One of the justifications that the government uses for the roll-out of the $43 billion National Broadband Network is the desire by Australian householders to have access to better and faster landline services. However, a survey of the available data suggests that Australians are turning increasingly to mobile communications devices, and abandoning fixed lines.

Illustration: John Tiedemann

Mobile phone services have grown rapidly over the last 10 years. At the same time fixed-line telephone services have stagnated. This growth in the take up of the mobile phone has coincided with a rise in the number of household consumers who do not access to a fixed-line telephone service. The choice of not having a fixed-line telephone service seems to be driven by age and living arrangements.

Younger adults living in group households are most likely to go without this service and older adults in family households are most likely to retain the land line.

The take up of mobile phone services in the last ten years has been phenomenal. Data from the Parliamentary Library reveals that:

  • The number of mobile telephone services surpassed the number of fixed-line telephone services in 2000–01.
  • Between 1999–00 and 2009-10 the number of mobile phone services grew at an annual average rate of 11 per cent.
  • In this period the number of mobile phone services has almost tripled from 8 million to almost 22.5 million.

However, if you include all devices that are connected to mobile wireless broadband, via a dongle or data card connected to a computer, then the Australian Communications Media Authority (ACMA) counted 26 million mobile services in 2009–10; the number of fixed-line telephone services peaked at 11.7 million in 2003-04, and since 2003–04 the number of fixed-line telephone services has declined at an annual average rate of about two per cent.

In 2009–10 the number of fixed line services had declined to 10.6 million, about the same as the number of fixed-line services in operation 10 years previously.

Despite the fact the there are now more than enough mobile phones for every man, woman and child in Australia, not everyone has taken up the technology. Research by Roy Morgan, on behalf of ACMA, found that 85 per cent of the population aged 14 and over has a mobile phone. This up is from 79 per cent in 2005-06.

The take up of mobile phones is most prevalent amongst younger and the middle aged adults. For instance, persons aged 25-34 were most likely to own a mobile phone (93 per cent) and persons aged 65 and over least likely (66 per cent).

Market research by Roy Morgan, on behalf of ACMA, has found that proportion of household consumers, aged 14 and over, with access to a fixed-line telephone has declined significantly in recent years.

  • Between June 2005 and June 2010 the proportion of household consumers with access to a fixed-line service declined from 95 per cent to 86 per cent.
  • In June 2010 there were 2.3 million persons without access to a fixed-line telephone, up by 35 per cent from 1.7 million in 2009.

This trend is more noticeable among some demographic groups than others. There are quite marked differences in household consumers’ access to a fixed-line telephone by age and household type.

By age, younger adults are least likely to have a fixed-line telephone service. For instance only 67 per cent for persons aged 14 to 24 and 72 per cent for persons aged 25 to 34 have access to a fixed-line telephone at home. Older age groups are more likely to have a fixed line telephone service. For instance, 98 per cent for persons aged 65 and over have a fixed line telephone service at home.

By living arrangement, people living in a share house were least likely to have a fixed-line service and those living with a partner were most likely. Only 71 per cent of persons living in a share house had a fixed-line, compared with 94 per cent of persons living with a partner without children.

The Australian data reflects trends elsewhere. The Economist reported in August 2009 that an estimated 25 per cent of households in the USA rely entirely on mobile phones, a share that was expected to increase rapidly. “If the decline of the landline continues at its current rate, the last cord will be cut sometime in 2025,” reported the paper.

The increase in mobile phone use at the expense of fixed lines is likely to be replicated in coming years with computers, and new handheld, mobile devices, such as the iPad, grow in popularity.

This week’s announcement by Apple of its iCloud music service, with similar music services offered by Google and Amazon, demonstrates the trend towards mobile wireless devices at the cost of traditional fixed-line services.

On current trends, the final roll-out of the NBN will coincide with the demise of fixed lines to many households.

187 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Trojan says:

      11:39am | 11/06/11

      Kevin,

      This article is written by a person who obviously has no understanding of technology. What a shame.

      Fastest technology available for transmission of data is light (at least until we break Einsteins laws of relativity which is a long way away).

      If you are against the NBN you are against progress.

    • Denial says:

      11:49am | 11/06/11

      Does Phony Abbott know what the internet is? I bet he has someone turn on the PC for him. I should call it a comuter incase he thinks PC is for something else

    • Against the Man says:

      12:12pm | 11/06/11

      Wow john you just blew my mind…...............

    • nihonin says:

      12:21pm | 11/06/11

      John, at least the NBN is up to the usual standard of this government.  The only policy it seems to have is fail.  If the Darwin Awards people gave out an award for governance, ours would finally have a win.

    • Gerard says:

      02:43pm | 11/06/11

      Unfortunately, Conroy doesn’t qualify for a Darwin Award because he’s not dead yet.

    • Labors Leprosy says:

      02:53pm | 11/06/11

      The NBN,the BER,Home Insulation,Handouts and now someone at a Detention Centre has been diagnosed with LEPROSY,well done Labor,A pack of incompetent low life morons,John Faulkner will back me up on that

    • Steve Woy Woy says:

      04:22pm | 11/06/11

      The one trick pony ATM .... funny!!

    • Against the Man says:

      05:46pm | 11/06/11

      Funny, Steve but my ‘one’ trick seems to be kicking the ALP and its dwindling number of supports right where it hurts, ouch hope you can get it up for some Sat night woywoy action smile

      My hit them at the polls campaign seems to be working and I’m going to continue to encourage Australians everywhere to teach the immoral Gilltard and friends a good lesson at the polls!

      And is so nice to know that no one (including minority Steve) has any explanation for Labor’s follies or a counter argument to my link and that is fine by me…..too sweet, too funny!

    • Fiona says:

      06:50pm | 11/06/11

      How is it the govts. fault that someone got leprosy???

    • Steve Woy Woy says:

      06:38am | 12/06/11

      Actually the only trick I have noticed is that you seem to be a perfect parrot for the Party line, and only seem to be able to read articles that support your position.

      You can really teach the voters a lesson at the polls - why not teach them that the reason that health services are in such a state is the result of 3 terms of privation and neglect under Howard, who clearly didn’t seem to consider non-private health of any importance.

      There wouldn’t be any point in making a counter argument against your link because you already appear to have undergone the full indoctrination. Nevertheless I have researched not only the predominantly right-wing media, but also independently many other books and sources of information (except of course all of that information Johnny censored while he was in - and there is a great deal of it - what? who said cover-up?).

    • Against the Man says:

      09:24am | 12/06/11

      Steve this isn’t the party line, it is reality. I’m an Australian like many other Australians that are sick of waiting for results…....since 2007.

      Next blaming Howard for the State of health care is pointless. Because health care has gotten worse since 2007 but with billions wasted in all the wrong areas of health care no-reform. In other words Gilltard/Roxon have spent more to make health care worse. If you’ve read my previous link to the waste/mismanagement involved with the Super Clinics it would have given you a real wake up call to what is so wrong with health care under Labor!

      The reality is that the ALP is finished, the Rudd/Gilltard combo have destroyed a once credible party. And if you can’t grasp that reality Steven than the majority of us feel sorry for you…...

    • Chris L says:

      11:45am | 12/06/11

      “How is it the govts. fault that someone got leprosy??? ” - Good question Fiona, but don’t expect a logical answer. It’s the same as blaming the government for shoddy businesses ignoring the safety requirements put in place for the insulation scheme, or continuing to refer to the BER as a failure when the ANAO report and the Orgill report both conclude that is was a success.

      There are things to complain about with the current government, such as the wasteful stop-gaps of Grocery Watch and Fuel Watch, and the planned internet censorship, but I get the feeling people here are just firing off accusations without caring about their accuracy.

    • john says:

      10:32pm | 12/06/11

      @  Fiona says:

        06:50pm | 11/06/11

        How is it the govts. fault that someone got leprosy???

      Simple quarantine defence measures have failed for the same reason we have thousands die from flu each year in Australia from people bringing in new strains from overseas like swine fly, H1N1 etc etc. You can bring any disease you like into this country by, land sea or air.

      They don’t even bother spraying international flights, and sick people are “welcomed aboard”.

      Hospitals are now infected with drug resistant bacteria.  - and its the survival of the fittest. Post OP is Russian roulette.  Everyone else will die from mutant flu viruses & other super “bugs”, and the new E coli bug -  Its a biological arms race…..will you survive?

      Why would the government care about 1 person with leprosy? ...by the same token it is their fault. Demonstrates they are failing in their duty of care- to us- the people that voted for them.!!!

    • acotrel says:

      09:16am | 13/06/11

      @ATM
      ‘my ‘one’ trick seems to be kicking the ALP and its dwindling number of supports right where it hurts’

      Why don’t you tell us about all the major infrastructure projects the LNP has intiated? - luddites!

    • Brian Taylor says:

      06:51am | 11/06/11

      who said we needed NBN in the first place Kevin?
      its being forced on us, if we don’t want it conroy is telling us we’ll have to pay a fee for it anyway but agree with your story well done

    • Chris L says:

      01:18pm | 11/06/11

      Just like roads and public transport is forced on us, even if we don’t use them. Damn gubbermint should keep their hands off my horse and buggy!

    • acotrel says:

      07:00am | 11/06/11

      The Sydney Harbour Bridge, and the Snowy Hydro Scheme arrived ‘just when we didn’t need them any more’ ?  When is the LNP going to develope some VISION?  When is the LNP going to spend some public money on the infrastructure needed to boost and underwrite Australia’s future? -
      Kevvy you are a Luddite! 

    • Sender says:

      09:47am | 11/06/11

      Kevvy powers his house from the seat of his bicycle.
      He uses tin cans to communicate with his electorate.

    • Jim says:

      09:53am | 11/06/11

      Neither of those two projects were implemented or funded by the ALP.

    • Gregg says:

      09:54am | 11/06/11

      Come on Acca, are you now saying the coathanger and the SMHE are worthless!, there being considerably more value to them as basic infrastructure than the pie in the sky NBN.
      You are again sounding worse than any pollie and btw you will usually find there is bipartisan support for sensible infrastructure planning, or at least that shown by the LNP.
      How about you get some figures out of Conroy on what actual take up rates in Armidale are, how is Armidale and Tasmania connected to a national FO system and what the actual master plan is for total connections and proposed progress.
      I doubt you’ll get much and even reports a few weeks ago about work in Darwin suburbs being postponed.

    • fox says:

      10:11am | 11/06/11

      There is no alternative for a bridge. Nor was there a viable alternative for electricity production on a mass scale.

      As for the internet however, there are a multitude of alternatives.

      Your comparisons are weak.

    • The Badger says:

      10:43am | 11/06/11

      fox
      Tunnel instead of a bridge?
      There is no wireless substitute for high speed fibre delivered broadband.
      Your ignorance is on show.

    • persephone says:

      11:08am | 11/06/11

      Snowy Mountain scheme impelemented by Chifley government - I believe he was Labor.

      http://primeministers.naa.gov.au/primeministers/chifley/

      ’ As Prime Minister he introduced national projects such as the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric scheme…’

      The Sydney Harbour Bridge was opened in 1932 by the Premier, Mr Jack Lang.

      In the previous ten years, during which time the bridge was constructed, he was Premier for four years.

      My understanding is that he had something to do with the Labor party.

    • persephone says:

      11:19am | 11/06/11

      fox

      load of crap.

      The SMS was primarily about irrigation, not electricity - and it still is.

      Coal powered stations still (unfortunately!) provide more electricity than the SMS.

    • jf says:

      01:16pm | 11/06/11

      fox

      “load of crap.

      The SMS was primarily about irrigation, not electricity - and it still is.”

      That only reinforces the fact that the SMS isn’t a valid comparison for the NBN in relation to obsolescene.

      The Badger says:10:43am | 11/06/11

      “Tunnel instead of a bridge?”

      Maybe so, but bridges are still current and frequently used, just as they have been for thousands of years. Communications infrastructure quickly and frequently becomes obsolete.

      Idiotic analogy.

    • Chris L says:

      02:08pm | 11/06/11

      JF, beware of using the word “idiotic” while talking about fibre optics becoming obsolete. Maybe someday we’ll have technology to transfer information faster than the speed of light, but until then “obsolescene” is not a risk for the NBN.

    • The Badger says:

      02:46pm | 11/06/11

      jf
      Fox asked
      “There is no alternative for a bridge”

      Get your ten year old to explain how my answer
      “Tunnel instead of a bridge?” is an alternative.

      idiot response by you.

    • a says:

      04:41pm | 11/06/11

      @ChrisL Theres a job waiting for you with the synchrotron in Victoria!

    • Jekub says:

      05:42pm | 11/06/11

      @persephone

      The SMS is all about Electricity Generation. The generators wern’t added as an after thought. You usually have some basis in reality for your comments so, What happened?

      P.S. Nothing about the SMS is for irrigation.

    • persephone says:

      06:56pm | 11/06/11

      ‘The Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Scheme first began as a means of obtaining extra irrigation, however later expanded to integrate a hydro-electric power supply.’

      ‘The purpose of the scheme was to collect water from the east of the Great Dividing Range and divert it westward through the Snowy Mountains to the Murray and Murrumbidgee river systems to create a major water supply for farmers and also to generate electricity.’

      ‘Initial proposals in 1918 were instigated by the needs of farmers who wanted to make use of the waters of the Snowy River which flowed down the Great Dividing Ranges into the sea, by diverting the water inland for irrigation’

      ‘?The Scheme is the largest renewable energy generator in mainland Australia and plays a pivotal role in the operation of the national electricity market, generating approximately 3.5% of the mainland grid’s power.
      ?The Scheme provides approximately 2,100 gigalitres of water a year to the Basin, providing additional water for an irrigated agriculture industry worth about $5 bn per annum, representing more than 40% of the gross value of the nation’s agricultural production.’

      http://www.australianhistory.org/snowy-mtns

      So the scheme began as an irrigation scheme, with electrical production added as an after thought.

      It contibutes nearly ALL the water used for irrigation, particularly in the Murray Darling basin (the figures are hard to source, but the ones I can find suggest that government and private irrigation sources total 2,605 gigalitres for the whole of Australia, with the SMS supplying 2,100) but very little of the electricity - 3.5% of Australia’s total.

      Electricity production is a by product of irrigation, not the other way around.

    • Keith Hammersmith says:

      12:06am | 12/06/11

      Nice job Pers,  divert the obvious stats about the demise of land lines in australia and talk about the SMS….   

      hate to break this to you, but they arent related.  Same with the Sydney Harbour Bridge,  which will be used for well well over 100 years,  do you think any fixed broadband network will?  not a chance,  so stop the weak and meaningless comparisons now,  all it is is deflection from the facts.

    • acotrel says:

      06:42am | 12/06/11

      @keith Hammersmith THere is a direct relationship between the Sydney Harbour Bridge, the Snowy Hydro Scheme and the National Broadband Network.  All have been initiated by the Australian Labor Party, all are huge infrastructure projects requiring spending large amounts of public money.  We’ve never seen the Liberal Party even consider starting one?  They’re always too shit scared of spending a dollar to make a dollar, and holding tight to the purse strings so they can claim ‘fiscal responsibility’.  If they’d been continually in power over the last 200 years , we’d still have dirt roads everywhere and communicate with smoke signals!  They are the most balant lot of luddite conservatives, and Tony Abbott is continuing their grand old tradition. Their priority is looking after their well-heeled friends, and helping them grab a piece of the action from every major public funded activity. If we want progress in Australia we shouldn’t look to the Liberal Party to be creative.  History has shown that the ALP are the movers and shakers ! ! !

    • acotrel says:

      06:49am | 12/06/11

      Kevvy why do the good citizens of Australia have to fight the LNP every inch of the way to get progress?”  It’s bad enough that the LNP is luddite/conservative without actively working to subvert initiatives? I know you lot are only working to reclaim your birth right, but this opposition to the NBN is ridiculous!

    • persephone says:

      08:03am | 12/06/11

      Um, actually actorel raised the subject of the Sydney Harbour Bridge, not me.

      I always find it interesting that ten other posters can say something on a site and yet I’m the one singled out for comment!

      I’m glad you can guarantee the SHB will still be standing and in use in twenty years time. It most probably will be, but it’s not a definite.

      Similarly, it’s not a definite that the NBN will be still in use in eighty years time (to keep the parallell with the bridge correct). However, most industy experts expect that it will serve us as long - if not longer - than the copper network did.

      The copper network is at the end of its useful life and needs replacing. When you’re replacing an old system, it’s always a good idea to replace it with up to date technology, rather than simpy putting back what was there to begin with.

      And (I understand) a brand new optic fibre network will cost us less than the original copper one did.

      The difference is we’re doing it all in one go rather than over decades.

    • Steve Putnam says:

      09:31am | 12/06/11

      What a joke! A lecture on a high tech issue from a former minister who thought an out of date sim card presented a terrorist threat to Australia.

    • jf says:

      05:20pm | 12/06/11

      Chris L says:

      02:08pm | 11/06/11

      “JF, beware of using the word “idiotic” while talking about fibre optics becoming obsolete.”
      You’ll note that I wasn’t talking about fibre optics becoming obsolete but that the comparison of infrastructure projects such as the Sydney Harbour Bridge and Snowy Scheme were flawed analogies. Specifically, I was referring to Badger’s suggestion that a tunnel was a valid alternative to the Sydney Harbour Bridge. The suggestion that a tunnel under the Sydney Harbour was a viable alternative in 1916 is patently ridiculous.

    • jf says:

      05:26pm | 12/06/11

      The Badger says:
      02:46pm | 11/06/11

      “Get your ten year old to explain how my answer “Tunnel instead of a bridge?” is an alternative.”

      Because you said, in response to Fox’s suggestion that there was “no alternative for a bridge” you said “Tunnel instead of a bridge?” clearly implying that a tunnel is a valid alternative to a bridge. I agree. But suggesting that it was a valid alternative in 1916 is idiotic making it an idiotic analogy. 

      Furthermore, even if we accept that fibre optic cable won’t be obsolete any time soon and, if I accept your analogy, my rebuttal would be that they didn’t build Sydney Harbour Bridges across every expanse. Some were bigger, many were smaller. If the NBN is the modern infrastructure equivalent of the SHB, then, in its current form it is the equivalent of building a SHB across every span that needed spanning. Obviously they didn’t because it wasn’t necessary and because the cost couldn’t be justified. Just like the NBN.

    • Jamie says:

      07:49pm | 12/06/11

      Actually Jim, the Snowy Hydro scheme was a Chifley ALP plan(look it up). The planning and enabling legislation was all done by the ALP government. The scheme was finished by the Liberals but only after they strongly criticised it while in opposition.

      Can we stop rewriting history now? I wonder if the Coalition get back in 2013 and the NBN is completed, there will be people like you in 50 years saying “that NBN was a great system implemented by the Coalition”?

    • Chris L says:

      05:40pm | 13/06/11

      @JF - “Communications infrastructure quickly and frequently becomes obsolete.”

      You were talking about a tunnel?!

    • jf says:

      02:48pm | 14/06/11

      Chris L says:05:40pm | 13/06/11

      “You were talking about a tunnel?! “

      Let me be clear what I was talking about:

      (i) To draw an analogy between the NBN to great infrastructure projects like the Sydney Harbour Bridge, Snowy Mountains Scheme only serves to demonstrate that it is excessive.

      Both projects were for a specific need and a small part of a broader infrastructure solution. In relation to both projects, had the type of extravagant thinking behind the NBN been used for either project we would have large and expense transport and hydro-electric white elephants all over the country.

      (ii) The point that I was trying to make, and that got obscured amongst the rhetoric, is that the NBN is providing expensive communications services where they are unneeded and unnecessary.

    • iansand says:

      07:06am | 11/06/11

      A mobile tower on every street corner.  That will go down well.

      I have already occasionally had network congestion dropouts in the Sydney CBD.

    • Gregg says:

      09:58am | 11/06/11

      ” A mobile tower on every street corner. “
      Spreading fear are we Ian! and you will find there can be connection problems with all kinds of communications and if you think it has nit already happened with the additional componentry required for NBN, you’re in for a shocker.

    • Dean says:

      11:02am | 11/06/11

      iansands
      you are spot on, there will be a mobile tower on the end of every street, what LNP is not telling everyone or they don’t understand is that with wireless technology it slows down when there is high traffic, the only solution is to build more towers and those towers will need to be connected by a fibre network. This comes on the back of reports that there is evidence that living close to mobile towers causes people to get sick.

    • iansand says:

      08:41am | 12/06/11

      Fear Gregg?  Perhaps a bit of hyperbowl, but more towers are an inevitable consequence of the Coalition plan.

      If you haven’t worked that out, add the NBN to the long list of subjects on which you should not comment because of ignorance.

    • acotrel says:

      10:26am | 12/06/11

      @iansand Aren’t mocrowaves supposed to cause cancer.  I wonder if the Cancer Council would mount a similar campaign to it’s current disgraceful anti alcohol advertising, on the basis of similarly slim evidence?

    • ifonly says:

      07:13am | 11/06/11

      To justify fibre to the home, government rolls out “experts” who are heavy internet users and have vested interest, it is like asking a carpenter if homes need to be made of timber.

      Of course the NBN will be used, it is whether it is valuable. In my house everyone uses their laptop and a wireless network. When the NBN comes, this won’t change and suggests fibre to the street with an oversized wireless thingy could serve my family and neighbours and usage charges could cover the cost.

      The funny thing is that it is a huge cross subsidy for the rural and regional users paid for by the city dwellers. Our country cousins believe it will make their life so much better but I wonder if they have considered the real impact.
      (1)Local video stores are likely to be the first to go as entertainment comes down the line.
      (2)Next will be the service industries as businesses can send their MYOB files to large city accounantancy firms offering greater tools and service.
      (3)On-line education, I am sure the regional universities believe it will help them teach dentistry to students based in Woop Woop but it is more likely that such services will come from larger well resourced city institutions.
      (4)The much touted medical services, one can imagine the impact on rural hospitals.

    • Chris L says:

      01:28pm | 11/06/11

      I take it you have a plan for when wireless congestion slows, or halts, your connection?

      (1) yes, some businesses will become obsolete the same as septic trucks. That is one of the less desirable byproducts of progress but overall we’re better off.
      (2) Service industries will have to adapt or become obsolete, again it is the nature of industry and progress. Really point 1 & 2 should have been merged for efficiency.
      (3) Centralised learning being available to everyone is a bad thing because…?
      (4) I suspect the impact on rural hospitals might be a desperately needed break for the gallant folk who work in these places. The internet will not resusitate people or stitch up wounds so hospitals will probably always be necessary, but delivering health solutions where hospitalisation is not necessary would be a good thing. In fact it would be a fantastic improvement!

    • iansand says:

      08:51am | 12/06/11

      The other possibility is that large firms will take advantage of cheaper rents and decentralise their activities to rural centres.  I don’t know if they still do, but a few years ago a couple of the large Sydney legal firms sent voice files to Malaysia for typing overnight.

      As for the hospitals, as far as I know it is difficult to send a patient down a network, broadband or otherwise.  The information flow will certainly be from large to small centres.

    • thatmosis says:

      07:27am | 11/06/11

      Everybody that used the telco’s realised that mobile was the way to go except of course this Government who as usual started something that will cost billions and be obsolete before it is rolled out. This is typical of the waste of this Government and the Greens and Independants that we have all come to know. Hurry up the election so we can throw the lot out.

    • persephone says:

      09:41am | 11/06/11

      Tell that to people who live in the bush, thatmosis, or in an area with a few bumps on the landscape.

      Although there is a mobile phone tower in clear sight, of the main street it only services half of our town.

      The roads connecting our town with the nearest major centres are only partially covered (I’ve had some interesting walks at night when the car’s broken down, searching a spot where the service kicks in).

      Every time Telstra proposes to increase local services by putting in another tower, there’s a massive public outcry from those who live near the spot.

      To effectively cover all of our shire by mobile (one of the smallest shires in regional Victoria)  - something Telstra says will never happen, because to do so would mean having towers dedicated to less than twenty hourse, because of the terrain - would require up to one hundred new towers (probably more), which would mean up to one hundred bun fights Telstra isn’t really interested in having.

      And we don’t live in the outback, just in a regional area.

      Furthermore, as some other posters have said already, mobile can never handle the same amount of information as optic fibre can, or indeed, the number of users.

      And the NBN will improve local wireless services, by taking the strain off the system.

    • Jim says:

      09:58am | 11/06/11

      Maybe that’s just the blackhole you surround yourself with persephone. I’ve worked in several remote areas…the fastest internet I have ever had was halfway between Cloncurry and Julia Creek.

      The problem with spending $43bn (min) on a fibre network is it will need upgrading before it’s finished. And upgrade options are limited by what hardware was originally installed. Going wireless requires much less infrastructure, can be upgraded for a fraction of the cost, and can handle an expanding population much better.

      For a so-called progressive, you mob aren’t looking much further into the future than your current term.

    • Gregg says:

      10:04am | 11/06/11

      @ Persey,
      Most people who live in the real bush have been making do quite well for decades even before mobile services or the internet was even thought of and many more seek refuge in the bush at times because they can get away from being contactable.
      The whole concept of how much better NBN will make life is just political bullshit and any thinking person knows it.

    • L. says:

      11:26am | 11/06/11

      @Pers

      “Furthermore, as some other posters have said already, mobile can never handle the same amount of information as optic fibre can, or indeed, the number of users.”

      Umm.. who says you’re going to get fibre..?

      By the sounds of it you will be a perfect candidate for the NBN’s wireless delivery. So you won’t be getting fibre transfer speeds.

    • The Badger says:

      11:52am | 11/06/11

      jim
      Your ignorance is showing.
      The fibre doesn’t need to be upgraded, only the transceivers at either end and this to take the NBN beyond 1 gigabit per second at some time well into the future.
      Wireless still requires fibre for the backhaul and is part of the NBN at any rate.
      Stick your head back down a mine shaft and focus on the rocks down the bottom.

    • Levi Weitenberg says:

      12:19pm | 11/06/11

      @Jim
      You guys can’t be serious…

      Jim, you seem to be suggesting that Australians should be happy with what we have, simply because upgrading might (Shock horror) require upgrading in the future? should we just stagnate and let our communications services fail under the weight of demand? I think not.

      The technology that’s being implemented for the NBN *can* be upgraded into the future, and in fact the process of these upgrades is cheap, simple and has already been used for years.

      How do you think we get information from around the world? We do it using fibre optic connections.
      These connections, when we run out of bandwidth, simply require the transmitting source to be upgraded, so that we now send a different frequency optical signal down the line, on top of the previous one. Hey, we just doubled our bandwidth!

      ‘Going wireless,’ contrary to what you so confidently tell those gathered around your soapbox, requires *more* infrastructure, which can only operate at a limited frequency, due to constraints of wireless transmission losses, and the fact that other devices also use the same frequencies. Remembering that radio stations, WiFi, TV, Mobile phones, radar, bluetooth, etc. all share this same space.

      And once again you seem to forget that any wireless network cannot operate without a backbone of fixed line infrastructure.

      i won’t even bother countering the ridiculous points Gregg has made, as they are quite clearly utter nonsense.

      Please stop spewing your misinformation on unsuspecting people, you sound like the federal opposition.

    • Denial says:

      01:03pm | 11/06/11

      Mobile the way to go? So why is mobile so much slower than landline? Why is everyone in the Macquarie Park area on land line? Optus, Foxtel, Microsoft & my company? Whyd od mobiles drop out all the time if the network is so great?

    • Chris L says:

      01:35pm | 11/06/11

      @Gregg, I can’t believe you just said that! I live in a metropolitan city and have no trouble avoiding people when I don’t want them around. It involves not using the phone or internet (as easy as turning the television off if it offends you).

      I don’t see how the people of the bush would be adversley affected by having fibre optic connections available to them.

    • persephone says:

      02:11pm | 11/06/11

      L

      alas, I’m even unlikely to get wireless!

      However, our town will certainly get fibre, except for those outside of the town boundaries, who will remain on wireless.

      Their wireless witll perform much better, however, because there’ll be far less users on the sytstem than there are at present.

      And I would gently point out that my post was about mobile phone coverage (as was thatmosis), not internet speeds - a few posters here seem to have misread it.

    • John says:

      04:14pm | 11/06/11

      When people starting getting brain cancer, because of constant use of wireless devices. I’ve noticed the trend of my own family cutting the copper lines to use mobiles, but i worry about their health, with constant use of radiation devices on their hands 24/7. Wireless technology is not exactly 100% safe. 20 million people using wireless devices is scary for their health.

    • iansand says:

      08:55am | 12/06/11

      If God had meant us to have telephones he would never have given us the Post Office.

    • Jamie says:

      05:21pm | 12/06/11

      @thatmosis,
      You’re at odd with pretty much anyone in the know. There’s not a single country or telco anywhere in the World proposing wireless replace fixed in urban areas.

      @Jim,
      The NBN will initially offer speeds of up to 1Gbps, and it is most certainly not limited to that. It’s highly unlikely that it will require upgrading before it’s finished, and even less likely that by that time any wireless technology would offer real speeds anywhere near 1Gbps. Fibre is the most future-resistant technology known for data communications, because to get faster speess you only need to upgrade the equipment at the ends of the cable. This has been happening for decades on the undersea cables linking countries together, which are now hundreds of times faster than they were when installed.

      Upgrading wireless requires the replacement of everything but the physical tower itself. The handsets, hardware and antennas. In other words, everything about the network.

      An expanding population is exactly the problem for a wireless network. The more people serviced by a tower, the slower it gets. Educate yourself, starting here:
      http://nbnmyths.wordpress.com/why-not-wireless/

    • drsusancalvin says:

      08:54am | 11/06/11

      One could argue that neglected infrastructure, poor service and outrageous connection fees for copper line have pushed this trend. One could argue that a fast fixed line to households might reverse the trend. One notices the willful inability of some to distinguish mobile broadband from wireless technology when discussing the merits of NBN. I suspect NBN will encourage free community wireless networks to operate and that will reduce pressure on the insufficient mobile broadband networks and allow them to complement the NBN. It’s always “all or nothing” with some people. A bit of everything, satellite included, will service this wide brown land. Yes, at a higher cost per capita than “some other named country” but for goodness sake, there’s a bit more area to cover here. Al the more reason to lay in fixed lines to remote and regional areas that would otherwise never get fiber, or would be gouged by providers in the grand old tradition of telcos down the ages.

    • Mick In The Hills says:

      09:30pm | 11/06/11

      drsusancalvin hits the sensible spot.

      Broadband provision for Australia isn’t a one-trick play like Conroy is pushing.  Its about appropriate capacity for the various sectors / areas, using whatever technologies deliver the most cost effective solutions - fibre, copper, wireless or satellite (or a mix of all). 

      And cost / benefit is the guiding discipline - something Labor has been at pains to evade.  god knows why.

    • acotrel says:

      10:34am | 12/06/11

      @MIck We live in a society where we know the price of everything, and the value of nothing. Cost/benefit analysys are not the only essential factor in decision making.  Extra consideratiuon must be given to ‘good’ values’.  Somethings are worth doing simply because they are good things to do.  The dollar bottom line is sometimes unethical, and the wrong consideration.  Eventually city Australians must move to develop the regions - the NBN is essential!

    • MK says:

      08:58am | 11/06/11

      Hey Kev,
      Bet your numbers don’t include peope “naked” DSL connections and VOIP,
      Mobile telphone Wireless is a nice supplement, for when you can’t be near a real connection. It is fine for light web browsing, or where there are no other options, when you’re on the Go.
      But here’s a shocker people arent walking around 24/7,
      often work at things called… Desks….
      Short range Wifi, is wireless while pumping out much less radiation

    • Horse says:

      08:59am | 11/06/11

      Reliable venue to venue fast broadband will be delivered by the NBN, Kevin.  This will benefit a number of scenarios, such as telemedicine. Scaremongering will not changed that. Nor will living in the past.

    • Gregg says:

      10:13am | 11/06/11

      I reckon you have a bad case of foot and moyh disease compounded with the trots Horse for venue to venue don’t happen without ISPs and speed is always a factor of many different components on the internet.
      Tele medicine is more than a little scary and btw there has been the ability for relevant medical info like Xray information to be transmitted for decades now.
      This idea of a specialist consulting on a patient via video is just limited BS as no specialist will expose themselves to additional potential for a wrong diagnosis because of liability and insurance issues and all you can expect to get will be something like ” we need to run some more tests and I had then better see you at my rooms”.
      Video conferencing has also been available for decades and if there was such a benefit, it would have been used much more widely already.

    • MK says:

      01:26pm | 11/06/11

      Greeg i am sorry i couldnt here that becuse it appears your foot was in your mouth, did you have a valid rreason why we won’t have high speeds within australia? No?
      There is an issue of bottlenecks getting out of australia to the greater interwebs, but we will get the fast speeds locally

      Telemedicine has been used successfully, yes it has limitations
      Videoconferencing will be greatly improved by NBN,
      GREATLY improved
      We have also had mobile telphones for decades (at least 2) and yet
      almost no one used them in the first decade, as the product got better more people used it.
      more people working days from home,
      could reduce traffic on physical infrastructure, reduce traffic congestion

    • Chris L says:

      01:42pm | 11/06/11

      “there has been the ability for relevant medical info like Xray information to be transmitted for decades now.”

      I think that’s fantastic! A brilliant advance in technology delivering vital services. Why would we want to halt progression in this field?

      Same with video conferencing. I would think that anything that increases efficiency and the ability to share information would be a good thing. I don’t understand how anyone with even a layman’s understanding of technology could be against this.

    • Gregg says:

      08:09am | 12/06/11

      @MK
      Yes, you need to be sorry you cannot adequately analyse what is worth paying billions for.
      ”  did you have a valid rreason why we won’t have high speeds within australia? No? “
      Conroy is the one saying we will have them and what we actually need forced upon us by the government at an exorbitant cost is more the question for I think you will find there are many telco/internet companies who have been able to provide adequate services for most businesses/organisations/people for many years using existing and new infrastructure other than the NBN, services continually being upgraded and costs reduced.

      ” There is an issue of bottlenecks getting out of australia to the greater interwebs ” well, yes there may be and again it will always be a case of just what speed is needed by whom and how should it be charged for.

      ” Telemedicine has been used successfully, yes it has limitations
      Videoconferencing will be greatly improved by NBN,
      GREATLY improved ” Oh yeah and for what benefit!

      ” We have also had mobile telphones for decades (at least 2) and yet
      almost no one used them in the first decade, as the product got better more people used it. ” Sooo! and yes, just like the internet you have the usual high tech junkie addicts.

      ” more people working days from home,
      could reduce traffic on physical infrastructure, reduce traffic congestion “
      And maybe you ought to have a look at the real world and see just what percentage of jobs allow people to work from home in the first place and what percentage more could with a faster internet.

    • Alex says:

      09:06am | 11/06/11

      Even if it so, the NBN will provide the backbone and the bandwidth for the mobile towers nightmare that you envisage.

    • L. says:

      11:28am | 11/06/11

      “Even if it so, the NBN will provide the backbone and the bandwidth for the mobile towers nightmare that you envisage.”

      The Libs’ broadband plan includes fibre to teh nodes (towers). Just not to the home.

    • persephone says:

      02:05pm | 11/06/11

      L

      well, we don’t know that for sure. Turnbull obviously thinks that fibre to the node (which isn’t the tower, btw, but the little white plastic post-like thing which is somewhere in every street) should be the Liberals’ policy, but their official one is still - as far as I’m aware - fibre in the cities and wireless or satellite outside.

      Under their policy, major centres such as Albury/Wodonga would be reliant on dial up.

      ‘Fibre to the node’ was the policy Labor originally took to the 2007 election, before the deal with Telstra made ‘fibre to the home’ not only possible but cheaper than the original plan (note: obviously f t n is still cheaper than f t h).

      For the same spend, Labor realised it could deliver an even better service.

      So Malcolm Turnbull’s idea is only four years behind Labor; we can expect that he’ll catch up eventually.

    • jeff says:

      09:16am | 11/06/11

      Another clueless article from a technology illiterate trying to push a political agenda on behalf of Telstra shareholders.

      Wireless has its place, such as facile web browsing or email, but it is not an adequate replacement for the speed and reliability of fibre. Have you tried using wireless at the football Kevin? Forget it, it won’t work. Have you tried using wireless in a busy urban area and discovering your performance has degraded to a 36.6kb modem? Wireless is inherently limited in speed and reliability.

      The future of software and applications delivery is via the internet. Can you imagine downloading and installing a 20 gigabyte file on a crowded wireless connection? With the NBN that should take less than five minutes, on wireless that would typically take 20 hours. Future web integrated applications will require persistent internet access with low latency and the latency on wireless is unacceptable.

      It’s really is terrible how the Liberal party has become nothing more than a lobby group for corporate interests. If it was up to them we’d be locked into a perpetual high priced monopoly on 20th century infrastructure.

    • Gregg says:

      10:16am | 11/06/11

      ” Have you tried using wireless at the football Kevin? “
      And this is a justification for billions to be spent!, and no wonder the country has problems.

    • Dylan says:

      10:59am | 11/06/11

      Gregg, you missed the point…. on purpose I assume…

    • L. says:

      11:33am | 11/06/11

      @Dylan

      “Gregg, you missed the point…. on purpose I assume…”

      He may be missing the point, even intentionally.. But lets face it, that’s what it will a vast portion of it will be used for.

      I mean serioulsy, why does my local suburban hair dresser or fish and chip shop need fibre? Why should my Optus fibre be ripped out when it is already delivering 100Mbits/sec..?

    • Richard says:

      12:17pm | 11/06/11

      I thought the point was that, because the demand for wireless is growing so much more rapidly than for fixed line services, and because this trend will continue as a demographic shift, then wouldn’t it make more sense to invest in improving wireless connectivity instead of a redundant plan to dig kilometres of trenches out in woop woop going door to door and forcing fibre down people’s necks even if they didn’t ask for it and don’t really have any use for it?

      duh…

    • M.. says:

      01:07pm | 11/06/11

      Richard
      Your understanding of the NBN can be summed up in one word.
      Duh mmmb

    • Oliver says:

      09:30am | 11/06/11

      this article fails to realise that the huge increase in mobile traffic requires a fixed network between the mobile towers, which needs to have the capacity for it. It also fails to make the suspicion between fixed line phone services and fixed line internet services like fibre, high speed cable and adsl. The nbn will complement any mobile service by providing the infrastructure between towers, removing the need for home wireless internet services in the city freeing up capacity, and providing a reliable service where it is expected and not having speeds depend on variable factors like the number of users in the area or the weather

    • Richard says:

      12:29pm | 11/06/11

      And you fail to realise Oliver that the Coalition’s broadband plan includes hooking up all the mobile towers to a fixed network with fibre. And all the hospitals. And all the schools. And all the high-density residential areas, and everywhere else that is economical.

      In fact the only difference between the Coalition’s broadband plan and the NBN is that, under the NBN, the vast majority of (your) money will be spent on digging trenches out in woop woop and subsidising 100Mbit internet for farmers in the outback who probably wouldn’t even know what to do with it.

      The $7Billion Coalition broadband plan is more than adequate for the infrastructure needs of our country. The only thing it doesn’t do is go door to door trying to jam fibre down every household’s neck (at a cost of over $50Billion) when, as Kevin Andrews rightly points out, households are more and more turning away from inflexible fixed lines in favour of versatile wireless these days anyway.

    • Chris L says:

      02:18pm | 11/06/11

      @Richard - fair point, but the NBN is also about future proofing. Who’s to say that these places in Woop Woop won’t find some benefit today (already the idea of education to remote areas sounds pretty good) and potentially become big enough to, in fact, require this infrastructure.

      The only reason the Coalition even have a plan is because Uncle Kevvie made it an issue (about time!) and his opponents started the whole “me too” approach. There are some things the Coalition do well, but investing in infrastructure is not one of them. 11 years of Coalition government saw our communications network fall behind, year by year.

    • persephone says:

      02:34pm | 11/06/11

      Richard

      so why not hook up the rest of the town while they’re at it?

      Every small country town has a school or a hospital.

      Needlessly expensive just to provide fibre to the local school and hospital, when you can offset costs by connecting all the houses you pass on the way.

      And for only a slightly larger cost, you can connect up every street you pass as well.

      As for what the Liberals’ policy is on fibre, it does appear to be one of those magical beasts that takes on the appearance people want it to according to their argument.

      Alas, I’ve made several attempts to access the Liberal site today to remind myself what their policy is, and it seems to be down; but from memory, it did not propose to link every school and hospital to fibre.

      In fact, from memory, quite large centres with substantial populations were going to have to rely solely on wireless.

    • oliver says:

      02:51pm | 11/06/11

      Richard. the NBN network will not be laying fibre cables kms in length to rural properties, if you look at the foot print of the roll out, as documented on the nbn website fibre will hardly reach beyond townships, maybe 5 kms at most from a town exchange. hell. i live 15km from town, yet only 5 kms from an exchange we won;t be getting fibre. 
      plus the economists of high speed wireless network in country areas isn;t good either. the market for highspeed wireless is in cities where the density of mobile devices is highest and where people are most mobile themselves. ie capital cities with a lot of commuters and urban dwellers. a large country town might be able to support a tower or two, but it would be better served by reliable, high speed fixed services to premises. plus most mobile devices can use wifi. home wifi networks that can support these devices such as ipads would free up lots of mobile capticity,. but these would be best served by a fixed connection

    • Dylan says:

      09:45am | 11/06/11

      I can’t believe people are still talking about wireless as a feasible option against the NBN. Reliability? NBN wins. Speed? NBN wins. Congestion? NBN wins. Future-proof? NBN wins. Cost? NBN wins. What, you say? why does the NBN win on cost when the plans out there for wireleas are so much cheaper? Simple… The money spent on wireless would be a total waste…. Akin to buying a car thats half the price of another car even though you know in 3 months the engine is going to blow. A total waste.

      Theres a reason why all businesses with the option use physical lines for their companies internet connection and not wireless.

    • L. says:

      11:39am | 11/06/11

      @Dylan..

      “I can’t believe people are still talking about wireless as a feasible option against the NBN. Reliability? NBN wins. Speed? NBN wins. Congestion? NBN wins. Future-proof? NBN wins. Cost? NBN wins”

      I’ll tell you why… Cost.

      You are right, the NBN fibre will be fantastic. Of that I have no doubt. But… If you need a mobile data delivery service, but can’t aford both wireless data and fixed line data, which do you think will win out? The mobile service can do the job of fibre (poorly), but fibre cannot do the task of mobile at all.

      People keep arguing that fibre and mobile are complimentary services, and technically they are correct. But they are, IMO, really competitive services when household budgets are added into the equation.

      People only have so much money, and with everything going up, something’s gotta give.

    • jf says:

      01:29pm | 11/06/11

      I can’t believe people are still talking flying commercial when Lear Jets are a feasible option. Reliability? Lear Jet wins. Speed? Lear Jet wins. Congestion? Lear Jet wins. Future-proof? Lear Jet wins. Cost? Lear Jet wins. What, you say? why does the Lear Jet win on cost when the plans out there for commercial flight are so much cheaper? Simple… I made it up. Akin to flying in a commercial plane when they crash as regularly as new car’s engines blow up after three months.

      Theres a reason why all businesses with the option use the Lear Jet for their companies transport and not commercial airlines.

      Except they don’t. For when it comes to private enterprise, cost matters. When it comes to this government, they think it is their farking money.

      Fibre to the node. Fibre for those that want it. Wireless for those that don’t. Cheaper, more efficient, more scaleable. NBN massive, expensive, moronic waste of money.

    • Pierre Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais, says:

      02:36pm | 11/06/11

      jf says
      look over there a bunny Rabbott.

      A mere apprentice at the art of irrelevant distraction

      Why not use the Rolls Royce analogy? It’s just as irrelevant and stupid.

      Please come back when you understand the issues.

      It is not necessary to understand things in order to argue about them.

    • jf says:

      12:26pm | 12/06/11

      Pierre Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais, says:02:36pm | 11/06/11

      jf says
      look over there a bunny Rabbott.

      What? Distraction? I was talking directly to the issue. The fact that you elected to criticise me for something I hadn’t done rather than identify flaws in my parodic extension of Dylan’s analogy demonstrates that you can’t find any. However, as you still disagree with me on principal you create the myth that I was diverting attention from the issue.

      Whilst Dylan’s analogy and my reply were hardly subtle, only the most dense would not realise that the NBN wasn’t the topic. Even so, I still directly discussed the issue in my last two paragraphs.

      Claiming distraction as a distraction. I admire your front if not your execution.

    • Chris L says:

      12:57pm | 12/06/11

      @JF - “For when it comes to private enterprise, cost matters.” -
      That would be why Dylan pointed out that private enterprise favour physical lines, because private enterprise would have weighed cost against performance and determined that physical lines are vastly more reliable and, in the end, save money despite the initial costs.

      Your own analogy of lear jets does not work as businesses are not turning to them as an alternative to commercial airlines due to the fact that this would not be cost effective.

      He made a brief analogy of car engines blowing (not “blowing up” as you dramatically extrapolated) to emphasise the unreliability of wireless.

      “only the most dense would not realise that the NBN wasn’t the topic” - Dylan’s post was, indeed, quite on topic, but it seems the topic of your post was simply to ridicule people with a differing view.

    • jf says:

      08:05am | 14/06/11

      Chris L says: 12:57pm | 12/06/11
      “?That would be why Dylan pointed out that private enterprise favour physical lines, because private enterprise would have weighed cost against performance and determined that physical lines are vastly more reliable and, in the end, save money despite the initial costs.”

      I agree. And those private enterprises that favour the fixed line should have to pay for their own substantial costs. More importantly, those private enterprises that favour wireless and those households that favour wireless should not have to pay for a fixed line that the don’t want. Nor should they have to pay for those that want a fixed line.

      “Dylan’s post was, indeed, quite on topic, but it seems the topic of your post was simply to ridicule people with a differing view.”

      Mine was on topic. Where I was off topic, I was only responding to someone else’s false analogy. Finally, who did I ridicule Chris L?

    • jf says:

      10:52am | 14/06/11

      Chris L says:12:57pm | 12/06/11

      ““only the most dense would not realise that the NBN wasn’t the topic” - Dylan’s post was, indeed, quite on topic”

      You will also note that, my quote above was not in response to Dylan but to Pierre. Pierre was suggesting that I was trying to distract from the main topic because I used an analogy. I made two point: (a) the analogy wasn’t mine and (b) that the analogy was flawed.

      I’m not sure why you would take a comment made to one person and then rebut it because it it didn’t apply to someone else.

    • Chris L says:

      10:41pm | 14/06/11

      “What? Distraction? I was talking directly to the issue.”
      - followed by-
      “Whilst Dylan’s analogy and my reply were hardly subtle, only the most dense would not realise that the NBN wasn’t the topic.”

      You’re jumping all over the place there JF.

      As for your question: “who did I ridicule?”
      That all depends on who you were calling “the most dense”.

    • jf says:

      10:06am | 15/06/11

      Chris L says:

      10:41pm | 14/06/11

      “As for your question: “who did I ridicule?” That all depends on who you were calling “the most dense”.”

      Well let me clarify it for you Chris: it was intended for anyone who didn’t understand the analogy. If you didn’t get the analogy and are now offended at being called dense then may I suggest you stick to less complicated discussions.
      However, to be clear (again), my issue with the NBN is less to do with obsolescence and more to do with over-egging the omelette: obsolescence does become an issue when such a massive and extensive commitment is made to one technology.

      The analogy between the NBN to great infrastructure projects like the Sydney Harbour Bridge, Snowy Mountains Scheme only serves to demonstrate that it is excessive.

      Public infrastructure, by definition, is to support the operation of the community and/or economy. It is intended as a backbone. Public money is not intended to support the funding of services that can be more efficiently and more cost-effectively be funded by private enterprise.

      Both the SHB and SMS met a specific community and/or economic need and were a small component of a much greater network. Even then, each project was one element of an infrastructure backbone only. The government didn’t fund the implementation of the transport or electricity service to each and every individual and business in the country. State or local governments took over where appropriate (funded directly by that community) or alternatively, the individual or business funded the extension from the network to their home or business as needed by them.
      One home may choose to link to the transport infrastructure with a very expensive driveway, they next may have been happy to have a cheaper version or none. Similarly, when new homes or commercial building are built, the owner pays to connect with the electricity network.

      By suggesting that the NBN is similar to either of these projects is to suggest that every home in Australia would have the same type of road built to their home as a massive trucking warehouse requires. Similarly, to compare it with the SMS is to suggest that every house should have the same electricity service as Centrepoint.

      The NBN is providing expensive communications services where they are unneeded and unnecessary and at a ridiculous cost to the public: particularly where it is being run by a government that is proven as wasteful and profligate.

      If you don’t agree with me, fine. But I’d be interested in why you don’t rather than you endeavour to discredit my argument with false suggestions that I am somehow off topic or mortal offence at cutting accusations of being dense.

    • Xavier says:

      09:53am | 11/06/11

      Do you even know what you are talking about?
      You go on and on about mobile phones.
      What’s your point?
      The NBN is not about mobile phones. They are complimentary technology.
      Who writes this shit for you, a 10 year old? They make you look like a luddite.

    • L. says:

      11:42am | 11/06/11

      “The NBN is not about mobile phones. They are complimentary technology.”

      Really?? What if you need mobile data, but can’t aford both fixed line and mobile data delivery?

      Then they become competitive. As I said above, mobile can do the job of fibre (poorly), but fibre can’t be taken on the road.

      With everything going up on cost, I believe this will impact many people, especially now that mobile tablets are outselling PC’s.

    • Green Goblin says:

      12:53pm | 11/06/11

      @ Xavier - Don’t be too hard on Kevin, he’s doing his best when it comes to information technology, he is merely a spokesperson for the coalition Luddite brigade. You were right about wondering who wrote this, as there is no way known Kevin Andrews did…I would be very surprised if he can even turn a computer on, let alone understand the complexities of the NBN.

      Kevin can use a mobile phone so what else do you need? This type of attitude from the coalition clearly shows why nothing was done to advance Australian IT during 12 years of Howards reign as PM; they simply don’t have a clue.

    • jf says:

      01:34pm | 11/06/11

      I read the article. The author first discussed the proliferation of mobile devices and then used the growth in mobile phones to illustrate the potential growth trajectory for mobile devices.

      To understand articles like this is why they teach comprehension skills to ten year olds. I just tested this on my ten year old. As an experiment, I got her to read it and she made the leap.

      I’m not something your stupid Xavier. My girl is quite good at English.

    • Chris L says:

      02:21pm | 11/06/11

      JF, can your ten year old spell “congestion”?

    • Xavier says:

      02:42pm | 11/06/11

      If the teacher is a nuffy, can’t say much for the grades they give to their ten year olds.

      By the way, the science is also settled on AGW.  I’m sure your ten year old can inform you on the subject if you ask nicely.

    • jf says:

      03:09pm | 12/06/11

      Chris L says:02:21pm | 11/06/11

      “JF, can your ten year old spell “congestion”?”

      I’m sure she can. I’m also sure that she understands that no-one (well not me in any case) is suggesting the wireless would be the only solution. Anecdotally, it seems that the majority of users that will have access to the NBN (i.e. every single business and citizen in the country)will prefer to use wireless. High users will certainly want an alternative to wireless, probably fibre. It is possible (likely?) that the majority of bandwidth will require the NBN. Certainly, in my business, I want fibre.  The NBN take up numbers seem to support this. Thus, a solution that combines the two without going to massive expense to provide services to people that they don’t want is preferable. The heavy users will pay up for fibre installation from the node and the users that prefer wireless can pay for that with the option of paying to have fibre extended to their home from the node if they like down the track.

      The ALP is very critical of Howard’s middle class welfare. The NBN is middle class welfare at its finest.

    • jf says:

      03:14pm | 12/06/11

      Xavier says:02:42pm | 11/06/11

      “By the way, the science is also settled on AGW.”

      I’m not sure what this has to do with the current debate Xavier. Perhaps you are making a subtle point about the hypocrisy of a party that wants to introduce a carbon tax to reduce carbon emissions also wasting taxpayers money to rollout a carbon emitting technology to millions of people that they don’t want. 

      Also, I thought that you lot had stopped using the term “global warming” after the sky didn’t fall in due to aqua-Armageddon.

      I agree that the science is settled on climate change. However, I am simply not science-literate enough, particularly in that specialist area, to come to a conclusion as to the impact that man has on climate change. Certainly the rate of the change since the Industrial Revolution seems less dramatic than at other times in history including when mankind was but a pimple on the Earth’s surface. Thus, it is hard to believe that mankind is responsible. Particularly when hundreds of experience qualified scientists don’t, in fact, accept that the science is settled on whether or not mankind is responsible, far less as to the extent of the impact.

    • Stuart says:

      10:31am | 11/06/11

      Wasting money on the NBN that will be useless and very out of date long before it is finished is obvious to anyone with the slightest bit of intelligence,but when it is the Labor party this this is quite normal.Already high speed wireless internet is equal to a high speed cable internet and billions of dollars cheaper.Wireless will improve much more in coming years leaving the NBN obsolete and in the dark,just like Labor.

    • JB says:

      10:42am | 11/06/11

      Wow. This piece gets so many basic technological understandings wrong. Mr Andrews leave this argument to people in your party who actually understand the technology. This is embarrassing.

    • Levi says:

      10:42am | 11/06/11

      @Kev - You do realise that mobile communications rely on the fixed line network right?

      have a look at ‘femtocells’ as just one example, and then tell me Australians won’t benefit from a modern broadband network.

    • A Dose of Reality says:

      11:05am | 11/06/11

      Lies, damned lies and then there are (misrepresenting articles like this one).

      Using take up rates of wireless devices (as against copper wire) has no relevance in an argument about a fibre option (apples and oranges).  How insulting to pretend that this is a serious argument.

      People ‘go wireless’ because the performance difference is negligible when compared to ADSL +2.

      The performance difference in CURRENT wireless technologies to CURRENT fibre technologies is massive - as the writer knows.

      The wireless performance might improve with technological advances - HOWEVER the performance of fibre is ALSO going to improve.  The gulf in raw throughput will always be huge - with one more consideration (often neglected) is that with any increase in the number of users on a wireless network, the slower the service becomes for each user - far more so (exponentially) that for fibre.  This the writer also nows.

      Such is the contempt that the writer has for the Australian public’s intelligence.

      Xavier - a luddite was at least trying protect the livelihoods of the population.  The writer of this article has only the interests of a few mates (who will reap a fortune from the implementation of wireless networks)

    • Harquebus says:

      11:18am | 11/06/11

      Vital infrastructure does not belong in private hands. Privatizing Telstra was the biggest mistake ever made by an Australian government. If they hadn’t, we would have a NBN by now and we would own it.
      What I would do is, public fibre to the node and private node to the home whether that be fibre or wireless.

    • nossy says:

      12:17pm | 11/06/11

      @Harquebus - wow Harquebus I totally agree with everything you have said ! Now I see you have FLASH installed huh so all ok now ?

    • Richard says:

      12:39pm | 11/06/11

      “What I would do is, public fibre to the node and private node to the home whether that be fibre or wireless.”

      Dude, you just described the Coalition’s broadband plan.

      Duh…

    • Harquebus says:

      01:57pm | 11/06/11

      Both Liberal and National party have website problems but, it is my understanding that both Labor and Coalition want to privatize the NBN.
      That would make it private to the node and private node to the home. We’d be in the same boat.

    • Gerard says:

      02:58pm | 11/06/11

      Vital infrastructure may not belong in private hands, but control of the means by which information is distributed certainly doesn’t belong in government hands.

    • Harquebus says:

      04:05pm | 12/06/11

      I totally agree with you Gerard.

    • thatmosis says:

      11:30am | 11/06/11

      I do live in the bush and most of the people here are on wireless even with the lumps and bumps. What your saying is that ever Austrailian should pay billions for a system that wont be used by more than probably 20% of the people. I for one will opt out of this NBN crap and stay with my current provider thank you very much. Before making ascertions check that your not putting our big foot in your big mouth.

    • Levi says:

      12:48pm | 11/06/11

      too bad for you all the ISP’s will be using the NBN… guess you won’t be using the internet then…

      I’m not complaining though, one less idiot on the internet is never a bad thing…

    • The Badger says:

      01:12pm | 11/06/11

      “What your saying is that every Austrailian should pay billions for a system”

      Nah,
      Just Clive Palmer and Gina Rinehart.

      PS - your ISP will use the NBN no matter who your ISP is.
      You can take your foot out of your mouth now, but have it at the ready to re-insert.

    • persephone says:

      02:40pm | 11/06/11

      And I was talking about mobile phones, as you were in the post I replied to

      To recap: the author’s argument is that we don’t need the NBN because we can get all the information we need via mobile phones.

      And I said that you can’t in the bush, because mobile phone coverage is patchy at best.

    • TheRealDave says:

      11:48am | 11/06/11

      oh for gods sake!! 5134 words gobbled by the Punch!!

      Its a liberal conspiracy as I tore Kevin Andrews specious arguments to absolute shreds!!!!

      NOT HAPPY JAN!!!

    • persephone says:

      02:41pm | 11/06/11

      I know the feeling - and they don’t get you any warning either, like some websites do - it all just vanishes.

    • Chris L says:

      11:54am | 12/06/11

      Surely not Dave! Everyone knows that the media is a fully biased to the left and only opinions from the right get blocked! (sarcasm font for those unable to tell.)

    • Condor says:

      12:22pm | 11/06/11

      Always makes me laugh when libtards try to go on about the future, technology and infrastructure development You did nothing for 11 years and now criticise everyone else for trying to do something.

      You’re totally wrong.

      71% of people with a fixed line is significant.

      I have a fixed line and I live alone. I use it solely for broadband services. I can download an episode of South Park from a P2P netwrok in about 10 minutes. If I was using wireless broadband it would take about 8 days*. If I was trying to view The Punch on my Apple iPhone 3GS outside in the CBD it usually takes about 3 minutes to download a page. At home it takes about 3 seconds. Big difference.

      I can get a wireless router for my mobile communications device. Your attempt to suggest that a landline will be useless for these is simply wrong and ignorant. These things can use the broadband speed anywhere in the house. This is their purpose. They don’t use wireless broadband services because it takes too long.

      Please educate yourself or shut up.

      * not quite but it would take significantly longer than 10 minutes

    • Luc says:

      12:53pm | 11/06/11

      “You did nothing for 11 years”

      Implying that they didnt have to pay back an enormous amount of debt left by the former Labor government, not to mention ensure there was a surplus so that Labor could once again waste it and get us into debt yet again.

    • Condor says:

      12:56pm | 11/06/11

      Scratch that: it just took me about 6 minutes to download episode 7 of season 15

    • Dave Sag says:

      01:22pm | 11/06/11

      Seriously, South Park just gets funnier and funnier eh.

    • Ripa says:

      01:28pm | 11/06/11

      @Condor
      6 mins?! Thats shit.

    • Condor says:

      01:45pm | 11/06/11

      Oh dear god, yet more about the debt.

      Unless you understand the budgetary cycle due to tertiary qualifications in economics, STFU. You just sound embarrassingly ignorant.

      Paying back debt is not an achievement.

    • Richard says:

      02:44pm | 12/06/11

      Condor: “Paying back debt is not an achievement.”

      Tell that to Greece. Tell that to Ireland. Tell that to the UK. Tell that to the USA.

      I’ve proven my point, but one more thing. I’m studying economics at University now, and I’m honestly astounded by the amount of left-wing group think and ideology that they try to indoctrinate us students in. Brilliant nobel prize-winning economists like Milton Friedman and Frederick Hayek are not even covered, their ideas are not even discussed, or if they do its in such a cursory and dismissive way.

      I’m starting to believe that the only way it can be possible to have an accurate, workable understanding of economics is if you DON"T study it at Uni, and instead think and read for yourself.

    • Some logic says:

      12:53pm | 11/06/11

      The NBN will be obsolete when we develop ways of sending data faster than the speed of light…don’t see that happening for a while.

    • Soames says:

      12:54pm | 11/06/11

      Mr Andrews, here, has apparently been able to foment a form of mass hysteria, a form of groupthink, in which several people with something in common begin to think in the same way.  In mass hysteria, the group members all develop a common fear that often spirals into a panic. The group members feed off each other’s emotional reactions, causing the panic to escalate. There is no reason to cause panic, one only has to examine Mr Andrews’  ‘statistics’ to realise they are a dog’s breakfast, designed to confuse people into thinking they must be right because he is a politician, and is therefore second only to Mahatma Ghandi, but more likely a cardboard replica of Mahatma Coat. It’s well known that statistics can represent one of two things, either truth, or manipulated plausibility.  On the other hand, there are wiser individuals here, who have a much more reasoned view, based on past performance of previous governments, and the direction in which the communications infrastructure of this mostly coastal, but otherwise sparsely populated big country,  must proceed, in order to service the current and projected population of this nation, in terms of education, commerce, and last but not least, personal use, including entertainment.

    • Denial says:

      01:07pm | 11/06/11

      The liberals will oppose a hospital if labor built it. The liberals are a whinging pack of liars just like the labor party

    • Gerard says:

      03:08pm | 11/06/11

      Can’t blame them for that; everything the ALP builds ends up costing 4-5 times its actual value.

    • Jason Smith says:

      06:09pm | 11/06/11

      At least they bloody build it. Libs just try and talk the population into believing they dont need one.

    • Gerard says:

      07:50pm | 11/06/11

      And in this case they’d be right. Why does Australia need faster internet? How does Australia benefit from having media infrastructure controlled by a government whose standard MO is to hide the truth from the public?

      The NBN is, at best, a luxury item. Its conception is testament to this. No one demanded it, no one asked the government to build it. Kev just drew it up on the back of an envelope and announced that the government was doing it. It’s not only something that will cost too much because of Labor incompetence; it’s something that was not needed in the first place.

    • Chris L says:

      11:56am | 12/06/11

      “The NBN is, at best, a luxury item”

      Kinda like those telephone lines the government wasted money on when we had a perfectly good postal service!

    • Richard says:

      07:58pm | 12/06/11

      Well we already have the internet in our country, and we already have fibre as well. And that fibre will continue to be invested in by the private enterprise if only the meddling government would just butt out.

    • Gerard says:

      02:06am | 13/06/11

      I’ll take the fact that you can’t come up with a relevant analogy as vindication of my point.

    • Chris L says:

      11:00am | 13/06/11

      You’re talking about an improvement to communications not being necessary since we already have one, that same argument could be used in regards to adding phone lines versus the postal service.

      In what way is my analogy not relevant?

    • Gerard says:

      12:22pm | 13/06/11

      It’s irrelevant for two reasons:

      1) Post takes days or weeks for every single exchange, whereas telephony is effectively instantaneous communication. They’re not comparable systems. All the NBN will do is make an existing system slightly faster for a disproportionate cost.

      2) Neither the postal system or the phone network that replaced part of it were mass communication infrastructure. They were person to person communication systems at a time when the dominant news media were newspapers and radio. The NBN will give the government control over a major- and growing- mass communication medium. This is a quantum leap from facilitating personal communications by post or telephone. Given the government’s plans for censorship and data retention, control of the hardware should be setting off alarm bells. I am aware that the government has claimed it will sell the NBN once it is built, so I guess this point really rests on whether you trust politicians to tell the truth or not.

    • Chris L says:

      05:38pm | 13/06/11

      “All the NBN will do is make an existing system slightly faster” -
      Just as phone lines made communication faster so shall the NBN. You define the phone system as person to person, but you can just as easily define the internet as computer to computer. My analogy stands.

      Having the network publicly owned will not give the government control over information. The ISP filter (internet censorship) would. I am opposed to such an idea and have added my voice to the outcry against the plan.

      The NBN should have been put in place a decade ago by the Coalition. The internet is how most information is shared now and shall be for the foreseeable future. The NBN will make this more efficient, more reliable and more available to everyone in this country.

    • Gerard says:

      10:41pm | 13/06/11

      Just how much faster will the NBN be than what we have now? Twice as fast? Ten times as fast? A hundred times? Telephony reduced communication times from a couple of days to a couple of minutes ie approximately 60 minX24 hrs = 1440 times faster. Is the NBN going to increase internet speeds by anywhere near that magnitude? Not to mention the fact that the telephone allowed two way communication where it had previously been one way only. So no, your analogy does not stand.

      As for handing control of media infrastructure over to the government, what is stopping NBNCo from enforcing censorship? If they own the network, they can mandate censorship through their contracts with ISPs. They probably wouldn’t even need to pass legislation to do it. And considering that the government can afford to run NBNCo at a huge loss, the ISPs that agree to the conditions can be given dirt cheap access to the network, forcing non-NBN competitors out of business.

    • Chris L says:

      06:59pm | 14/06/11

      Gerard, here are some estimates of the potential of the NBN, it is copied and pasted so if it looks messy please understand:

      1 Terabit per second data transfer rate equal to:
      1,000,000,000 Kilobits per second (Typical ADSL Speed is 1500 Kilobits)
      1,000,000 Megabits per second (100 Megabits original proposed NBN speed – Tony is proposing 12 Megabits)
      1,000 Gigabits per second (1 Gigabit proposed upgradeable NBN speed)
      1 Terabit (Future achievable Broadband NBN speeds – 69.1 Terabit speed reached in Japanese NTT test)

      Of course speed will not be the only benefit. In many places, even in the big smoke, congestion and/or physical elements causes wireless to be unavailable. The same with remote areas not covered by the current scheme.

      In regards to my analogy, the post is easily two way if the person you write to decides to write back. Indeed many businesses and politicians still use the system to transfer information from one source to thousands of destinations which is something the phone lines would have trouble accomplishing. Of course you will never get an analogy of two situations which exactly mirror each other, but that isn’t necessary when making an analogy:
      a. Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.
      b. A comparison based on such similarity.

      NBN Co will not be able to censor the internet as they won’t have access, let alone control, of the information. The best they could do is unplug an ISP which would leave the aggrieved party with lucrative legal avenues to follow.

      Even the government must pass legislation to be able to force censorship upon us and they don’t need the NBN in place in order to attempt this (as we’ve seen in the past couple of years). All they need is for the public to be complacent, which I like to think we aren’t.

