Election Issues: National Broadband network

[thelaw88]

Hmmm, yeah, I'm having trouble actually believing I'll vote liberal having never voted them in my life, the thought of another term of this hugely incompetent administration makes me sick. I wish the libs had Turnbull in charge, but I'm voting against Labor as it has no respect for the money it spends (much like me when I've had a win really!)

Your post really sums up my thoughts on this coming election - especially the above quoted part (my family has never voted liberal ever - yet we will this Saturday).

[bennymacca]

Hmmm, definitely food for thought. You make some excellent points.

Governments have an extremely poor track record at picking technology winners, actually, any winners, that is what we have the private sector for - taking risks and reaping both rewards and failure.

I thought this point was particularly persuasive.

I guess this election will partly be about picking the least bad party that will do the least damage.

sorry, but do you actually have any understanding about what the NBN will achieve?

saying that it will crowd out competing technologies is silly argument. adsl2 crowded out dialup.

its called progress!!!!

also, becasue the network will be nationally owned, everyone will be able to licence bandwidth on it, which means they wont have to jump through telstra's hoops.

i am the first to admit that the labour governmnt have a horrible track record, but in the case of the NBN, it is a massive step forward. what abbott is proposing is a stop gap measure of existing adsl 2 and existing wimax technology which is already starting to feel the strain on our increasing bandwidth requirements.

12MB or a guaranteed 100MB, with potential for 1GB (and higher as new fibre information transfer techniques are invented), i know which one makes sense for the LONG TERM



having said all of that, i really dont like what either party is serving up, save for this NBN idea.

im not sure we knew how good we had it under john howard (although granted, times were a bit easier when he can into power)

[trishan]

Ben was reading rcon's article link and saw this:

It is also concerning that the central 100 megabits per second 'speed' claim that is being used to sell the NBN does not currently apply to around 70 per cent of all Australian internet traffic. This is traffic that either goes to overseas websites or hits Australian websites hosted offshore where the connectivity speed is determined not by an NBN's capabilities, but by the submarine cables that link Australia with the rest of the world, and then by the bandwidth that ISPs wish to make available. Current limitations would restrict this traffic to around 2Mbps with or without the NBN.

So we will be able to get fast speed for stuff on local servers but speeds for stuff on overseas servers will remain the same? Is that what it is saying rcon?

[bennymacca]

im not sure where that info comes from, but most of australia is on faster than 2MBs as it is

that 2MB would be highly dubious i suspect. i would love to see how that worked that out.

having said that though, you are correct - you wouldn't get a guaranteed 100MB the whole time. but its about building for future upgrades, with a plan in mind.

[rcon]

The only thing the NBN policy has going for it is that there is a plan to deal with Telstra. There is NOTHING good about about sacrificing so much public wealth on a single technology bet. There are so much public good that could be achieved with that money, surely the government owes it more than a back of the envelope plan (accepted fact, the NBN was dreamt up by Conroy and Rudd on a flight - one of the only times Rudd made available for Cabinet ministers)

There are ways to evaluate external gains from the NBN so why is Labor so scared of having someone perform a CBA? Because it doesn't stack up.

The 2mb/s speeds are due to the external link from Australia to the "wide world" - they are not being upgraded by the telcos as there is no business case and no one wants to pay for greater thru-put (because there is no "killer app")

[bennymacca]

There is NOTHING good about about sacrificing so much public wealth on a single technology bet.

this is NOT some gamble as you make it out to be - japan has a similar technology right now

There are so much public good that could be achieved with that money, surely the government owes it more than a back of the envelope plan (accepted fact, the NBN was dreamt up by Conroy and Rudd on a flight - one of the only times Rudd made available for Cabinet ministers)

give them a little more credit than this surely.

The 2mb/s speeds are due to the external link from Australia to the "wide world" - they are not being upgraded by the telcos as there is no business case and no one wants to pay for greater thru-put (because there is no "killer app"

this is a circular argument - of course there is no need for the ISPs to pay for greater thru-put, becasue they can't deliver extra bandwidth to their customers than they are already doing.

but with this technology (which is replacing 70 year old infrastructure in some cases), there will be a genuine business case for ISPs to upgrade, as they will be able to deliver faster speeds

[rcon]

japan has a similar technology right now

and what will they have when the NBN in completed in 10-15 years?

give them a little more credit than this surely.

One of the big points this Labor government promised upon assention to office was a rigorous cost benefit analysis of all infrastructure projects. Let me guess, except when its "visionary"? lol

Senate estimates had a massive surprise when it was announced Conroy had to catch a flight with the PM to tell him the original proposal (the cheaper one they thought was a good idea at the time) failed. Super good governance that!

this is a circular argument - of course there is no need for the ISPs to pay for greater thru-put, becasue they can't deliver extra bandwidth to their customers than they are already doing.

but with this technology (which is replacing 70 year old infrastructure in some cases), there will be a genuine business case for ISPs to upgrade, as they will be able to deliver faster speeds

What is the killer app that will drive massive uptake of super fast broadband? Its streaming TV. One problem with that particular "killer app" for this technology, its already covered by HFC cable, which it should be pointed out, is already capable of those magic 100mb/s, again, with no public funds. Available in eastern states in CBDs and fringe 'burbs I believe? (can't remember those details )


And just for the record, I love some of Gillard's proposals for education, even if its largely been ripped of various libs - I'm all for it!

[bennymacca]

japan has a similar technology right now

and what will they have when the NBN in completed in 10-15 years?
[/quote]

what you are forgetting is that the NBN is not internet technology, but internet infrastructure.

think about the history of data transfer over copper wire

first there was morse code/telegraphs
then phones (8kbit multiplexed onto 64kbit pipes)
then 16k dial up
then 32.64 dial up
then 128 ISDN
then 256 ADSL
now 1500 ADSL
and 24000 ADSL2+

this is ALL using copper cables and nothing more.


optic fibre networks can do a similar thing - all of the back haul data links are already optic fibre. most of these are made for much greater capacity than they deliver at the current time (when they lay optical fibre, they usually lay many many times what is required, because the expensive part is digging the hole, not laying the fibre)

at present, the bottle neck is the copper cables that go from the exchange (or the node at the end of your street) to the house.

the backhaul systems are easily upgradable - no further technology leaps, just more fibre. to say that they cant' handle it is a furphy, because these aren't really an issue to upgrade, just that there hasn't really needed to be an upgrade yet.

[rcon]

Should we maybe discuss some of their other winning polices? The RSPT, vital for a our nations future, hmmm, yeah. A theoretical tax, designed 70? years ago and never implemented ANYWHERE that was poorly designed to begin with. Banks conceded that would place absolutely no value upon the governments "word" to not tax losses - so where did that leave the little mines they were hoping to encourage?

Softening of our immigration polices - now I couldn't give two hoots where people come from, and I am actually for a higher immigration intake (both humanitarian and economic), but I don't think those arriving here, by boat, should have their wait times cut so the government can attract some green votes. Increase out intake from camps if you wish, but to encourage people to take to leaky boats is akin to murder in my mind


re you last post benny the cunt, but what does that really do for you? Sure, it sounds exciting to say a doctor will "tele-visit" you, but seriously, is anyone really going to insure a doctor to provide consults over a video conference?

If the advantages are worth $43 (at least) BILLION dollars, whats that, some 30% of the yearly tax take?

And all those numbers you quote, how much government assistance was provided for those leaps?

Take your turn too

[Russ]

Aaron, just went on the G4C website, it seems the party is no longer

so drawing a square for G4C it is.