situation than the roads we all use for commerce, medicine, entertainment, and education.
Are you really comparing broadband to roads, medicine and education? (and we use roads for entertainment??) Broadband can and must commercially support itself because it's discretionary spend on the part of the consumer. Getting ill or needing to drive somewhere is not a discretionary matter (with regards to the latter, yes, you have to be able to afford a car and its registration but the levy is largely uniform).
What WOULD be important is their choice of roads made...dirt tracks would be cheaper and quicker to make, but it would do far less for our economy or way of life. And eventually folks would migrate from the dirt tracks they were used to and onto the 8 lane superhighways...fairly quickly actually."]
Hmmm.... So what I'm picturing is a a dirt road and a paved six lane highway and someone driving to a toll booth and being asked "Madam, do you have a ticket to drive on this lovely paved road? Otherwise you have to take the dirt track which will likely destroy your suspension" or "over this bridge?". The infrastructure comparison is totally absurd. Of course, some public infrastructure we have to fund. No doubt. But sh*t or get off the pot. Is the NBN a road or a GBE that can become profitable? And did we have enough info to understand the economic decision we were making?
["Really? I work with farmers that ask how far they can spread wifi sourced from NBN FW over their farms. They hear about IoT. They want data to their haysheds, dairies, grain silos, temperature probes, moisture sensors over tens of square kilometres.
Great. Then they can pay for it. They can put in the infrastructure themselves and reap the competitive advantage. Why do I or you or anyone else have to risk the dollars for that?
It does not turn a profit. *WE* are funding it.
I take it that you've never built a house, or established a business, or overseen an infrastructure project...
Are you really comparing broadband to roads, medicine and education? (and we use roads for entertainment?
Yes, how do you think people get to concerts and football games and movies and ...?
Broadband can and must commercially support itself because it's discretionary spend on the part of the consumer.
Wow, and this coming from a longstanding technology journalist?
The infrastructure comparison is totally absurd.
If you don't understand the role that telecommunications infrastructure has played throughout the entire history of this country you should either do a lot more research or change profession.
And did we have enough info to understand the economic decision we were making?
You clearly didn't...
Keep in mind that this is discussing the issues for the GBE known as NBN Co,
I know this is a political thread, but NBN is a GBE, and they can (and do) send their board members all over the world comparing prices. They also have binding contracts with worldwide suppliers.
However, at the end of the day, the accountants join the show. That's where you need to concentrate on the annual reports and drop your tech bias.
It's pointless saying FTTP costs $800 in Mexico, or wherever.
It doesn't cost that in Aussieland, the accountants will defend their job to the end telling you this.
That hypocrisy unexamined by the media is fine?
No, it isn't. I totally agree.
Wrong, they are paid for by usage charges, just like... wait for it... the NBN would have been.
To...? I think you're making my point. I don't think we're on different sides here.
In other words, you are claiming that everyone outside the capital cities is a technophobic hick.
No, I'm saying that the economics of universal and equal broadband delivery in this country on a financially equitable basis is not very easy to achieve and that's it naive to expect that it can be... which has led to silly situations like NBN1 being delivered to people who don't really need it. This is the force of my complaint and it may continue as the rollout goes on.
I take it that you've never built a house, or established a business, or overseen an infrastructure project...
True on all points. Totally fail to see yours.
Yes, how do you think people get to concerts and football games and movies and ...?
Are you for real? There's the metal things called trains and in some places they are called trams. And while slightly backward in their technology there are also these things called buses. You're an elite and you are in no way touch with common Australians.
Wow, and this coming from a longstanding technology journalist?
Yup.
If you don't understand the role that telecommunications infrastructure has played throughout the entire history of this country you should either do a lot more research or change profession.
No please, go on. Tell me about the massive role it played. I'm happy to be educated here. That way I won't have to change profession.
You clearly didn't...
Ah, yeah. I did.
No, it isn't.
So where are your articles about this?
I think you're making my point.
Clearly not � you claimed that those infrastructure were paid by levies, which are definitely not the same thing as usage charges.
No, I'm saying that the economics of universal and equal broadband delivery in this country on a financially equitable basis is not very easy to achieve
And yet NBNCo under the ALP were able to achieve it � surely that's something to be applauded not derided, isn't it?
which has led to silly situations like NBN1 being delivered to people who don't really need it.
You are confused � everybody needs reliable communications infrastructure.
This is the force of my complaint and it may continue as the rollout goes on.
You're definitely confused � the NBN rollout cannot go on.
True on all points. Totally fail to see yours.
LOL, if you had done any of those things (or anything that requires a modicum of long term planning) you wouldn't be expecting profit (or visible progress) from day one.
Are you for real?
Yes, I'm not someone clearly out of touch with the industry you claim to have been reporting on.
And while slightly backward in their technology there are also these things called buses.
LOL, please point me to a regular off-road bus service.
You're an elite and you are in no way touch with common Australians.