    • Martin says:

      01:25pm | 11/06/11

      I’m not for or against the NBN but is it a lot of money at a time when we are heading into financial strife, YES, are there a lot of “Experts” pen pushers employed by the NBN scraping in huge paypackets, YES. Once upon a time not so long ago code the stuff that makes digital content wasn’t as efficient as it is today thinking back to the likes of Cobal/Fortran it was downright cumbersome a program or movie written in any of the aformentioned code would have produced a file in the vicinity of 10+ Gigabyte now with HTML/Flash,C++ Java among many others the same content can be created using less then 1 GIG now if you were to look at Telstra’s upcoming 4G Spectrum at 100MB an average movie would download in say 10-25 seconds depending on congestion and the ability of the host server to move the data through the que with the NBN this will be 5-15 seconds depending on the exact same circumstances even naked adsl or adsl 2 on a 24MB connection which is not uncommon and certainly Cable can bring this content down almost just as fast. There seems to be three groups that are for the NBN they are 1) Those employed to sell the benefits of the NBN and have a direct vested interest 2) Those who have current poor or no available connection at all 3) Those that are attracted to colourful sparkly things and will follow the crowd regardless of the logic. Looking at group 2 those with poor connections I’ve found either know little about how there connection works or have a combination of filtering issues or are experiecing line noise from deteriating GEL in the Pits owned by Telstra this GEL issue is a common problem across Australia and can be easily fixed ad the one’s that have no service will under the NBN be serviced by satelite/wireless and will not be serviced by the fibre network at all providing them with the exact same technology and speeds that are available right now today! I’ve been in IT for 20 years now and deal with many professionals one being the medical profession and as many a GP will tell you 95%+ of medical conditions cannot be diagnosed without the paitent being physically there infront of the GP think about that,  this week we had Maddy and Mo on the Punch talking up the NBN showing us how amazing active wallpaper can be on your computer screen $43,000,000,000 Billion+ dollars for active wallpaper THIS is one of the benefits I don’t know what school of logic these pair came from but it certainly wasn’t one the average user in the street attended!  And gaming another benefit this will always be held in the realm of the current big three, Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo ask any gamer and they will tell you they don’t use there computer to play games yes they do network but the majority already have a decent connection to play online why because the code is so much more effecient these days that it makes it possible with little or no lag. If we buy the whole NBN line then by rights we should be planted firmly in front of the boob tube and computer only rarely venturing out for the rest of our natural days. Anyone with half a brian can see through whats going on we could spend less than a 1/3 of this money to upgrade and secure the current platform providing a a miimum 50-100MB speeds to almost every person in Australia becuase you can’t watch a movie any faster than its designated time or read a book faster or listen to a mp3 track faster its just not logically possible and large 100Gig files in my experieince some exchanges are either not enabled to cope with this capacity or the business owners do not want to pay the current costs involved or the other issues are slow servers or the end point servers causing a bottleneck and is rarely the network carrier so in the end when it comes to these isues NBN or not the problems will still exist. I am not a fan of Tony or the Gillard/Conroy team neither have a grip on what there selling the only person to date that’s spoken any thruth on this matter is Malcom Turnbell he has a cost effective solution but no one has listened instead we are all about to head to the shops in a Buggatti Veyron which sounds lovely until you come to the logic realisation that the cost of it far outweighs the benefits and lastly don’t forget to factor in the many choices on a secret list and will be filtered out (like that dentist) and dictated by the government of the day once thats in place it will be there forever men in power can’t help themselves they have an overwelhming need to control and by the time the NBN even starts to make $1 profit around 2024 our wonderful shiney new toy will be acting and feeling more like 1984.

    • The Badger says:

      02:48pm | 11/06/11

      An occasional full stop might help others understand your rant.

    • persephone says:

      08:07am | 12/06/11

      Paragraphs are pretty cool, too.

    • Steve Putnam says:

      09:50am | 12/06/11

      @The Badger He thinks he’s James Joyce!

    • mikk says:

      01:33pm | 11/06/11

      More lies from the dinosaurs.
      Most people overwhelmingly access the internet through fixed cables not wireless.
      Failing to distinguish the difference between wifi and wireless shows the ignorance and dishonesty of the born to rule crowd.
      The disadvantages of wireless have been pointed out time and time again but still these liars come here to spout their propaganda.
      After the debacle that was the sale of telstra no one can seriously believe the libs have any credibility when it comes to communication infrastructure.
      Utterly clueless and nothing more than naysaying luddites.

    • Chris says:

      01:45pm | 11/06/11

      This article is absurd. It misses out the important statistic - the growth in the number of wired broadband connections. This hasn’t stagnated. It has grown very rapidly. GROWTH slowed to 10% in 2010. Despite the blather, most people have access to both wired and wireless, as they each have advantages and disadvantages. Total amount downloaded doubled between 2008 and 2010 and the rate of expansion is expected to increase. How will wireless cope with that?

      The wired market is limited at the moment by the lack of investment in and capacity of ADSL to deliver the bandwidth required. Lack of investment because Telstra has not maintained its copper network. Lack of capacity because ADSL will max out at 24 Mb/sec. Now that the NBN is on the way investment in old technologies will slow to a crawl.

      More people would get wired broadband if a decent solution was available. That’s why we need the NBN

    • Chris L says:

      01:54pm | 11/06/11

      Your article is about the NBN arriving a bit late? Wouldn’t that point to a big fat fail of the 11 year Howard government?

      The Liberals can govern efficiently and have some goals I agree with, but when it comes to embracing progress they fall seriously far behind.

    • persephone says:

      02:49pm | 11/06/11

      And an article on what it’s like to live with ultra fast broadband:

      http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/article/2011/06/11/238681_business.html

      ’ the technology is opening their eyes to a whole new world of entertainment and access to information’

      ‘Mrs Blackburn said having the faster fibre-optic connection was the way of the future.

      They paid about the same as they did previously for internet access - $69.95 per month - but had a greatly increased service.

      “Our TV is connected to the internet so we have access to Bigpond TV, we can download movies in about 4 seconds and we can watch all of the sports channels,” she said.

      “My daughter does all of her homework online this year, so having fast internet is beneficial to her study and development.

      “I sometimes work from home because Velocity is faster than the usual business internet, and in my line of work saving time can make a big difference.”

    • Mick In The Hills says:

      10:05pm | 11/06/11

      And as one government contractor said - yeah I can now get my invoice in to them in a flash, but it still takes the f**ckers 90 days to send a payment to my bank account.

      The NBN will not do anything more for commercial transactions than cannot already be done.  And that;s a fact.

    • persephone says:

      08:10am | 12/06/11

      Mick

      re read:

      “I sometimes work from home….in my line of work saving time can make a big difference’.

      Time is money, matey.

    • Bikinis On Top says:

      04:06pm | 11/06/11

      In Newcastle, NBN is known as the greatest television communication channel ever invented. It has provide top quality television for years.
      Just because people outside Newcastle don’t know NBN , that does not mean NBN is not much good. Maybe WIN is better in Wollongong than NBN in Newcastle but thats a matter of opinion. I have watched TCN 9 ,ATN 7, TEN10 ,& ABN2, for years,and years and years in Sydney Australia.
      If I lived in Newcastle or had a better television aerial in Sydney australia, then I would watch NBN as well.

    • John says:

      04:10pm | 11/06/11

      Just look at my case at this moment, I’m paying $39.95 a month for 3G Internet for 9GB with a popular ISP. I don’t have a Telstra phone line connected because this would cost me $20 dollar per month, plus $129 connection fee With the Internet ADSL, we have a connection fee of $59 and 6 month contract of about $40 $60 per month. So in my case 3G broadband is cheaper and more realistic and cheaper in my situation. But it’s not as dependable as ADSL, the connection doesn’t always seem to work, it’s basically pointless for playing online games, and download limits are not enough. If i owned my own home, the ADSL connection would be the option. I also need to state these seems to be cycle, of people cutting their home lines out and using mobiles all the time, i don’t think this good for the long term health of the population, this constant use of wireless devices might have health impact in the future. So i would state that NBN is the best way to go, as it’s maintenance cost’s will end up being cheaper in the long run compared to constant breaking down of the cooper lines. The internet will be fast, stable and there would be no radiation health concerns.

    • bikinis on top says:

      04:15pm | 11/06/11

      The Liberal Party and the National Party should totally and immediately support the National Broadband Network and its installation immediately right now as a matter of extreme urgency to make sure that the National Broadband Network does not become obsolete before it is installed and used, The obsolete,  archaic,obnoxious, and offensive Coalition Parties , namely The Liberal Party and The National Party should stop mucking around in the political widerness as stone age children, living in the Queen Elizabeth One era and implement the NBN now.

    • Bikinis On Top says:

      04:18pm | 11/06/11

      Dear Kevin Andrews and the Coalition Parties,
      please support the immediate implentation of the National Broadband Network immediately right now, Liberal and Nationals , to avoid its onsolence before implementation.Its the obvious reply to your article here!
      Thank You Very much.
      Voters of Australia

    • the Liberal Loafer says:

      08:34pm | 11/06/11

      The Labor Government and the Prime Miniser are welcome in the White House.
      The Coalition Forces would like to welcome the Coalition Parties and Tony Abbott   to Abbottobad .They are only welcome in the Shite House.

    • Jekub says:

      06:03pm | 11/06/11

      Wow, you really have no idea about Technology do you? Mobile technology is all fine and dandy (I use it my self, no alternative unfortunately) but the NBN with a FTTH (Fiber to the Home) network will make it look like the circus act it is. A FTTH network can garuntee internet speed, all an ISP needs is the bandwidth. (which, by the way is easier to aquire on fixed lines than on a mobile network. Speed and reliability of FTTH leave Mobile Internet for dead. When the FTTH network is operational you’ll probably see a move back to landline (if a landline phone is a compulsary part of the connection but hey, I don’t know those details). In short FTTH Rocks, Mobile Internet will suck (in comparison)

    • Jamie says:

      06:10pm | 11/06/11

      Once again, those with absolutely no idea trot out cherry-picked statistics that they think support their argument.

      Let’s look at the real facts:

      There is not a single country in the World that is proposing to replace their fixed network with a wireless one in urban areas (Including the USA, contrary to the fallacies promoted by conservative columnists).

      There is a not a single telecommunications company proposing to replace a fixed network with a wireless one in urban areas.

      According to the ABS, between Q4 2009 and Q4 2010, the volume of data downloaded over fixed connections in Australia increased by 61,000 Terabytes. Over the same period, the amount downloaded over mobile broadband only increased 2,000 Terabytes. In fact, the increase alone for fixed connections is more than 4 times the TOTAL for mobile broadband. Does that sound like fixed connections are dying? I think not.

      Kevin is ignoring the fact that unassailable physical limitations prevent wireless from having the capacity of a fibre network. These limitations cannot be overcome until we find a way around the laws of physics, which I don’t think will happen any time soon. Optical fibre has, for all intents, an almost unlimited capacity to carry data. A single strand can carry more data that the entire radio spectrum combined, let alone the tiny portion of it dedicated to mobile broadband.

    • Steve says:

      12:02pm | 14/06/11

      Stop making sense Jamie - we’d all rather talk debt, lies incompetant government, AGW conspiracy.

    • Mattb says:

      07:33pm | 11/06/11

      This would have to be the most pathetic punch article that has been dished up to us punchers in a long time. I’m not even going to bother going into the reasons why, it doesn’t even deserve such a response.

      Kevin, you need to sack the staffer that wrote this rubbish for you immediately, and if you wrote it, you should be ashamed of yourself

    • persephone says:

      10:26pm | 11/06/11

      At last! After trying for several hours, I’ve finally been able to connect to the Liberal site.

      This is their broadband policy:

      http://www.liberal.org.au/~/media/Files/Policies and Media/Infrastructure/Broadband and Telecommunications Policy.ashx

      ‘The Coalition will also offer direct fibre connections (access network connections) to as many schools and hospitals within the backhaul footprint as possible.
      13 The precise number to be connected will be determined through the competitive selection process
      .14 However, our default requirement will be that in every location where there is a point of interconnect, if there is a school at that location there will be a direct fibre connection to that school and if there is a hospital at that location there will be a direct fibre connection to the hospital.’

