Rudd Government not up to speed on NBN
in [Computers]
|
Prev: Good ebay junk?
Next: Watching 3D movies on my computer
From: Mr.T on 23 Jun 2010 22:38 "Swampfox" <noidea(a)whocares.com> wrote in message news:4c2293d2$0$1030$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > We need to hope that Conroy is taking expert advice, Sure he is, but from which vested interests? >which he surely is, in > any case it won't happen at all if there's a change of government which is > looking more likely by the day. We can only hope JG gets rid of it and we don't end up with the Abbot. > In my opinion the NBN is a good idea in principle but bad in practice, by > the time it's built we could see wireless technology approaching similar > speeds and $40 Bil. is a hell of a lot of cash, Fibre is good in practice too, *IF* it didn't cost $40-50Billion dollars, for a few million users. But my biggest complaint is that they expect the taxpayers to foot the bill, then they want to sell it in five years at a loss. IF it's not considered an essential enough service for the government to provide and maintain, the taxpayers who don't need it should not have to pay for it. It's simply another case of "privatising the profits and socialising the losses". MrT.
From: Swampfox on 23 Jun 2010 22:43 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:88fnhaFujtU1(a)mid.individual.net... > Swampfox wrote: >> Mr.T wrote: >>> "Swampfox" <noidea(a)whocares.com> wrote in message >>> news:4c227feb$0$1030$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... >>>>>>> AND the existing Optus fibre cable in Melbourne and Sydney. >>>>>> >>>>>> Except that the Optus fibre optic cable doesn't run to houses, the >>>>>> one you see in the street is coax. >>>>> >>>>> Fibre to the node, just like Telstra. >>>> >>>> But the NBN will be fibre to the house, so it's apples and oranges. >>> >>> The claim to which I replied was Telstra already has a fibre cable in >>> the major cities, so it's actually apples and apples. >>> >>> In any case we will have to wait and see whether we get fibre to the >>> home, or more fibre to the node. You can bet the politicians don't >>> understand the difference, and they are not saying anyway. > >> We need to hope that Conroy is taking expert advice, which he surely >> is, in any case it won't happen at all if there's a change of >> government which is looking more likely by the day. > > After just having predicted that there was no chance that Gillard would > get to be PM, it will be fascinating to see what the voters do now. They'll do what they always do, get their information from Today Tonight and vote according to how much cash they've got in their pockets. Workchoices is still a hell of a hurdle for Abbott to overcome though. > >> In my opinion the NBN is a good idea in principle > > Not in mine, MUCH too much money when most have decent broadband > available. Which is my point, very expensive for marginal gain, who cares if you can download a movie in 10 minutes when you can download it in a few hours as it is. There are probably benefits for business, medical and research and the like but for the average punter it's no big deal. The modelling did suggest it could turn a profit though so if it's built at no net cost to the taxpayer who cares? > > Plenty better things to spend $45B on. > >> but bad in practice, > > It never made sense. > >> by the time it's built we could see wireless technology approaching >> similar speeds > > It will never get within a bulls roar of what fibre can do, and suffers > from the very fundamental problem with shared bandwidth too. > >> and $40 Bil. is a hell of a lot of cash, > > Yes, much better things to spend that sort of money on, like hospitals > etc. > >> fibre won't be redundant technology any time soon > > Ever in fact. Of course it will, a question of time. > >> but inevitably it will be, > > Nope. > >> ask Telstra shareholders how fast their millions of k's of > copper is >> depreciating. > > Its nothing like fibre. It was state of the art until the early 90's.
From: Swampfox on 23 Jun 2010 23:05 Mr.T wrote: > "Swampfox" <noidea(a)whocares.com> wrote in message > news:4c2293d2$0$1030$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... >> We need to hope that Conroy is taking expert advice, > > Sure he is, but from which vested interests? > > >> which he surely is, in >> any case it won't happen at all if there's a change of government >> which is looking more likely by the day. > > We can only hope JG gets rid of it and we don't end up with the Abbot. Not gonna happen, at least not until after the next election. Rudd's backdown on the ETS cost him his job and might cost Labor government, Gillard isn't that silly. > > >> In my opinion the NBN is a good idea in principle but bad in >> practice, by the time it's built we could see wireless technology >> approaching similar speeds and $40 Bil. is a hell of a lot of cash, > > Fibre is good in practice too, *IF* it didn't cost $40-50Billion > dollars, for a few million users. But my biggest complaint is that > they expect the taxpayers to foot the bill, then they want to sell it > in five years at a loss. IF it's not considered an essential enough > service for the government to provide and maintain, the taxpayers who > don't need it should not have to pay for it. It's simply another case > of "privatising the profits and socialising the losses". I thought some independant modelling suggeted it would turn a modest profit. Given that all Telstra's customers will be using it it's looking less like a white elephant. > > MrT.
From: Rod Speed on 23 Jun 2010 23:10 Swampfox wrote > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote >> Swampfox wrote >>> Mr.T wrote >>>> Swampfox <noidea(a)whocares.com> wrote >>>>>>>> AND the existing Optus fibre cable in Melbourne and Sydney. >>>>>>> Except that the Optus fibre optic cable doesn't run to houses, >>>>>>> the one you see in the street is coax. >>>>>> Fibre to the node, just like Telstra. >>>>> But the NBN will be fibre to the house, so it's apples and oranges. >>>> The claim to which I replied was Telstra already has a fibre cable in the major cities, so it's actually apples and >>>> apples. >>>> In any case we will have to wait and see whether we get fibre to >>>> the home, or more fibre to the node. You can bet the politicians >>>> don't understand the difference, and they are not saying anyway. >>> We need to hope that Conroy is taking expert advice, which he surely is, in any case it won't happen at all if >>> there's a change of government which is looking more likely by the day. >> After just having predicted that there was no chance that Gillard would get to be PM, it will be fascinating to see >> what the voters do now. > They'll do what they always do, get their information from Today Tonight That doesnt explain the changes in the polls. The dud barely ever got a mention there. > and vote according to how much cash they've got in their pockets. That wasnt the reason they got elected last election. > Workchoices is still a hell of a hurdle for Abbott to overcome though. We'll see... I was never convinced that it was the reason Labor won last time. >>> In my opinion the NBN is a good idea in principle >> Not in mine, MUCH too much money when most have decent broadband available. > Which is my point, very expensive for marginal gain, who cares if you can download a movie in 10 minutes when you can > download it in a few hours as it is. I recon plenty do care, but its certainly not worth spending anything like $45B to get. > There are probably benefits for business, medical and research and the like Corse there are, but again, not worth anything like $45B > but for the average punter it's no big deal. Dunno, completely integrated phone, broadband and pay TV over the one feed is a substantial improvement, but like I said, its not worth spending anything like that immense amount of money on. > The modelling did suggest it could turn a profit though so if it's built at no net cost to the taxpayer who cares? That could be done by spending what the govt got from flogging off Telstra, but again, there is still plenty that it makes a lot more sense to spend that money on. >> Plenty better things to spend $45B on. >>> but bad in practice, >> It never made sense. >>> by the time it's built we could see wireless technology approaching similar speeds >> It will never get within a bulls roar of what fibre can do, and suffers from the very fundamental problem with shared >> bandwidth too. >>> and $40 Bil. is a hell of a lot of cash, >> Yes, much better things to spend that sort of money on, like hospitals etc. >>> fibre won't be redundant technology any time soon >> Ever in fact. > Of course it will, a question of time. Nope, there is no other viable alternative. Wireless will never be that. >>> but inevitably it will be, >> Nope. >>> ask Telstra shareholders how fast their millions of k's of copper is depreciating. >> Its nothing like fibre. > It was state of the art until the early 90's. Nope. We had already seen fibre as the future at that time. It was already replacing the copper inter exchange links and undersea cables etc.
From: Rod Speed on 23 Jun 2010 23:16
Mr.T wrote > Swampfox <noidea(a)whocares.com> wrote >> We need to hope that Conroy is taking expert advice, > Sure he is, but from which vested interests? No evidence that he takes any notice of those. >> which he surely is, Nope, he's a terminal fuckwit off his own bat. >> in any case it won't happen at all if there's a change >> of government which is looking more likely by the day. We'll see... > We can only hope JG gets rid of it and we don't end up with the Abbot. >> In my opinion the NBN is a good idea in principle but bad in >> practice, by the time it's built we could see wireless technology >> approaching similar speeds and $40 Bil. is a hell of a lot of cash, > Fibre is good in practice too, *IF* it didn't cost $40-50Billion > dollars, for a few million users. But my biggest complaint is that > they expect the taxpayers to foot the bill, then they want to sell it > in five years at a loss. IF it's not considered an essential enough > service for the government to provide and maintain, the taxpayers > who don't need it should not have to pay for it. It's simply another > case of "privatising the profits and socialising the losses". Nope, you can see it as just spending a part of what was raised by flogging off Telstra. Corse whether it makes any sense to spend that sort of money on it on that is another matter entirely. |