On the contrary, the fact that you refer to "common Australians" makes it clear that you feel you above the plebs.
I'm happy to be educated here.
You need to do the research yourself (like journalists used to do) since it's clear you have ignored every fact presented to you here.
Ah, yeah. I did.
Your claims here and in your article prove otherwise.
So where are your articles about this?
Where are your's? Dr Queeg500
Great. Then they can pay for it.
So if you live in the smog and get milk from a shop you can expect broadband to be provided for you but if you provide the milk to the consumer you have to pay for infrastructure yourself???
So where are your articles about this?
Sorry, I'm confused. Are you asking me for a hard news article with the headline that the a Liberal MP has changed his agenda to keep in line with the party message? I'll be honest, it might well have been written. Hell, maybe you should write it if you think there's a huge contradiction. There are no rules against that Queeg. Good get.
Clearly not � you claimed that those infrastructure were paid by levies, which are definitely not the same thing as usage charges.
Yes, they're not. That's ... I don't know it's sort of the point you're trying to make. Most of us have no choice to use certain kinds of infrastructure so naturally we pay levies to ensure a uniform level of service. Can you say hand on heart that broadband and choice of broadband capacity fits into the same category as the other types of social infrastructure that you're holding up as examples?
And yet NBNCo under the ALP were able to achieve it � surely that's something to be applauded not derided, isn't it?
They didn't achieve it. As always (and not just by Labor) the city was going to cover the country. Personally, I think there is nothing wrong with that. Really. But again, did everyone get a proper chance to decide in the environment back when these decisions were made?
You are confused � everybody needs reliable communications infrastructure.
Not confused on that point at all, Queeg.
You're definitely confused � the NBN rollout cannot go on.
You mean the MTM or... *any* NBN rollout can't go on? Can't address this.
Oh there's that word. "Ideology".
And?
Paul was CEO of Optus. Of course, he wrote that. Do you hear him complaining as Liberal MP about the MTM now? Are we starting to see what point I was making?
I don't disagree with the point you're making but I pointed the poster to a book which might give him some background and history (although I did just say history which is incorrect). It's up to the reader to do the overall research and reach their own conclusion on what is fact, opinion and gospel.
Not one of these (with the exception possibly of hospitals) generates a commercial return.
I don't believe that I said that.
How on earth does a National Park become an infrastructure project?
Damn ... you got me there. One of the things I included isn't an infrastructure project. You've completely negated my whole argument. /sarcasm
So are you asking for GBE to be scrapped and that broadband simply be a public service with no ROI?
I believe that you're asking this question. Where did I say that? I any case I wouldn't care if the (real FttP) NBN infrastructure had operated at a loss. The benefits to Australia's development and GDP would still have been of great value. In any case the real NBN was estimated to be running with a 7% ROI I believe.
If so, that's fine. If that's what people want that is totally fine. But goodbye to the entire telco industry and I would suspect 90 per cent of the jobs of the people who frequent WP. Think about it.
So what is your position with the current MTM which may very well run at a low or negative ROI or a relative high cost to consumers (that is compared to other countries)?
I cannot speak for the person to whom you are responding
Well you seem to be but that's OK. That's Whirlpool. I don't have a problem with that.
I can anecdotally recount that they care most about mobile service. They actually don't care so much about Netflix
So in your mind they are mutually exclusive. The bush can either have good mobile coverage or good internet coverage but not both? The private sector is catering for mobile coverage with the Government porkbarrelling funding mobile blackspots. I personally don't have a problem with our national telecommunications infrastructure supporting mobile phone towers but I don't claim to know all the in and outs of the issue of mobile phone coverage. But then again this thread is about ...... yep that's right the Federal Coalition's "NBN"/MTM policy.
This is exactly what I mean when I talk of an elite urban minority. Javelyn, really Go there. See how you feel then comment on behalf of all of Australia.
Ohh please. You know nothing about me. I love this chestnut where people believe that city folk can't understand what it's like to be a country lad, whereas the country folk just shake their heads at them busy city folk who just don't understand real life. But thanks for perpetuating that myth. Where have my comments been for all of Australia although I do strongly believe that the NBN plan (as put forward by NBN under Quigley) that provided ubiquitous internet access to all Australians with 93% on FttP, and the rest on FW and satellite was the best plan for Australia.
Anyway you keep visiting a more few retired people in Bomaderry and reporting back to us poor ignorant city folk about life in the country. (With apologies to all retired folk in Bomaderry whom are as entitled to services as city folk.)
It can go flat broke? It *IS* flat broke. It does not turn a profit. *WE* are funding it.
NBN might be under pressure from Whirlpool and commentators, but they won't be going broke anytime shortly.
In amongst all the hoo-ha, they will be around for a while yet. And they have planned it for years now.
Repeat after me, NBN is here to stay (until T4...)
It's up to the reader to do the overall research and reach their own conclusion on what is fact, opinion and gospel.
So true.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét