The NBN still hasn’t brought the promised sunshine

persephone says:

06:56am | 30/11/10

This kind of idiocy is giving opponents of the NBN a bad name.

Having fibre to the home - or anywhere else - does not tie you to a desk.

You obviously watched a different media conference to the one I did. The majority of the time was spent on questions to do with the structural separation of Telstra.

There was a short section when they did point out that, despite forcing Parliament to return for an extra day, at great expense to the taxpayer, Tony Abbott spent little time in the chamber. The time he did spend there he spent abusing the government, rather than debating the matter at hand.

And after all of that, on this supposedly crucial issue, the Opposition didn’t even call for a division.

What were they afraid of? Why did individual MPs avoid the scrutiny of having their vote recorded? (Particularly given their new found love of transparency).

Didn’t they want their electorates to hold them to account? Or were they afraid that some of their members might cross the floor?

Muzz says:

08:02am | 30/11/10

The majority of time was spent chucking abuse at Abbott persephone and you know it. The last question by a journo even asked Gillard about the amount of time she spent hurling insults at Abbott during the press conference, while accusing him of the same thing.

Tom says:

08:16am | 30/11/10

$43 million of death to the Australian taxpayer is the real “idiocy” persephone. It may be a big victory for Labor and their big spending cheer squad. Thinking people don’t necessarily swallow your Labor propaganda.

Andrew says:

08:27am | 30/11/10

The question remains Persephone, why not subject the whole plan to a cost benefit analysis?

Hate and deride Sophie all you want but how do you explain the slide from “new paradigm” and “complete transparency” to “sign a 7 year confidentiality agreement”.

Please don’t give me a commercially sensitive argument. They are creating a monopoly, how can that have competition issues.

No matter what you say, this government increasingly looks like it has something to hide. You know it and I know it. Labor’s answer to any questions relating to probity or costing is to attack Abbott or the Liberals. Just as you have done here. Simple question, if this program was being rolled out by the Liberals would you demand and expect to see a cost benefit analysis?

We both know the answer. Typical hypocritical left.

NicoleG says:

08:38am | 30/11/10

No Pers, it was the same media conference. And Lucinda is 100% correct. Gillard, as per usual, was venomous. It’s a tact that she has adopted to avoid answering anything. Her performance in QT last week was just that. Venomous. This NBN is an utter waste of money. Pers, you are not silly, in fact, I think you’re highly intelligent, so I’m just at a loss as to how you can’t see through any of this. Please take off your blinkers and see it for what it really is. A massive waste of taxpayers money.

MarK says:

08:47am | 30/11/10

pers pers pers

Deary the government is the one that will release the full report just in time for Xmas when no scrutiny can be put to it. Or if there is people will be in their cups.

Seriously don’t spin.

Labor has abondoned the new paradigm and is being very sneaky in its dealings.

Asking parliamentarians to sign 7 year secrecy clauses that were revised down by the hour was dumb and stank. The whole premise that the business case is sensitive is rubbish as well. Who cares? Labor is re-monopolising the sector. the business case is moot.

They are effectively paying Telstra one third of its total market capitalisation for a few of its assets that are useful (ducts and HFC), decommissioning assets that would have been at the end of their depreciable life (copper) and taking on the USO a huge liability. Telstra must be having a chuckle.

All of this neds to be secret? Well going ont he summary yes it does.

It is a house of cards.

You are a teacher, a thought that terrifies me to be honest. At least on occasion have the grace to admit there is more than spin to issues and open up your mind to enquiry as I hope you encourage your students to do.

persephone says:

10:03am | 30/11/10

Tom

It’s not $43 billion and that has not been the accepted figure for some time.

Keep up.

Andrew

the majority of Parliament - the indies, the Greens, Family First, Xenophon etc - seem quite happy with the information they received.

They were in the position to push this, I’m not. I’m quite willing to accept that, if they don’t think one is necessary, it isn’t.

We don’t usually do cost benefit analyses of public services, otherwise our hospitals would be closed tomorrow.

And, er, the bill that was passed yesterday was about undoing a monopoly created by the Howard government, by separating Telstra.

Given that not only Telstra but the majority of its competitors do not see the NBN as a threat to their businesses, I think it’s a bit of a stretch to bang on about threats to competition - they obviously don’t see any.

As I’ve said before, demanding that the NBN not having a monopoly on the fibre network is a bit like demanding that there should be another road provided for your home, so that you can chose the best road for you.

To extend that analogy, you should think of the NBN as the road that goes past your door. How you use that road is up to you. What you use it for is up to you. Which car you drive on it is up to you. But you don’t have a choice about the road itself.

Happy to demand a cost benefit analysis of the Opp’s broadband policy, because they obviously think one is important, and I’d expect them to apply the same standards to themselves that they do for others.  They could set Labor the example.

Let’s start the clock ticking on that one, shall we?

Nicole

good morning, and thanks.

As a highly intelligent person, I read. I check my sources.

About the only organisation in Australia at present saying the NBN is a bad idea is the Coalition.

The telecommunications companies, health and education departments, farming organisations, business leaders, ordinary internet users, etc etc etc all say it’s a good idea.

Forgive me if I put my faith in the experts rather than Tony Abbott.

MarK

strangely enough, the politicians who actually engaged in the process of negotiating with the government disagree with you. Xenophon refused to bag the process, even when fed much the same lines you’re using.

Negotiations are like that. Both sides start off with ambit claims, and the more ambit the better, because it gives you a lot more to trade. Both sides thus walk away at the end of the process feeling like winners.

The advantage of having pollies with a union background in Parliament is that they understand negotiation and are good at it.

Alas, there is no such expertise or understanding in the Liberal party.

And Conroy is well aware of the problems of the copper network. That’s why he wanted to buy it. Telstra would just keep cobbling it together with bits of duct tape, in stead of doing what is needed.

Andrew says:

10:15am | 30/11/10

Pers, we don’t do a cost benefit analysis on hospitals because we don’t run them at a profit. The government keeps telling us the NBN will pay itself off. Prove it or shut up. Anything else is just a sideshow. You know it. Sinking ship Pers.

persephone says:

10:28am | 30/11/10

Andrew

and so do several other reports, which have all come to same conclusion.

But the point is, it doesn’t have to; its benefits are more important than whether or not it will make money.

That it will is very nice, and obviously anyone who has seen the background info (such as the bulk of MPs and Senators) are convinced that it will.

ian m says:

10:35am | 30/11/10

persephone what worrys me is the monopoly its slightly soviet you will use the NBN or else (joke). But part of the deal with Telstra and the 11 billion is that they in the future are not allowed to maket or advertise the 4g network of wireless and potential improvements to it. plus the waste of the Telstra cable that i have in my area of the gold coast that apparently has the potential for 100mb that will allow 5 seperate movies screened at the same time ! why bin it, it can only be for the sake of justifyling the money spent and keeping the monopoly position.

Mustela says:

10:35am | 30/11/10

Andrew

You’re the one on the sinking ship mate

funny how you’re the last to know.

MarK says:

10:41am | 30/11/10

“Xenophon refused to bag the process, even when fed much the same lines you’re using.”

Sigh.

No

You don’t know the history or are deliberately lying.

Xenophon refused the secrecy sign on. Said he needed mnore info.

It was dragged kicking and screaming from th government when NO COMMERCIAL information was to be given.

They had to do it to save face or Xenophon would have voted against it.
As it stands he got bout out for a 36 page bit of tosh that basically says - this thing ain’t so hot but we will tell you more later.

That is his prerogative.

The government caved in or they would have been defeated. They grudgingly gave as little as they could. From 7 years of silence to partial public disclosure.

if the thing stacks up what have they got to hide?

Also Conroy is all over the shop.

You say he wanted to buy it because it was antiquated? Why the hell would he do that?

Load of rubbish.

He bought it to shut it down. This forces people onto the new monopoly carrier the NBN.

That is why he did it. Along with the fact he could move capex to opex and claim he has saved money.

Spare us. I hope the government will buy my aging assets at grossly inflated prices when I am done with them.

Andrew says:

10:43am | 30/11/10

Mustela,

W.A. check
Vic Check
NSW in the bag
Qld 2012
Federal - only a matter of time.

Your glasses must be very rose coloured.

MarK says:

10:52am | 30/11/10

pers says this

“But the point is, it doesn’t have to; its benefits are more important than whether or not it will make money.”

Wrong so wrong.

The only justification they have for it is it a commercial venture.

If it is not commercial it has to go onto the budget.

When you are talking about the economic credentials of the government in future and relate them to anything to do with deficit/surplus I will remind of this.

Matthew says:

02:38pm | 30/11/10

iam m, remember those cable networks are *at least* 13 years old.  Telstra did a deal with Optus that basically stopped the two of them laying cables about 13 years ago (hence why my parents housing estate, built in ‘95, doesn’t have cables in it).  They may only be middle aged now but they’ll be getting older by the time the NBN is delivered to replace them.

Bruce says:

08:08pm | 30/11/10

Lucinda: You are spot on the mark. Just political abuse, because thats all the dimwits have. Had the greenALPS done their job properly the detail would have been out there. If the NBN was so good, it would have sold it self. Instead of the ‘greenALPs’ telling us that its a good for us. Where is the detail ?? Just a scant summary sheet. The greenALPs approach would not have made it through first base in a small mum’s and dad’s backyard business. I guess that the quality you get from a dumb hybrid government.

Gregg says:

01:49am | 01/12/10

@persephone
Your comparison of the NBN with hospitals is just as stupid as a comparison with the SMHES another of your comrades made.
If you haven’t yet figured out that Water and Health are all about essential services, that could be an indicator of the problems Labor have in managing anything at all.

As for the benefits, what are they actually?
And can they not be provided by other means seeing as health and education areas nominated as main beneficiaries have been using the internet for many a year.

Has Gillard or Conroy actually spekt out what the $13B payment to Telstra for use of their infrastructure and ceasing the Copper network actually means .
Does it for instance mean that there will be no more copper, not even for landline telephone services and in fact is the ceasing and transfer of customers to the NBN as it has been put mean that ISPs will not be able to use the copper network for IT services hence people being forced to take up the FO.

Those are answers that need to be given.

isis says:

08:29am | 01/12/10

The NBN will improve download speed which is not the same via satellite as it is shared. Cable is direct. Are you saying you want cheaper wireless to check your emails? I like the NBN because it will encourage the population to decentralise and provide service where people are missing out.
The opposition made it very clear when they dragged out Carlos Slim that they couldn’t care if 70% of us only dial up.

Tracker says:

09:19am | 02/12/10

@persephone, if it is not 43 billion then what is it ? 

Yes, i agree having fibre to the home does not tie you to a desk because you can just connect a wireless access point to it and have one very expensive wireless access point.

The majority of competitors do not see it as a threat to business probably because they know people want better download plans instead of the rather expensive plans the NBN is offering. One of my ISP’s has just increased my 160GB a month plan to 500GB a month at no extra cost. ISP’s don’t do this out of the goodness of their heart so there must be another reason.

The NBN is going to be a lame duck or white elephant (as trials in Tasmania have shown with only 30% take up) unless Julia forces us to sign up for their long term ALP/Union membership/Brown Paper Bag plan whether we want it or not.

And last but not least… did you renew your ALP Party membership this month ? I heard the Greens are providing free watermelons for every ALP membership renewed. Have a nice day

Tracker says:

12:25pm | 02/12/10

@isis.. Ummm… the NBN is a combination of cable and satellite (which includes wireless). Conroy was talking about satellites for those hard to get at places (2 of them with limits of 150,000 users per satellite) and 12mb/s up and 1 mb/s down supplied to the user (I think he meant 12 down and 1 up but never mind, the guy is a technical noob) Where did you get the idea the NBN was going to be fibre optic cable all over the country, lightning fast 100mb/sec speeds or was it 1000 mb/sec ? Surely you don’t believe what Julia and Con-roy say..lol A lot of people and in particular in regional areas are going to get burnt on this one but hey, just ask Tony Windsor and he will tell you it is the right thing to do.

@persephone, hey Perse, I just found out why you said it was not 43 Billion Julia somehow found savings of 6-7 Billion if you take up the phone and internet packages so that brings the NBN down to 36 Billion or am I wrong ?

As an Australian taxpayer I feel so rich playing around with all these Billions of dollars figures :-D

Andrew says:

08:33am | 30/11/10

Another left wing rant, attacking the author because the Labor performance has been so dismal.

Single question: should the Australian people be entitled to see and scrutinise a cost benefit analysis on the biggest infrastructure spend in the nations history?

Everything else is a sideshow.

Labor’s determination to press ahead with this project without scrutiny is indicative of a government that has “lost its way”. People are sick of this arrogance, just ask victorians.

Oh and “did nothing for 12 years” LOL, stop trying to rewrite history. How’s paying off $70+ billion of Labor debt sound for starters?

Nick says:

09:01am | 30/11/10

“I am pretty sure they are releasing the report of their own volition”
Surely you have got to be KIDDING!

Feral Wombat says:

10:51am | 30/11/10

Andrew

“Another left wing rant…”

Actually, it was a critique. You can tell by the point by point structure of my post and the constant references to Sophie’s article. A rant would look something like the rubbish that you just posted.

“... attacking the author because the Labor performance has been so dismal.”

I’m sorry, but did you actually read what I wrote?

“blah blah… (lots of stuff that has nothing to do with my post)... victorians.”

I’ve read the Liberal stooge book. It was boring the first time.

“Oh, and ‘did nothing for 12 years’ LOL…”

Do you even understand the nature of a point by point critique?

Nick

I really admire someone who can hold to a point of view that is so patently absurd and feel confident in expressing it without even attempting to offer any proof. Well done!

fairs says:

11:16am | 30/11/10

Andrew - “Another left wing rant, attacking the author”

If the author didn’t make so many stupid comments in her article then there would be nothing to attack. Don’t deflect the blame from the source.
Just like the Wombats claim Labor relased the business plan of their own volition - it was Xenophen that forced it.

ian m says:

12:56pm | 30/11/10

PS I understand hong kong has a system planned via satellite/wireless giving 100mb plus

Feral Wombat says:

01:12pm | 30/11/10

Fairs

“... it was Xenophon that forced it.”

You might have a point there. I’m unaware of exactly what deal was made between Xenophon and the government. Although Sophie’s “dragged kicking and screaming” is obviously hyperbolic, and the government always had the option of refusing to release the report, I certainly accept that this was not a likely outcome if Xenophon’s support for yesterday’s bill was contingent on the release of the report.

I do get a bit carried away when reading Sophie’s articles. Before I get half way through I am always wondering whether there will be any truth in the entire article.

Thanks for your valid, politely worded criticism.

Bazza says:

08:19am | 30/11/10

Back off mate. She is defending the taxpayer against your irresponsible free spending vandals. I like the woman.

ANdrew says:

08:37am | 30/11/10

Three words: Cost Benefit Analysis.

What is Labor trying to hide.

c’mon acotrel, no matter how hard you try to change the subject it comes back to, useless government desperately trying to look as if they’ve achieved something (but please don’t mention the cost or whether its the right technology).

Pink Batts, BER and now the NBN. The only thing we can trust Labor to do is to leave us masses of debt. Jokers!

Bill says:

08:23am | 30/11/10

Your precious NBN is am electioneering con on the voter. Your moronic union mates are destroying Australia the same way they destroyed NSW.

ANdrew says:

08:42am | 30/11/10

Ok, 1) Name the experts and provide me with details of their independence.
2) Broadband vs wireless in rural AUstralia. Please provide details of how broadband will provide a greater benefit to rural Australia than wireless. Oh, and if you are going to say medicine, you need to realise that for the extra money we put into NBN we could build 5 star hospitals in those regional areas.
3) Your fear of wireless security demonstrates your lack of knowledge of IT security.
Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and prove it.

Peter says:

08:57am | 30/11/10

You never do internet banking? Why on earth are dopes like you even commenting on the viability of broadband.You and your comrades don’t have a clue do you? As long as Labor thought of the idea it must be good !

MarK says:

09:02am | 30/11/10

“We employ communications experts to advise us on the technology.”

Interestingly enough these communication experts comprised Rudd Conroy a plane trip and a coaster.

“we’ll have a broadband network, and it will greatly benefit rural Australia!  “

Agree!!!! But is the cost worth it?

“I don’t want my private business on the airwaves for any geek or spook to hack into! “

If you don’t understand even the very basics about a subject keep quiet, It stops you looking like an idiot.

“I already have a radio modem, and I refrain from sending my credit card details over the internet, and I never do internet banking! “

See above. You would have a wireless capable router. Oh and if you are that scared of the technology how in the hell could you possibly get any benefit from 100mb? Hell even 12mb?

You “refrain” from utilising the very system that you are advocating being built. Do you read what you write?

You are suggesting that this system give people untold benefits except of course people rip you off on the net so you will never pay for any service on it and rely on traditional means to conduct business.

I am so glad we as a country are spending, well who really knows it is all a guess anyway, $60billion so you can get The Punch refreshing at that extra .5second speed.

Awesome.

What is the point of building something and advocating for it like you do if you refuse to use it?

Your thought processes and logic stagger me.

“It should be built” yells Acotrel - ‘“But I will not use any of its features”

Dear god.

TimB says:

09:44am | 30/11/10

” I already have a radio modem, and I refrain from sending my credit card details over the internet, and I never do internet banking! “

*snigger* Who’s the luddite?

You say things like this and you expect us to give any of your pro-NBN arguments any weight? 

BTW to benefit *rural* Australia, we don’t need a National broadbnand network. Just something that connects the neglected areas to the already well equipped large population centres.

That’s where the cost is coming in, the fact that we’re ripping up perfectly good infrastructure in the cities just to get a bit of a speed boost that we don’t need. Common sense tells you it’s a complete waste.

persephone says:

10:11am | 30/11/10

TimB

I asked a Defence force official, one of those in charge of building the you-beaut new Defence centre just outside of Canberra, why they were using cable internally instead of wireless.

He thought I was stupid to even ask the question, as (alas) I was.

Wireless is not secure. Cable is.

Think back to the early days of mobile phones, when the use of analog meant that (with only a little bit of techncial expertise) private calls could be tapped into (with disastrous consequences for Prince Charles and John Howard).

It’s a similar scenario.

The Badger says:

10:31am | 30/11/10

Sigh!

Tim
The most amazing thing is that acotrel gets it and you choose to stick your head in the sandfor a political party.

MarK says:

10:34am | 30/11/10

Oh pers stop it with your homilies.

You are lying.

And the information is wrong.

One issue with the NBN is that the backbone and larger nodes will not be numerous enough.

This has two consequences.

1. Limits competition but increases profitability. Who would have though a monopoly does that?

2. Creates a security risk in so far as all information is routed through less numerous points.

Give it up. This is really getting pathetic. You are justifying a multi billion dollar spend with some “chats” you “had” (yeh right) with some people. And you do not understand the technology at all.

Makes me smile.

The Badger says:

10:54am | 30/11/10

mark

just because you saw the inside of a pc does not make you an expert.

Pers is right

Fibre is the most secure transmission medium.

do tell us about backbones and nodes and how this “problem” is inescapable
.

TimB says:

10:54am | 30/11/10

OMG Perse!

Quick. we must alert the US government! They better get NASA to pull their communications satelites from the sky, stat.

We better do something about this whole radio thing too, it’s much too risky. Anybody could be listening in!

I’d advocate using a system of personalised couriers for all our communications from now on, but I’m unsure if that’s wise. The guy who delivered my mail yesterday looks shifty. Who knows what he’d do if he had 5 mins alone with my envelope and a bit of steam.

That’s torn it. Let’s shut down the internet, turn off the phone exchange and dismantle Australia Post. Anything we need to communicate can be done face to face whilst using the Cone of Silence.

I thank you for bringing these serious security issues to our attention. It’s just a shame no-one has ever had any idea on how to prevent such breaches occuring.

persephone says:

10:55am | 30/11/10

MarK

As soon as you resort to saying “you’re lying” and fail to back up any of your points with evidence, I know I’ve won.

If I’m lying, show:

* whether or not the Defence HQ uses wireless or cable;

*whether wireless is more secure than cable:

If you can’t, then accept that you’re wrong - which would be a first.

TimB says:

10:57am | 30/11/10

@ Badger, Please Acotrel doesn’t even get Internet banking. How could he possibly get this?

The only ones sticking their heads in the sand here are you guys.

MarK says:

11:17am | 30/11/10

You haven’t “won” pers.

When I have more time later I will provide you with the various other information you demand from me but are lacking in your own analysis.

To think that you actually teach kids…..my god

Feral Wombat says:

11:18am | 30/11/10

Acotrel is correct. People hacking into wireless networks for the purpose of stealing financial information is a growing problem in Australia.

I don’t even like keeping my computer and my bank details in the same room. But that’s just me, I’m paranoid. The rest of you should feel free to send financial details over unsecured, easily hacked wireless connections at any time.

The Badger says:

11:26am | 30/11/10

Sigh

Tim
Did Da Vinci take ride in or see a helicopter before he drew one?
Are you honestly saying that a man cannot have vision and understanding because he doesn’t use one application of technology?
What is your benchmark for understanding the NBN and being able to comment?
send and receive email? internet banking? Accessing facebook from your phone?

The NBN is a very simple proposition.
Deliver high speed broadband to as much of the nation as possible.
Labor wants to deploy this broadband via fibre
Coalition wants to deploy broadband through a half thought out mix of fibre and wireless.

Half the morons commenting on this site haven’t gotten past the “I don’t need fast broadband” phase.

acotrel has gotten past that and understands the potential the NBN brings. Do you?

Razor says:

11:49am | 30/11/10

Ever heard of encryption?

You would need a super computer, a couple of months and probably a clue to the key for my wireless comms to be deciphered.

MarK says:

12:14pm | 30/11/10

@ Razor.

Hush.

Bringing tech facts into the conversation will confuse them.

The suppositions made as to the inadequacies of security via wireless are staggering.

persephone says:

12:15pm | 30/11/10

Razor

well, apparently the ADF hasn’t.

If you want some idea of the challenges of wireless security, have a look at the 10 ‘easy’ steps recommended by this site:

http://compnetworking.about.com/od/wirelesssecurity/tp/wifisecurity.htm

which admits that the best way to secure your system is to turn it off!

It has lots of links to stories about people hacking in to wireless.

One quote:

‘Wireless networks add an extra level of security complexity compared to wired networks. Whereas wired networks send electrical signals or pulses of light through cable, wireless radio signals propogate through the air and are naturally easier to intercept. Signals from most wireless LANs (WLANs) pass through exterior walls and into nearby streets or parking lots.’

So - fixed lines are more secure than wireless.

It refers to encryption as hard to decode ‘by humans’. In other words, you can with a computer.

Ryan says:

12:24pm | 30/11/10

@persephone: but if fiber is such a great idea pers, how come defense HQ hasn’t cabled fiber to every desktop, the very same concept of cabling fiber to every home.
Defend all you like though, the FACT that Labor won’t submit to a cost benefit analysis is 100% confirmation that you are hiding the rampant waste of taxpayer money.

Shane From Melbourne says:

12:56pm | 30/11/10

No electronic transmission is 100% secure. Otherwise projects like ECHELON (NSA) and CARNIVORE (FBI) wouldn’t exist. Also intelligence can be gathered from non TEMPEST shielded electronic equipment. However the greatest danger to the general public is probably keystroke loggers downloaded from trojan websites.

TimB says:

01:13pm | 30/11/10

“What is your benchmark for understanding the NBN and being able to comment?
send and receive email? internet banking? Accessing facebook from your phone?”

What’s your benchmark Badger? What’s your basis for understanding and being able to comment?
And if you happen to think that Acotrel’s paranoia about internet banking has any merit (it doesn’t if he takes a few simple precautions), then I can guarantee my understanding is greater than yours, not to mention his.

But let’s get back to your point about “vision” you know the ones we’re supposed to have in order to imagine all the magical benefits of the NBN. You still haven’t come up with any yourself I notice.

But enough of that. I want to talk about a different use for vision. A vision where lightning fast broadband is achievable by means other than the NBN.

Now I should clarify my position. You say most of us are still hung up on the point of “we don’t need fast broadband, so we don’t want it”. That’s not entirely accurate. MarK has already said he likes the idea of fast broadband. I too like it. I don’t need it, but I like it. What we don’t like is the insane cost for it. It’s not worth it. (That’s where the cost-benefit bit kicks in)

So when someone makes the argument that fast broadband may be able to be delivered with alternate technology much more cheaply, why do you not listen? Why can’t you “envision” this advanced technology, much like (as you say) Da Vinci envisioned his helicopter?

But this is where we are one up on you. You want us to imagine benefits that haven’t even been thought of. We want you to look at technology that is already coming into existence now. You don’t have to imagine it. The technology is already being worked on. And do you honestly believe that this would be the case if the potential wasn’t there for it to be commercially viable?

You support the NBN blindly because the Labor party is pushing it. You have no capacity to envision a technological advancement that would render it obsolete. I’d steal your line about you sacrificing credibility in the name of your bankrupt political ideology, but as I already stated, I don’t believe you ever had any credibility to begin with.

MarK says:

01:35pm | 30/11/10

Exactly Shane.

Exactly.

Pers using about.com to validate a $60billion spend is not really good form.

Your justifications are childish, narrow and silly. No one is suggesting the whole thing be down with wireless. You are running all over the shop at tangents to attempt to justify spending billions. It is crazy.

We just want the monry to be spent wisely and justified.

Again Shane is exactly right.

The type of delivery of the bandwidth really is moot.

It does not matter if you are transmitting over cable or wirelessly. If you have lax security keyloggers present more of an issue than simply the architecture which you use.

Proper AV programs, antispyware, good browsers and browsing techniques and common snese do more for you than the NBN being delivered by this or that method.

It is a tangential argument of no relevance to the system itself.

Give it a rest.

“So - fixed lines are more secure than wireless.”

That conclusion drawn by you in isolation is erroneous.

You actually do not know what you are arguing about.

persephone says:

01:41pm | 30/11/10

Ryan

they have. That’s why the subject came up in the first place - guy was bitching about all the cable that ran everywhere, because of course you have to provide more places to plug in to the system than just at every desk top.

I’d be surprised if the ADF uses wireless for anything other than non-sensitive transmissions - and even then I bet it’s encypted to the hilt.

persephone says:

01:55pm | 30/11/10

MarK

$60 billion!! Well, that just shows how eager you are to swallow Liberal party misinformation!!

It’s actually $36 billion - well, 35.7.

Anyway, seems I’ve proved that wireless is less secure than fibre, as you’re shifting the goalposts once again.

Grow up old people says:

02:05pm | 30/11/10

Hahaha ... “I already have a radio modem”, you know, a radio like the wireless that Grandma listened to ‘Blue Hills’ on after tea.
Second Hahaha ... “I don’t want my private business on the airwaves for any geek or spook to hack into”, like, you know, the inter-nets filter wont ever do. Obviously encryption is something that the ancient Egyptians used to do.

MarK says:

02:36pm | 30/11/10

$60 billion is opex and capex.

It is in the figures and how you use them. You have failed at your security issue as has been explained elsewhere.

Give it up

oh and please be consistent

”  I’d be surprised if the ADF uses wireless for anything other than non-sensitive transmissions - and even then I bet it’s encypted to the hilt.”

Sigh….really? You admit it is secure now.

Wow you run around in circles.

Feral Wombat says:

02:56pm | 30/11/10

Re: what does the ADF use?

In 2000 and 2001 I worked on the construction of a computer lab at Garden Island. I think that the lab was to be run by a private contractor to the ADF but I’m really not sure. The security even to get onto the site was extreme.

The building consisted of a few small rooms near the only entry point and then a single large computer lab. The lab had a false floor, approximately 600mm deep for cables. I don’t know if they use wireless in there but I’m pretty sure that they don’t need to.

At the far end of the lab (from the entry) was a completely self-contained strong room, made out of 3 skins of dry press (heavy, solid) bricks. That strong room also had only 1 entry point. Unfortunately, I wasn’t still there to see what kind of door they put on the strong room. I could have tried to nick it to put on the outside toilet at my place.

Maybe they just lock up all the wireless in the strong room.

simon says:

04:28pm | 30/11/10

It doesn’t matter what anyone says, we will all be using wireless in 10 years time at speeds greater than the NBN because all the new devices are designed for wireless. End of story. The NBN is a massive waste of money in technology that is already obsolete…

Tom says:

05:06pm | 30/11/10

@ perse, can you tell us how your defence force mates attach the optical cables to the submarines? I hear they are always getting stuck on the oyster beds. Perhaps they could attach some fishing hooks to them to defray their budgetary costs.

Of course your defence mate would know how to attach the glass fibre cables to their fighter planes? Wouldn’t they huh, perse… ?

NicoleG says:

05:17pm | 30/11/10

@Tom, that was priceless! Hahahaha

Andrew says:

05:50pm | 30/11/10

@persephone - I don’t care a hoot for the politics here, but please get your facts right before making blanket assertions that are completely false.

Wired is secure and wireless isn’t?  How is that?  Yes, wireless signals are certainly *easier* to tap into, no doubt.  However there is this little thing called electromagnetic radiation which is emitted by all current carrying devices (wires included!) which is also able to be intercepted by interested parties.  It is also quite trivial, with access to the cables, to put an undetectable listening device on the lines as well.

Now, the real issue is data security, not signal security.  In this area, wireless actually is much MORE secure than traditional wired networks, since encryption is used on pretty much all wireless networks these days.  Ethernet traffic, on the other hand, is in most cases unencrypted data.  Anybody who has confidential information to send would be an idiot not to encrypt it further, and there are many many encryption standards which are practically impossible to break.  Data send over a wireless network in such form is completely safe, considerably safer than in a locked briefcase, or send unencrypted over a ‘secure’ wired network.

Fixed line networks have many advantages over wireless, there is no doubt.  Latency, total throughput, congestion issues, all favour fixed line networks.  Security is (almost) completely independent of the medium, and anybody who says otherwise doesn’t know a thing.  Having a PhD in communications engineering, I can pretty safely say I DO know a thing or two about the field.

Ryan says:

08:09pm | 30/11/10

@persephone: wow, I would like to see that, fiber to every desktop, that would have to be a first.
As for wireless, well we run some well known online shopping companies and their entire internal internet through wireless, it works better than anything else we have ever used, less to no outages and strangely its supporting up to 3000 concurrent browser sessions at a time.. unreal hey!

Mike says:

08:23am | 30/11/10

Cost analysis? Business analysis? Why not build high speed railway from Darwin to Melbourne and have supersonic jets flying between Perth and Cairns too.  It’s not about how good is high speed broadband, it’s about it’s cost and affordability and it’s Business plan.

MarK says:

08:52am | 30/11/10

I love anecdotal comments and generalisations.

They really make so much sense.

I was talking to someone the other day from Australia. He said that he 100mb cable. He said the government was taking it away to put him on an untested system at an unknown price and he has no choice in the matter. He was concerned that this monopoly that is costing the taxpayer 50 or 60 billion including opex in the best case scenario could be a fraction expensive given it is duplicating what he has now.

Weird stuff indeed.

Oh pers please give me the address of the tower. I would be interested to do some research on it. Shouldn’t be too much trouble should it?

Andrew says:

08:52am | 30/11/10

If you know nothing about the technology and the advancements to it you should not talk about it. You don’t and you shouldn’t.

There is little doubt that wireless tech is the fastest growing in the world. It will surpass the NBN tech within 10 years (including capacity). Ask anyone who knows anything about the technology. Its cheaper, and will be faster and better.

Remember the first laptops that came out, they cost $10K each and could do 1000th of the things a $800 ipad can do today. That’s how fast this technology moves.

This is really bad, really expensive policy.

As for your story above. When did this woman get wireless and how much has it improved since then and how much better is it than her original 128kbps dial up?

The tech world moves really fast and this government is trying to lock us down to technology that is already being taken over.

Instead of blindly supporting Labor and hating Liberals why don’t you think of what’s best for Australia. Too much to ask from a rusted on Labor hack.

persephone says:

10:25am | 30/11/10

Andrew

suggest you talk to someone who understands physics.

Nothing exceeds the speed of light.

Thus optic fibre, which can transport information at the speed of light, will always be faster and more efficient than radio waves, which can’t.

Physicists (from the little I’ve read) agree that wireless still has room for improvement, and quite dramatically so, but they also agree that it has limits and that these are necessarily well below those of fibre optics.

They also agree that nothing will out perform fibre optics.

There’s some quite interesting discussions about how the limits of wireless can’t be overcome (google it yourself). Basically, wireless is too open to interference, can only travel short distances, has limited capacity to carry information and is not secure.

Andrew says:

10:50am | 30/11/10

Pers, so now you’re talking physics. Ok lets go with the speed of light argument.

Tell me this whats the use of buying a car that can get to speeds of 1000km/h if the speed limit is 100km/h.

Labor, leading the world in stupidity.

MarK says:

10:55am | 30/11/10

Still waiting on that towers address pers.

You know facts and stuff

MK says:

11:06am | 30/11/10

@ Andrew, ... Glass houses… stones…..
No doubt?
There was no doubt we would be driving flying cars and be living on the moon by 2010,
wheres my flying car?
I have 20Mbpstelstra ‘Ultimate’ Next G,
i would prefer to have 56Kbit/s speeds 24/7

persephone says:

11:11am | 30/11/10

MarK

don’t try and look sillier than you are. Of course I’m not releasing someone’s personal information.

If you object to people using anecdotes, fine. I expect you to be consistent and attack any poster who does so, rather than just myself.

If you don’t like me telling little stories from everyday life - I presume because they don’t fit your idea of what’s actually happening out there in the real world - don’t read my posts.

Or if you do, show why these stories can’t possibly be correct, rather than asking me for information you know I can’t disclose.

You don’t prove anything about whether or not what I’ve said is true by asking me silly questions.

Andrew

so you concede the point, I take it?

I like the way you shift the goalposts rather than admitting error. Very stylish.

People buy cars everyday which can go twice as fast as they’re legally allowed to travel. Judging from the ads on TV, this is a major selling point.

Ask them why they do that, and you might get an idea as to why they like the idea of faster broadband.

(Hint: if you have more performance capability than you can actually use, you have better performance full stop).

An 18 year old souping up his old Holden obviously has a better grasp of this subject than you do.

Wallaby says:

11:24am | 30/11/10

“Woman lives less than 5 k from the tower” What tower? Does it even belong to the telco she is with? You really should have at least a vague understanding of the technology before you start lecturing on the subject.

HappyCynic says:

11:48am | 30/11/10

@Andrew

The only reason why the speed limit for a car on the road is 100km is because of the safety freaks and their whinging.  The analogy doesn’t apply to technology (unless you can point to a reason that’s not moronic as to why it’s safer to have slow internet).

And the question is less about need and more about potential.  Optic fibre won’t need upgrading when internet speeds increase again (and they will) on the other hand wireless does need constant upgrading.

Personally I support the wireless policy of the Coalition I think its a great idea, but I want it to be available on top of a decent wired connection so I can have both options available to me for the best possible technological solutions.  The Coalition keeps bleating about competition but have refused to provide any real solutions.

Also the short-term cost is irrelevant when compared to the long-term profitability of the project over the next 20 or 30 years.  Is it really that wrong to have a long-term infrastructure solution installed in the 21st Century?  If today’s politicians existed 100 years ago, roads would never have been built, nor would electricity grids or dams, or powerstations, or rail, ports, airports etc.

Where it isn’t profitable for private enterprises to build infrastructure there should be a mandate on governments to build it instead.

MarK says:

11:59am | 30/11/10

Peresphone put up or shut up.

I want the address of the tower and the ISP and generic details not the persons name. We already know it is in Sophies electorate. Give me the tower and I will help troubleshoot

What are you trying to hide?

persephone says:

12:08pm | 30/11/10

MarK

you’re getting tedious.

You can shoot down my contention (that increased use of wireless lessens its performance) without knowing those details.

You know perfectly well I won’t give you any more information than I have, and that continuing to bully me about it won’t make me.

You’re simply trying to avoid the point of my story, by clouding the issue.

Nice argumentative technique, but silly approach.

I like using stories from real life to illustrate what I mean. I realise, by doing so, that that’s all they are: stories which have been told to me. I don’t expect anyone to take them as clincher arguments.

Why you get obsessed with trivia like the location of the tower instead of the substance of the story is beyond me.

Bruce says:

12:30pm | 30/11/10

MarK, you should ask persephone out for a date…sounds like you would really hit it off

MarK says:

12:57pm | 30/11/10

@Bruce

Would be happy to although getting the address of the restaurant would be a chore it seems

John Pollard says:

01:22pm | 30/11/10

Ah!, the Speed of Light furfie. Fibre does NOT transmit at the speed of light - laws of physics preclude that completely. The index of refraction of a silica cable (fibre) is around 1.5 compared to a vacuum, hence max speed is 60-65% speed of light. By the way if its all about speed lets get back to the mainframe computer, they are the fastest computers afterall. By the way, the Hong Kong ‘wireless’ is using LTE, not Wi-Fi, and is a microwave based technology that right now is capable of delivering 1Gbps. It is broadband capable and can be successfully used for back-haul. In much the same way WiMAX, another micro-wave based technology, delivers similar capability. Sharing the bandwidth happens on all communication technologies - fibre slows as well as usage increases - it just happens further back in the network. Security actually has little to do with the form of transmission - any wireless environment can be protected as well as a cable environment. I can ‘see’ internet traffic just as easily ‘sitting’ on a sniffer in a cabled environment as I can looking at Wi-Fi transmissions. Cease the BS.

Freeman says:

02:16pm | 30/11/10

Whoah,
Persphone accusing someone else of being tedious? that’s rich. This from someone who defended the insulation debarcle long after the goverment had declared it a shambles and rushes to the defence of brand labor at the slightest criticism.

So pers, since you have all the answers;
1) exactly what programmes are there that hospitals and business have now or will have in the future DEPEND on the NBN and its much spruiked data speeds?
2) what will the cost of these data packages be to households?

3) why would households take these data packes when most households don’t take the most expensive data packages as it is. (telstras originally overpriced NEXT G being a great example)

As I see it there is much other vital infrastructure that has been neglected by state goverments that should be imporved before we blow 40+billion on luxuries such as super fast broadband to households.

Tator says:

02:21pm | 30/11/10

Persephone
“Thus optic fibre, which can transport information at the speed of light, will always be faster and more efficient than radio waves, which can’t”
obviously not au fait with the laws of physics and the nature of radio waves, which are part of the electromagnetic spectrum just as light is, just a different wavelength and actually the photons travel at the same speed ie at the speed of light.

The NASA Goddard Centre describes Electromagnetic radiation:
Electromagnetic radiation can be described in terms of a stream of photons, which are massless particles each traveling in a wave-like pattern and moving at the speed of light. Each photon contains a certain amount (or bundle) of energy, and all electromagnetic radiation consists of these photons. The only difference between the various types of electromagnetic radiation is the amount of energy found in the photons. Radio waves have photons with low energies, microwaves have a little more energy than radio waves, infrared has still more, then visible, ultraviolet, X-rays, and ... the most energetic of all ... gamma-rays.

simon says:

04:18pm | 30/11/10

Your negative arguments about wireless are becoming very tedious. Any wireless limitation you bleat about have been largely overcome, 4G LTE wireless is the go and will deliver at least 100mbits, no doubt about it. This technology makes fixed line fibre obsolete overnight. I agree fibre the backbone, but thats where you should stop.

persephone says:

08:19am | 30/11/10

Brilliant argument, Mick.

You’ve convinced me.

I’m over the days when you had to back what you said with, you know, facts and stuff.

The Badger says:

09:37am | 30/11/10

The LNP is a turd that just won’t stand up to any more polishing attempts.

Those that keep trying to polish it are just splattering themselves with poo, while the rest of us are increasingly embarrassed for them.

So please stop now, before we have to apply the creosote to you.

got your mnemonics confused.

MarK says:

09:43am | 30/11/10

”  I’m over the days when you had to back what you said with, you know, facts and stuff.”

Peresphone. I agree 100% with you. Since we are on the same page lets revisit your earlier post.

What’s the address of that underperforming wireless tower please.

What plan has this “person” in Sophie’s electorate got. What provider?

What hardware is he/she running?

Can he/she provide screenshots of speed tests with the clock as proof of time?

Does this person have kids that come home and use the net after school thus limiting speed of her connection internally?

Doers this person regularly go over their quota?

Does this person have an ISP that throttles them?

What applications is this person using that a drop in line speed is noticeable?

How does this effect what she is doing?

Is the plan this person is on acceptable and suitable for their need?

I fully agree.

Open the curtains and let the sunshine in. Lets all help you solve Sophie’s constituents problem shall we. Let it not be said that anecdotal evidence will get in the way of a thorough investigation.

We need the facts. I have the need to troubleshoot. Indulge me.

persephone says:

10:08am | 30/11/10

MarK

There is a difference between providing facts to back up a broad statement like Mick’s and disclosing personal details of one of Sophie’s constituents.

I can say the problems she refers to are common to wireless users. They’re known deficiencies of the technology.

I can provide you heaps of evidence for that.

MarK says:

11:53am | 30/11/10

I want an address of the tower and generic information that could not possibly be used the find the person.

What are you trying to hide pers?

Give out the information.

Open the curtains and let the sunshine in.

I will help troubleshoot the problem or show you why it is not the technology that is the limiting factor.

The limitations of many things are “well known” but you demand more from me.

Quid pro quo

Damocles says:

02:19pm | 30/11/10

Right on Super D and may the noose be tight and their corpse swing high and long. Maybe we should put a wooden stake through their blackened hearts as well just to make sure they’re dead, dead, dead!

TChong says:

10:07am | 30/11/10

Scarneck, the “Gosh, Aww Gee , folks are dumb where I come from” is senator Sophies schtick.
Any policies, ideas of any type from the Shadow Minister of Innovation.?
Nup, because as she concedes she knows very little.
After all nothing innovative about a proposed NBN, ( the LNP trogs reckon) so why should Brandene Mirabella ( or her staff writing this piece ) have any clues . ?

Sherlock says:

09:48am | 30/11/10

The NBN proposes a speed of 1 gigabit per second, which is 10 times faster.(persephone: 7.31am)

Well that’s great but the obvious question is do we need it? I’m pulling up[ to 17mbs from local servers and that’s plenty fast for me.

BTW persephone what sites do you normally visit and where are they?  65% of my internet surfing is on overseas servers (and that’s not counting Australian sites hosted on the much cheaper OS servers).

Your 1gb a second web speed will only go as far as the waters edge and after that it’s up to whatever the cable can supply. I’m currently getting less that 3mbs from OS servers and I wonder what will happen when NBN customers get extra speed and bandwidth. It will be more people trying to download large files from OS. More people sharing the cable equals lesser speeds.

Frankly I think we should be going wireless. I think it’s lunacy to have a fixed line system when portable devices are becoming the norm. Eight years from now wireless systems will be far superior to what is now available and we’d have just spent $43b (which will end up being $100b plus) on an outdated fixed system.

Frankly I’m hoping it does get built. It will become known as Labor’s folly. A perfect example of why Labor doesn’t work and will be the thing people point to everything they consider electing a Labor government again

Andrew says:

10:10am | 30/11/10

Pers, the official NBN website says the NBN will “deliver speeds upwards of 100 MB/s” not 1GB/s. 1 GB is 1000 MB. So you’re wrong, feel free to visit the site http://nationalbroadbandnetwork.net.au/what-is-the-national-broadband-network-nbn-all-about/ and check for yourself.

Epic fail.

Oh and please stop telling this government has a mandate. What a joke.

MarK says:

10:27am | 30/11/10

No private home will EVER need a gigabit.

The hardware alone to handle that bandwidth is not readily available in Harvey Norman you know?

Seriously all this gigabit stuff is fine. The most amazing thing is that people swallowed the line that “they discovered” out of the blue that fibre optics could accommodate a gig connection.

It was laughable. The information was available for years on wikipedia. It is a known fact. Hell I knew it from reading. It is not some “OMFG look how good this is we never knew it thing”.

There is no private application that needs it. 100mb is fine to all your direct streaming of audio video etc etc etc. In fact it is more than enough. 12mb is fine.

Your point is moot.

“And the legislation you’re bitching about was supported by Telstra”

Explained above. They are getting about a third of their market capitalisation as cash for getting rid of a recurrent service liability that costs them money, access to some assets and scrapping of depreciated assets. Sol could not have wished for more.

Ahhh democracy.

Release the report then.

No one is against the “NBN” per se. What they are against is the cost if it is unnecessary.

Please do get with the program. Remember this bill that was passed by the senate had NOTHING to do with the NBN.

Here is a short of Conroy caught out saying this. Or is it? What story are you guys running today?

http://video.news.com.au/1649389709/Conroy-Joyce-lock-horns-on-NBN

Seriously you need to research this more pers. You know very little about this subject.

I love how you refer to democracy and then choose to ignore the checks and balances that this government set up under Infrastructure Australia.

Why the hell would you embark on the most expensive infrastructure project in Australia and ignore your own guidelines.

http://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/function.aspx

http://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/function_full.aspx

This governments hypocrisy is on full display

And why.

Political expediency.

They are backed into a corner. To retreat from the NBN will be the ultimate capitulation. The final nail in the coffin.

What we are left with is a government willing to do the ultimate pork barrel. $60billion later they will have delivered a promise taht began as a $4.7billion promise.

It is merely the continuation of power they are after. They have no valid case to build it at this cost. They also have no politically palatable way to back down.

What a farce.

The Badger says:

10:44am | 30/11/10

Andrew
They have committed to 1 gigabyte per second. Use a search engine and you will find it.
You do know what a search engine is don’t you?
If you are going to continue to post nonsense about the NBN, at least try to keep up.

persephone says:

10:51am | 30/11/10

Sherlock

according to the majority of those elected to Parliament, experts in the field, experts from the areas of health and education, yes we do.

You may think differently if, for example, you have a stroke and have the choice of travelling an hour each way for treatment or having your session conducted in your own home, with the instructor interacting with you remotely (already being trialled in areas with high speed broadband), or want your Xrays to be sent directly to your doctor’s office from the hospital (I had an Xray at a hospital around the corner from my doctor’s office. The Xray image was available as a digital file within seconds, but it took five days to get to my doctor’s, as such files are - at present - too large for existing broadband to handle).

And the NBN complements and improves wireless, firstly by delivering a better quality signal to a fixed point (from whence it can be beamed via wireless) and secondly by freeing up wireless space so that the airwaves aren’t so cluttered.

Andrew

the mandate I refer to is that held by the combined Labor, Greens, and independents, and relates specifically to the NBN, which they all supported going into the election.

At no time have I used the word ‘mandate’ in reference to the government.

I am using it here for a specific policy which these MPs all took to the election as part of their platform.

Thus it is entirely accurate to say that there is a mandate for the NBN.

BTW, your link does not provide the info you say it does. I’m not sure it’s anything to do with the real NBN site, which is

http://www.nbnco.com.au/

In particular, this page answers many of the questions posed by posters here:

http://www.nbnco.com.au/wps/wcm/connect/main/site-base/resources/about-nbn-co/faqs

The Badger says:

11:11am | 30/11/10

I love it
mark and the coalition want us to have a broadband network based on what Harvey Norman has in stock

Not only that, if mark doesn’t have an application that requires 100’s of megabits of bandwidth, or can’t imagine why anyone like for example Defence, Health or Business would need fast broadband than the NBN is not necessary.
dovetails well into the I ain’t got no computer, soes I don’t need to broadband argument.

I find it amazing the credibility people like this will sacrifice for bankrupt political ideology

MarK says:

11:49am | 30/11/10

Dear me Badger I really get to you don’t I

So much so that your reading comprehension goes out the window.

Read it again I said

“no private application” needs it.

Private. FTTH is what we are talking. This is what put the price up from $4.7billion to $60billion.

Please also provide me with the list of gigabyte capable hardware we can all access and use Badger.

Business, military etc etc etc all can use more bandwidth. I agree.

I am for the NBN as stated many many times.

I will be the first to sign up.

I however am concerned about the cost. Deeply concerned.

Don’t go off on a tangent without understanding what is being spoken about. Play the ball not the man seriously

Oh @pers - this is a lie

“The Xray image was available as a digital file within seconds, but it took five days to get to my doctor’s, as such files are - at present - too large for existing broadband to handle).”

There is basically no file size that is too big for current broadband to handle. There are certain limitations with file sizes that can emailed due to an ISP’s own internal restrictions and there are certain file sizes that cannot be handled by various disk formats (FAT32 etc etc - but this hsould have no bearing on image files). This is not a limitation of the current broadband infrastructure we have. These are artificially imposed limits of either hardware or IPS’s internal policies.

There are also various file sizes that are limited to the media they are transferred to for delivery such as CD 700mb, DVD 4.7gb. But with the advent of cheap USB thumb drives capacity is no longer an issue.

Bottom line is this.

If the file could be made into a digital image the current broadband over copper we have can deliver the file.

If your ISP blocks it because of size via email servers it can be delivered by hard copy - if it takes 5 days for someone to walk around the corner as you described then I suggest you ask administration in your hospital what the hell is happening. I would also ask the Gillard government where are the improvements to the health system as promised. It could have been mailed quicker. I am sure they still deliver mail.

Or it could be sent via a torrent, FTP, newsgroups, usent etc etc etc.

All of these things are available now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Brain_CT_scan.jpg

Here is a digital ct scan image.

It is a jpg file.

Is it your contention this can not be sent electronically now?

PS I rang my local xray centre. They are happy to provide me with all my xrays on a cd. I sadi how many can fit on a cd? They said they don’t know - it has never been an issue.

700mb of data can be sent over dial up if needs be.

Please, please stop this anecdotal lying.

You are wrong on so many points about where the tech is and will be it is scary.

TimB says:

12:11pm | 30/11/10

@ Badger

At least we have credibility. You do not. We’ve already asked you to imagine these benefits that you’re so certain will exist. You haven’t. You just keep claiming that they exist. Your arguments are based on faith alone.

Persephone makes an attempt by giving examples of medical applications. Both of which are terrible.

If you have a serious stroke and require some sort of operation, no amount of broadband in the world is going to help you. The doctor needs to be *there*. Not issuing instructions through a video link.

Even if the situation is a relatively minor one that can be handled with simpel verbal instructions, you still don’t need a gigabit of speed to be able to provide a video link. We have that technology now.

Her other example is her X-rays which apparently can’t be sent using current technology. You’ll excuse me if I don’t believe this either. There is no way in hell an X-ray takes up more space than say…an entire HD movie. Or an entire season of a TV show. We’re talking gigabytes of data there.
E-Rays are merely 2D pictures. Even given high detail & resolution, you’re still not going to hit anywhere near a gigabyte.

Sorry guys you’ll have to do much better.

Sherlock says:

12:19pm | 30/11/10

Persephone

For every one of your “experts” that says it’s a good idea I can find one that says it’s the biggest waste of money ever.

persephone says:

01:50pm | 30/11/10

No, Sherlock, you can’t, because anyone who knows what they’re talking about - and doesn’t have a vested interest in promoting their own business- backs the NBN.

MarK

your reading comprehension is dismal. I was talking about rehabilitation after strokes.

Here’s the link:

http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2010/064

(There’s lots more on this one, because it’s opening up a very exciting field of medicine, but that one will do).

And no, wireless cannot effectively deliver big chunks of data. Again, you’re welcome to provide actual proof that I’m wrong about Xrays, and I’m willing to be convinced - I was puzzled as to why it was going to take so long for my doctor (who, as I said, was just around the corner) to get the images. If there’s another explanation, I’d be glad to hear it.

TimB says:

03:08pm | 30/11/10

Here’s your alternative explanation Perse:

Your doctor is incompetent.

As for your argument that you claim no-one has disproven…

With regards to your X-rays yes we have. They can be delivered on current technology, no problems. Like I said, your doctor clearly has issues.

With regards to your vague “wireless cannot effectively deliver big chunks of data” argument, (which incidently is incidently completely different from what you were saying about your X-rays), you will need to define that argument a bit better. before claiming we cannot disprove it.

What is your definition of “effective”? How large a chunk are we talking?

Because I can tell you right now, if you still mean your X-ray data, then yes, you are wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. Wireless can deliver it effectively.

Sherlock says:

04:06pm | 30/11/10

persephone says: 12:50pm | 30/11/10
No, Sherlock, you can’t, because anyone who knows what they’re talking about - and doesn’t have a vested interest in promoting their own business- backs the NBN

Oh come on! So everyone who disagrees with you is just plain wrong or has some sort of financial incentive to lie.

That’s the worst argument I heard for a while.

It’s exactly the same argument the left tried on the global warming story and look where that got them.

MarK says:

04:34pm | 30/11/10

I provided the proof pers.

You just choose to ignore it

Wireless can deliver big chunks of information. Your comments make no sense from a technical or a layman’s point of view.

http://store.apple.com/au/browse/home/shop_ipod/family/apple_tv

There is an example of a common piece of hardware delivering large chunks of data via wireless.

So lets see

“You may think differently if, for example, you have a stroke and have the choice of travelling an hour each way for treatment or having your session conducted in your own home, with the instructor interacting with you remotely (already being trialled in areas with high speed broadband), or want your Xrays to be sent directly to your doctor’s office from the hospital (I had an Xray at a hospital around the corner from my doctor’s office. The Xray image was available as a digital file within seconds, but it took five days to get to my doctor’s, as such files are - at present - too large for existing broadband to handle”

That is what you said

Then you said

“your reading comprehension is dismal. I was talking about rehabilitation after strokes”

Let me highlight the good bit

“...or want your Xrays to be sent directly to your doctor’s office from the hospital (I had an Xray at a hospital around the corner from my doctor’s office. The Xray image was available as a digital file within seconds, but it took five days to get to my doctor’s, as such files are - at present - too large for existing broadband to handle”“

Yes you were talking about xrays as well

Please read what you write. Then read what I wrote. Answered it fully.

And the link

You know what it is talking about. Delivering rehab via a gaming console.

It is talking about the nintendo Wii.

It is a gaming console that already hooks up to the net. I play Monster Hunter online with my kids. I play people from overseas on various other platforms already. Wii, PS3, XBox - got them all. And of course PC based too

YOU DO NOT NEED A NBN WITH FIBRE TO DO THIS

It is happening already.

Look up WoW

Starcraft

MW2

CoD

There is nothing to stop it happening now. It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise

http://us.wii.com/connect/

There is an article to help you with the “high tech” nature of this service the Wii offers

It has been going on for years. The NBN will not enable this

I already download a lot of games using the inbuilt wifi on the wii and a home router.

So back to your link about a “huge” leap forward in stroke management that the NBN will gove. Well sorry that is deliverable now. Wow. The real question is why the spin tying it to the NBN instead of stating the truth?

Look at the article. Here I will quote it

““I thank Mr Quigley for his generous donation and I look forward to the project getting started when the NBN is up and running in Kiama Downs and Minnamurra next year.”“

It is about the donation. Not the fact the NBN makes it possible. They just tied it together for a media opportunity. It is a travesty it is not occurring now if it is not. No need to wait for the photo opportunity and spin connecting the NBN to it.

Come over to my place. Tonight I am gaming with my guild. Four are Americans. One is in Japan. There are a couple in the middle-east on active duty. We have Kiwis as well as east and west coast Aussies - and South Aussies and Tassies as well although we don’t like talking with the Tasmanians they are weird.

We will play concurrently on a US based server in real time with hi res graphics using ventrilo to communicate across the world with no latency (less than a second - much less) all over copper here in Australia. To ensure you understand we play as a team. All of our avatars interacting in real time. All of this now.

The NBN is not magic.

Here is my friends and I in a LK hardmode kill. This was fraps’ed by an Aussie player. I am in the raid.

This is what is capable now and by no means is it cutting edge. Of course applications like this can be used for rehab now

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiYO7UAAldI

persephone says:

08:04pm | 30/11/10

So you can’t find a single expert which fits the criteria, Shylock?

Why don’t you just say so?

Feral Wombat says:

11:23am | 30/11/10

Agreed. I want my NBN!

Ryan says:

12:26pm | 30/11/10

And there you have it, the sum total of the mentality of a Labor voter, me, me, me, stuff the roads and infrastructure, stuff the children that will have to pay for the debt as long as I am ok Jack, stuff you all!

bruno says:

12:50pm | 30/11/10

And i want a formula 1 car they won’t have to repave the roads or get rid of speed bumps or anything i can drive it on the road now :/

Feral Wombat says:

01:36pm | 30/11/10

Sorry bruno, you’ll have to wait for the next federal Liberal government for that one. And even then you will have to join the queue behind magic rain machines, bailouts for the incompetently run companies of close relatives, ethanol plants that are never built, helicopters that will never fly, tanks the size of houses that the Yanks want to dump, baby bonuses and other middle class welfare. Good luck!

simon says:

03:51pm | 30/11/10

You could have 4G LTE wireless with 100mbits right now, as being rolled out around the rest of the world. However our government is currently trying to stifle it because it will make the NBN obsolete overnight. Don’t believe me, then type in 4G LTE wireless into google and have a read. This is the technology we should embrace. We are currently the international laughing stock by moving backwards to fixed line fibre. In 10 years time everything will be wireless!!!!

N says:

04:31pm | 30/11/10

...And herein lies the problem with the electorate; happy to get shiny new toys, no concern of the cost and to inept to question the need for it. Understand the technology, the “solution” and the boundaries Larry and I guarantee you won’t be quite as happy, perhaps indifferent at best.

Rosie says:

11:24am | 30/11/10

BLOCK it! Could it be it is a block head idea to think we the nation could afford to spend billions of $$$$$$$ on something that many of us do not want and Sophie is looking after our interests.

If Gillard wasn’t up to her usual antics she could have saved the Taxpayer the huge cost you are implying and extend Parliament time on Friday and a decision would have been made then. No, because mainly Gillard couldn’t wait to get to Melbourne, her home town, use her PM status and campaign for the Brumby Govt. This was more important to her than trying to save Taxpayer’s money or the NBN because she had a lot riding on the Victorian Elections.

So please nosthow don’t give us this nonsense!

The Badger says:

09:45am | 30/11/10

Peter
Thank you for telling us how you use the internet and showing us what a visionary you are.  I am amazed at the myriad of possibilities you have envisaged that can be enabled by the NBN.

Since you brought it up, what is the legacy for the 16 billion dollars worth of fighter jets we are buying (without a cost benefit analysis by the way)?

Better stick to eating pumpkins or downloading them

TimB says:

10:27am | 30/11/10

Badger if you’re so brilliantly clever, why don’t you tell US what possibilities you envisage can be done with these speeds?

I await your response with baited breath.

As for our fighter jets, I believe their “legacy” as you put it will be to help protect the country from any potential aggression.

Cost benefit Analysis:

Cost : $16 Billion.
Benefit: Contribution towards the goal of not being invaded.

Cost of said benefit: You know what, I’ll let you decide what price you want to put on your own country.

In the meantime stop putting up silly furphy arguments.

MarK says:

10:29am | 30/11/10

“what is the legacy for the 16 billion dollars worth of fighter jets we are buying”

Worst argument ever.

Please try harder.

Peter says:

10:36am | 30/11/10

Badger
Perhaps you can tell me how YOU are going to benefit with 100mbps and what amazing things it will enable for YOU? Oh and please don’t include any entertainment activities like playing online games or downloading porn.
You could also refrain from using defense spending as a comparative as it makes you sound juvenile.

Colin J Ely says:

11:14am | 30/11/10

Perhaps the Badger can tell us of the cost benefit analysis that Mr Chamberlain performed in the 1930’s when with Herr Hitler re-arming he neglected to spend any money on his defence force and gleefully returned waving a bit of paper shouting ‘peace in our time!’ The only thing the paper was good for was wiping his bum after the bombs began dropping on London!

Andrew says:

09:58am | 30/11/10

So what you’re saying is: “Coalition bad, Labor good.”

Thanks for the heads up. Really clever post. What a contribution you’ve made to the discussion.

Dash says:

10:01am | 30/11/10

That would be the Morons that paid off $98billion worth of ALP debt Phil. The same morons that were able to deliver consisitent surplus budgets and leave over $20billion for Rudd to spend in half an hour on handouts to dead people! That would be the same Morons that delivered the largest tax reform this country has seen since 1936. The same Morons who restored Australia’s AAA rating, income tax reductions for 5 consecutive years, produced GDP growth greater than the rest of the Western world and the Financial Services Reform Act which protected us from the GFC.

Compare that to your Morons who have delivered nothing but waste (insulation fiasco), rorts (School halls) and lies (grocery choice, fuelwatch, cheaper better childcare, more affordable housing, laptops, ETS, we’ll turn the boats around, we wont touch the private health tax rebate, there will be no carbon tax etc). Not to mention record levels of foreign debt, inflationary pressure (carbon tax, expansionary fiscal policy) and increased taxes.

I prefer the conservative morons to the ALP morons Phil!

Peter says:

10:02am | 30/11/10

Phil, Ignorance walks side by side with Gullible and it is you and the other starry eyed idealists who support this colossal waste of our money with complete disregard for the tax payers dollar, who are truly ignorant and gullible.There a multitudes of grand projects that could be built today with huge benefits to the Australian people if we want to disregard costs but like all good socialist governments this grand plan is designed purely for its symbolic nature and spin appeal with lines like “Bringing us into the 21st century” or “Connecting all Australians” which idiots and dreamers respond to.Most Australians only need the internet to email ,browse web sites and download the odd file.How is increasing speed for them going to benefit Australia as a whole?Surely you are intelligent enough to agree that not everyone will need mega speed and that the cost of giving those that don’t need it could be better spent on other worthwhile projects?If you can’t get your head around that then perhaps it is you that is too dumb and perhaps blind as well.

MarK says:

11:09am | 30/11/10

Errrrr.

The coalition is actually against the web filter

Daryl says:

01:21pm | 30/11/10

Did the AWB cost the taxpayer $43billion? And what does the AWB have to do with the fact that this joke of an ALP government can’t deliver anything it promises to the electorate? The federal ALP makes the NSW ALP look like geniuses!

persephone says:

11:04am | 30/11/10

Shane

I’m sure they’ll do that, as soon as they’re elected.

As for Newton and gravity!! We all know that’s a leftist conspiracy to keep the people down!

Rise up against gravity!!

Colin J Ely says:

11:22am | 30/11/10

I was always under the impression that radio waves, like all other forms of EMF, such as light, moved at the same speed viz 186,000mps?

The Badger says:

11:32am | 30/11/10

The coalition will give this a go
Perhaps in Melbourne as a test case

Wallaby says:

12:56pm | 30/11/10

You don’t need to repeal the laws of physics. Just have a basic understanding.

Sorry to burst your bubble but light and radio wave are elecromagnetic radiation. Both travel at the speed of light (approx 300,000 km/s) in a vacuum. Light travels through a typical optic fibre at around 66% of the speed of light. Radio travels through air at very close to the speed of light. Sorry but on a purely speed of transmission basis, radio is faster than optic fibre.

Syl says:

04:47pm | 30/11/10

Im assuming you dont realise that radio waves and light move at the same speed?
And in terms of data transmission through a cable, the light is slowed down due to the medium it is travelling through (optical fibre)
I dont mean to burst your bubble but….... If your going to state the laws of physics as your argument, at least know what they are.

I am, as of yet, undecided on the NBN.  We need new internet structure certainly, Im just not convinced this is the best solution.  It seems an awful lot of money to be spending when there MAY be alternatives.
Id like to see the alternatives and what they offer before I blindly follow this one.

acker says:

12:34pm | 30/11/10

Yeah I’m sure all those tired old city based arguments were rolled out prior to the building of roads for horseless carriages as well ...Bitumen !!! ..why would a Horse need Bitumen !!!

Syl says:

05:19pm | 30/11/10

Have you used WiiMax?  Or 4G?

I am on WiiMax and it is faster than ADSL2+ and very stable.

Wireless doesnt just consist of Wi-Fi and 3G…

And even though we may decide that wireless isnt suitable (though this hasntbeen proven yet, anectodal evidence is not proof), doesnt automatically mean that the proposed NBN is the best solution.

I have yet to see a compelling argument that 36bill, 48bill or 60bill (whatever the hell the number is today) is best spent on this infrastructure, and as such, remain undecided.

persephone says:

11:49am | 30/11/10

NGB

suggest you ask them about the NBN. If they’re anything like my son, that’ll start a glowing recital of its benefits which will last for at least ten minutes.

Kids understand this kind of technology.

MarK says:

12:25pm | 30/11/10

Get your son to come on the boards and tell us then.

Mine think it is cool they will be able voice chat all the better than they do now. They will also be able to download stuff quicker.

Gaming pings might improve but doubtful because a lot of the servers they (and I) play on are state side.

That is all.

Lets see what your son has to say. I would be interested hearing from him of the benefits that will flow.

BobM says:

01:23am | 01/12/10

Persephone, you’re a leftie teacher - therefore your son has been brainwashed to believe that anything Labor does is wonderful. Of course he’s going to think it’s great, just from the way you’re spouting on about it.  You sure have done a lot of blogging today for a teacher….sickie today?

TimB says:

12:21pm | 30/11/10

“The NBN is always going to be faster reaching speeds equal to the speed of light which radio waves cannot/will not ever reach. “

Bwahahaha.

Physics fail. Listen to you people. “Wireless can’t be as fast as fibre optic cable because that’s light speed!”

The definition of the radio waves you claim cannont reach lightspeed:

“Radio waves are a type of electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths in the electromagnetic spectrum longer than infrared light. Like all other electromagnetic waves, they travel at the speed of light “.

And you expect us to take your pro-NBN arguments seriously. You don’t even understand the science behind what you’re spruiking

Good grief.

John POllard says:

01:26pm | 30/11/10

Fibre does NOT transmit at the speed of light. Laws of Physics will not allow it. Index of refraction of a silica cable (fibre) is 1.5 so at best fibre delivers 60-65% speed of light. Radio waves are potentially a faster transmission layer.

Wallaby says:

01:37pm | 30/11/10

TimB. I hate to burst your bubble mate but light is also electromagnetic energy. It just uses different frequencies to radio waves and both travel at light speed in a vacuum. Light travels at about 66% light speed in a typical fibre. Radio travels at approx 98% light speed through air. Before you deride people about their knowledge of physics you should be certain of your own.

Epic Fail for you.

Wallaby says:

01:44pm | 30/11/10

TimB. Apologies. I missed your quotes. Didn’t realise you were giving it to someone else. Perhaps I should use my glasses when reading tThe Punch.

MarK says:

01:16pm | 30/11/10

No you don’t.

Did an external degree easily with very little in the way of fast broadband/internet.

It is not necessary.

Easier, well yeh.

Better, not sure to be honest.

Required, hell no

Your last points are spot on though.

I agree we need a better broadband network. I just think we have not looked at it properly and now because of political necessity are locked into a plan that may not give us value for money and meet the stated aims it was up for.

The Badger says:

01:07pm | 02/12/10

mark
the quality of the external degree show in your posts

it was comedy wasn’t it?

simon says:

03:44pm | 30/11/10

Jess, 4G LTE wireless has data limits higher than what the NBN will offer us here in Australia. They are achieving 200mbits in trials in Hong Kong as we speak. This talk about wireless having limits is just rubbish. Technology has changed my friend, fibre to the home is now obsolete.

The Badger says:

03:47pm | 01/12/10

Rubbish simon

8 - 12 Mbps

Show me otherwise.

persephone says:

08:02pm | 30/11/10

MarK

why do you NEED any of that?

1. Bad luck. Stay needy.

2. You can google it. It’s the Defence HQ that was recently built outside Canberra. Didn’t go there, talked to one of the guys in charge of the fit out. I could tell you his name, but then I’d have to kill you.

3. He’s doing his homework, so I’m not going to disturb him. Stay needy.

4. I wish I knew. My understanding was that the file had to be manually delivered back to the radiology dept of the local regional hospital and then manually transferred to the doctor’s. I’m hoping the NBN will stop sillinesses such as this.

Don’t understand why you ‘need’ any of this or why I am required to give you information at all.

Get over yourself.

MarK says:

07:56am | 01/12/10

So from this we can only assume the following

1. The little homily about the person in Sophie’s electorate was made. Either that or pers does not want her friend to receive free troubleshooting. Or is it that the friend exists but the information as given was wrong.

2. Awesome. Kill me. You would be doing me a favour to be honest. At least I can make some enquiries now though - thanks for that

3. Your son goes to school and then does homework 24/7? I am sure he has a spare 10 minutes one day. Pop it on the open thread. Gosh…..I don’t expect him to drop everything

4.  This is what you said “(I had an Xray at a hospital around the corner from my doctor’s office. The Xray image was available as a digital file within seconds, but it took five days to get to my doctor’s, as such files are - at present - too large for existing broadband to handle).”

You made the assertion that the file was too big for our existing system to handle. I gave you oodles of evidence as to why this was false.

You choose to ignore it.

The NBN will not “fix” this. If anything Labor’s hospital reforms should as it is an admin problem. In other words you really do not understand the issues.

it is like the rehab announcement you linked from Conroy. Please do answer me there. You though the NBN would enable it. Actually it just hinges around a grant of money that went government—> NBN—> scheme. The announcement was political in so far as they attempted to dupe people to think the NBN “allows” things like this. I have clearly shown it doesn’t.

So pers basically we have come to the conclusion that you do not understand the technology either currently or with what the NBN “will do” or “allow”.

Such a shame.

Facts and things get in the way of a good ideological…...no stop that. It is not even an ideological argument. You are just a booster on simple party political lines flailing away with no information to back a point.

If your “frind” needs a hand with their network let The Punch know via email. I will be happy to help free of charge by the way.

Toodles

Tom says:

03:45pm | 30/11/10

Enough of yourvaccuous chanting Jane. We all endured these pathetic undergraduate slogans when Kevin07 hyped it up for his glorious ascent to power.

Let’s move on Jane. The alternatives are not NBN or snail mail and you know it. Lift your game Jane.

simon says:

03:41pm | 30/11/10

The rest of the world is going 4G LTE wireless with speeds over 100mbits. Yes, yes, it’s being rolled out in Europe, China, Japan and the USA as I type. Australia is now the international laughing stock for moving backwards to fixed line fibre. The Liberal plan was streets ahead of the Labor plan as it allows future technologies to evolve. By the time the Labor NBN is finished there will be very few individual people still using fixed line internet, they will all be using 4G LTE wireless internet. So Jane, you are just ranting and have absolutely no idea what you are talking about!!!!

Principal - Itty Bitty Machine Company says:

06:10pm | 30/11/10

BR - As a technical architect for the BIGGEST IT company on the planet, I have some rather unpleasant facts for the less technically minded, especially you.
“The NBN at most will deliver a 100Mbps connection to your home, allowing download speeds of 12MB”
wrong.
The theoretical download speed for a 100 Mbps connection FTTH is 100mbps. In fact, NBNCo has trialled and committed to 1 Gbps already.
As anyone technical would know these are theoretical speeds.  You cannot guarantee any speed because speed is conditional on many variables. Your settling on 12Mbps is just your opinion and has no basis in reality.
The rest of your comment is your ill informed opinion
Good luck with your architecture career.

Vuni says:

09:39pm | 30/11/10

@Principal

I believe BR is correct. 100Mb/s does translate to about 12MB/s as there are 8b(its) to a B(yte).

BR says:

04:15pm | 30/11/10

Thanks Vert, good to get an accolade from a fellow puncher for once! One of the biggest issues with the NBN is fibre being a principally core infrastructure medium. The problem with that, as many have mentioned in previous posts, are people nowadays want to be mobile. Take a look at the surge in sales for smart phones, tablet products and ultra portable notebooks. This tells me that society is moving away from being chained to a desk and plugged into a wall socket.

If we need an NBN solution (which is another argument), I think a hybrid of the two major political parties’ solutions would be most beneficial. Providing fibre to the home is a massive overkill and frankly a pointless and exorbitant endeavour.  For all those who think the NBN is what Australia needs and will be a resounding success I will leave you with this question;

If the NBN is to be such a success, why has no commercial company (Telstra for example) run with it themselves? After all, Telstra has a rather large amount of fibre in the ground already; I know there are runs of it under my street. Even with this infrastructure in place, they still don’t see the commercial need or ROI for something like this. Given they are a highly successful telco, I’d say they have a better gauge on the market than the government.

Mustela says:

05:33pm | 30/11/10

Judging other people by what you do on the internet?

small minds create big problems for themselves

Andrew says:

05:59pm | 30/11/10

Bobster, if this is indeed the case, and it is an ‘infrastructure project’, then it should have appeared in the budget as such.  However, it has appeared as a cost-neutral item, and will supposedly generate a return on investment.  Given this assertion, showing how this is to be done seems not only reasonable but mandatory.  Otherwise, there’s a $50 billion hole in the budget.  Oops.

But you raise another good point.  Roads, hospitals and school are certainly built at public expense.  But how much planning goes into them?  YEARS.  A detailed analysis is done of the demand for services, more studies are done as to how the money available can best be spent for the greatest effect, and only then is even a cursory design undertaken.  It is then reevaluated, studied some more, and finally, if the numbers seem to make sense, it is built.  Do you see 300,000 bed hospitals in Alice Springs - nope, didn’t think so.  Is there a 6-lane highway linking every outback town?  Nope, not today.  Why not?  Because the needs of those areas don’t warrant the money it would cost to build them.  Sure, it would be great if we could build 8 lane expressways all over the country, and have twice as many hospital beds as we currently require - but these things cost MONEY, which is a finite resource and should be treated as such.  Saying “broadband will be good for everybody” isn’t a good enough reason.  Hospitals are also good for everybody, but you don’t see one of those on every street corner.  More teachers are good for everybody, but again that’s not happening.  A cost-benefit analysis HAS to be done to show that the benefits of building the NBN are GREATER than the benefits that might be obtained by spending that money (billions of dollars, remember) in other areas.  Transport, schools, health, the homeless, border protection, defense, employment services, training, industry development, etc, etc, etc.  Then, and only then, if the benefits can justify the expense, build it.

Bobster says:

10:13am | 01/12/10

I actually agree with you but the Liberals are being disingenuous in their attempts to frame an analysis.

I’ve no problem with a cost benefit analysis but I am dead against it if it is to assess the benefits only in a financial context.

Does the cost justify the suggested benefits to business, health, education, agriculture and the regional economy? That’s something I’m interested to know.

Will the Government receive a financial return on its investment? This is irrelevent. Just as it would have been when the major interstate highways and railroads were built. Unfortunately, that is direction Liberal Party is, rather successively, trying to push the debate.

Steve Woy Woy says:

04:23am | 02/12/10

Well just a GST minute there folks I’ll have an AWB inquiry into this with a Telstra cost of shares for you all. You can get UP TO $100.00 dollars off all your connection fees too. ( I know some complained they only got $5.00 off but we did say up to $100.00 off ...a bit like up to 100 megabits per second…so yeah anyway moving right along) Now I will tell you no lie as true as throwing babes over board I sit here today and say “read my lips” the intelligences tells us there were machines of mass destruction boring channels and laying cables all over this country in the name of telecommunication. so It begs the simple question: why be so secretive?  it was a $10 billion per year cash cow for the owners…  and they sold it so we could all get a better deal from it and buy shares that were going to skyrocket out of this world well someone made money anyway so it was all very successful, a lot like the school flag poles and $5000.00 for a child…oh and one for the country too!! well the flimsy “business plan” summary relies on extremely optimistic take-up rates to justify its rubbery figure. Laughably, the Government is now claiming it will cost $10 million for the seeding programme and the same for the Murray river water things too.. The Government that managed to overspend $2 billion on trying to keep 1500 refugees out, of whom now all but a few are living in Australia very rubbery figures indeed. Not to mention the single refugee (and his cat) kept on Manus Island for 6 months at a cost of $23,000.00 a week to the taxpayer. The head of a company would not run a business like this where their national debt went from a mere $700 billion in 1997 up to $3.2 trillion by 2007 so how could we trust them with the NBN or any infrastructure at all I think we need to think more about this after all it’s taxpayers who will be figuratively left in the dark with their jugular exposed.

The Badger says:

03:48pm | 01/12/10

Right to the heart of the matter dave

The Badger says:

01:02pm | 02/12/10

These are the same idiots who get their news and adopt the opinion of A Bolt.