      So, far from ‘every’ school and hospital being connected to high speed broadband (as a number of previous posters have stated) - and adjoining residential areas - there are an unspecified number of schools and hospitals which will get broadband if broadband happens to be in their area anyway.

    • stephen says:

      11:23pm | 11/06/11

      Barak Obama recently pointed out that their own national IT rollout will be wireless, and if I am not mistaken, it was made with a motion toward us, as if it was a nudge that wireless is the way to go.
      If we, in capital cities, cannot run a bus service or a train service or fix public telephones that are made in Spain and sort out our disgraceful social problems, such as our road toll, why should we assume we can do anything else for ourselves ?

    • Chris L says:

      02:31am | 12/06/11

      Stephen, you were mistaken. The US government is envious of our NBN plans even while simultaneously being revolted by our internet censorship plans. Pick your battles.

      Also, the road toll can only be sorted out by our citizenry exercising personal responsibility. This cannot be fixed by the government.

      Agree with you over our public transport, it’s a joke.

    • persephone says:

      08:13am | 12/06/11

      Well, in that case we can’t run a wireless network either.

      Glad to see you running down your country like this, Stephen.

      I personally believe Australians are just as capable as any other country in the world.

      Indeed, in some of the areas you list (such as tackling the road toll)  we’re world leaders.

    • Jamie says:

      05:09pm | 12/06/11

      Sorry Stephen, but the wireless system is just a small part of the US broadband policy. The vast majority of it relies on improving their fixed networks. I’d suggest you read this:
      http://nbnconcerns.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/usa-wireless/

      Oh and if you want to see a bad road toll, look no further than the Good ol’ USA where they have over 12 fatalities per 100000, compared to 6.8 for Australia.

    • stephen says:

      08:11pm | 13/06/11

      It’s simply the wrong time for a Government execution on an NBN.
      It’s now a private equity age, and so many are prepared to realize and risk money, labour and expertize.
      The profits can be great, and there’s much at stake if productivity is poor.
      Government efforts, here, is simply at the wrong time.

      Americans are a rowdy lot, and I’m not surprized their road-toll is excessive ; what about New Zealand’s, however ?
      We like to go to both countries for a holiday ; they must have something we don’t, heh ?
      What about risk that is worth the outcome, (relatively speaking) that is ?

    • Gran Depine says:

      07:56am | 12/06/11

      During a recent radio interview Senator Conroy. A man who has never run a small business or owned a 2-3 employee family business, a man who critisized Mr Selim of Mexico who is the one of the world’s authority in Telecommunication and owns his own Telco Empire outright. Mr Conroy can not distinguish between the NBA budget of $37 Billion or $50 Billion inclusive of the Telstra compensation. To further exacerbate the situation no business model forecasts or realtime data that differentiates between the commercial and residential customers of the TOTAL 600 customers. The Senator is an incompetent joke and should resign. Get a real job before you advise on a $50-80 Billion dollar project Mr Conroy.  My final comment is, where are the NBN costings in the Federal budget? Bloody liars, it is good to see that the NBN are using Greek bookkeepers to cook their figures. Moving forward to similar Greek Austerity measures in Australia…are you Federal ALP people hopeless or treasonous?

    • Jamie says:

      07:31pm | 12/06/11

      Unfortunately Gran, you have to look far and wide to find any telecommunication experts who are critical of the NBN. I’d take the opinions of internet inventor Dr Vint Cerf, Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, Google CEO Eric Schmidt and the official statements of Microsoft, Google, Intel, Optus, Singtel and assorted others, over a single billionaire running a monopoly telco in a 3rd-world country plagued with corruption.

      Maybe you should take a look here for what the real IT and telecommunication experts from around the World are saying about the NBN:
      http://nbnmyths.wordpress.com/what-do-the-experts-say/

      There is a substantial business case for the NBN, with forecasts for customers and construction for the next decade. You’ll find it on the NBN website. The NBN currently only has ~700 customers because it’s generally still in trial. The only active mainland site is restricted to connecting a few people each week until the trial finishes and it becomes fully operational in October.

      The NBN isn’t in the budget because it’s an investment, not a spend. The NBN will provide returns above the cost of the debt, so as is standard practise, it doesn’t affect the budget bottom line.

    • Gran Depine says:

      05:34am | 13/06/11

      @Jamie you ignorant child. I have been in the Biometric industry since 1993. I have been presenting technology @ CEBIT (Hanover, US), Scan Tech Card Tech (US, EU) and have published material and demonstrated my technology from my own businesses based in 3 countries since 2000. So let me educate you on some of your comments.

      Firstly, if the NBN is such a great fantastic idea, the private industry would have jumped on it long ago. On a “logical” point of view, if we have invented the worlds greatest cow, do we GM it and replace it with every cow in Australia? Vive la difference, using Aristotle’s ancient logic, if you have one system it can be controlled by one system and eventually it it is more susceptible to crashing and affecting millions instead of a hand full of carriers. I don’t need you to quote a handful of fortune 500 companies and tell me their BS opinion about the benefits of a monopoly. I’m talking about value for money and implementation of the world’s largest infrastructure project per capita without proper due diligence and costings WITHOUT the democratic mandate of the people.

      Our Government did not have a mandate to set up the NBN or even start the roll out of the NBN without explaining to the people of Australia the true costings of the project. Is that democracy?  It is the tactics of a 3rd world country plagued with corruption? Jamie, how long is a piece of string.? If you give the NBN figures to all the companies you mentioned in the above, firstly they would do an in house test to determine if they stack up, they would pay indepedent auditors like KPMG, PWC to confirm their financial forecast, get the bloody thing passed with their board of directors and then implement it after testing their business plan and market research. What our Federal Government is doing is blatant corporate misrepresentation and in the real world they should be in the dock facing charges. I’m not talking about testing the technology, I’m talking about testing the business model and business forecast.

      Our Government know that the uptake will be a joke so it has decided NOW to force the people of Australia to have a connection to their homes and only upon a written letter of refusal by the customer,  the connection will not be connected to the boundary of their home. Well well well isn’t that corporate Fascism 3rd world corruption tactics Jamie? If you don’t believe me look up the NBN’s policy on the take up.

      As for the credibility of Mr Selim, get your facts in order. He was a very very successful chartered accountant before he became a giant in the Telco business. He personally knows how to balance a ledger better than any of the people you mentioned or Government. His argument is about the business model. He is laughing his head off. If I was Mr Selim, I would wait till it the NBN fails and buy the whole stinking business for less than 1% of it proposed gross realization.

      As for the NBN, everything is wrong. The government should of kept the network and made Telstra a provider and not a supplier. Now the government have realized their mistake and is getting Telstra to help with the infrastructure. If the government never sold off Telstra in the first place, it would not have all these issues with Telstra trying to get ready. Stupid idiots. How can you trust someone with your money (an investment as you pointed out Jamie) if they stuffed up and blown out of budget, the Pink Bat project,  BER project etc etc ?

      The Federal ALP think we are all an obedient bunch of idiots when we question their mistakes. PM Gillard called me and my fellow P & C school colleagues “conspiracy theorists” because we proved that the BER was poorly managed and the value for money was criminal. We had to wait for the Brad Orgill report to confirm our data…did we get an apology from the Minister of Education now the current PM? The report confirmed it was not value for money. It confirmed our findings, but we were gagged by the media and the Federal Government and our argument was ridiculed.

      I can tell you now Jamie, the people of Australia are not getting value for money on the NBN. I don’t give a rat’s arse whether you label it an infrastructure project or a business model. We are still going to pay for it and it is going to be the greatest white elephant on or off the ALP’s budget..and they F%$# know it. That’s why we are being taxed to the shit house Jamie. We are not as liquid as the Government thinks we are. If you don’t have any money Jamie, you don’t go shopping for luxury items. The $50 Billion could have been used for agriculture and manufacturing infrastructure. This is what creates jobs and sovereign wealth. Who ever wants faster broadband, let them bloody pay for it.

    • persephone says:

      09:34am | 13/06/11

      Gran Depine

      People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones….or call others ignorant.

      Private industry has a history of not funding ‘great ideas’ - who built our telecommunications system in the first place?

      There’s a lovely story about a Premier of SA who couldn’t get electricity connected to his farm, which was on the outskirts of Adelaide, because it wasn’t a commercial proposition.

      So he compulsorily acquired the company (to add insult to injury, at the price they’d quoted to the stockmarket, which everyone knew was grossly undervalued) and rolled out electricity across SA.

      Now, everyone having access to electricity obviously has a whole lot of benefits, commercial and otherwise, but private industry couldn’t see that at the time - presumably they were making enough profit doing what they were already doing to make speculative investments unnecessary.

      The Snowy Mountain Scheme was another good idea. The idea had been around for decades, plenty of time for any private investor to take it up. The government built it.

      So, no, private industry does not necessarily support good ideas, even ones which will turn them a profit, for a host of reasons.

      In this case, though the return on investment is reasonable (6% plus), investors like to put their money into projects which will return bigger profits in a shorter time span (when my local council touted a project which had a 6% return on investment, we were told that companies wouldn’t look at anything that didn’t guarantee them 25%).

      As for the cow analogy, that’s exactly what is happening all the time in the livestock industry. At one stage, all Friesian cows in Australia were descended from the one bull (either sire or grandsire). Embryo transfer now means the same thing is happening with desirable cows. If a cow came along which clearly outclassed every other cow in its field, farmers would be doing their darnedest to produce herds made up of clones of that cow.

      Why don’t they have a mandate? The NBN idea was taken to two elections. Sure, the details have changed - we’re getting a better deal for the same cost, not something you’d expect voters to quibble about- but there’s nothing to suggest it was vote loser.

      Indeed, on that logic, the Coalition should abandon their policy and take up the NBN. Their policy clearly has no mandate.

      As for governments adopting policies they didn’t take to elections, I hope you were out there in the streets protesting against WorkChoices. If not, your concerns about democracy ring a little hollow.

      You say that all sorts of studies and tests should have been undertaken. They have been. This just demonstrates that either you’re ignorant about the issue or have got an agenda you’re pushing which doesn’t let little things like the facts get in the way.

      (Polite cough: one of these studies was done by KPMG).

      BTW, has any cost benefit analysis been conducted on the Opposition’s plans? (Genuine question, not rhetorical; haven’t heard of one).

      And OMG, it’s fascist to give people a choice as to whether they have the NBN connected or not! (Godwin’s, btw). I don’t think you have much idea of what fascism involves, but you know it’s a nice word to put in.

      Again, evidence of your ignorance.

      Yes, the Howard government should have kept the network, as the ALP said at the time (and, for those who care about such things, so did the opinion polls). Labor has managed to rectify that mistake.

      So yes, the whole project would have been easier and cheaper if the LIberal government hadn’t put their desire to make some money over the public good. Its not as if they weren’t told at the time.

      We’re not being taxed to the shithouse - we’re paying less taxes than we have in modern times -  even if you throw in the flood levy.

      Given the appalling ignorance shown by your post, it’s quite likely that your various predictions about the future of the NBN are off as well.

    • Jamie says:

      03:43pm | 13/06/11

      Well Gran, haven’t you got you knickers in a twist! Lets get a few things straight:

      The private sector wouldn’t build the NBN because there’s not enough money in it for them. A 7% return is not enough for them to make such an investment, which is why the Government had to step in and do it. The private sector can’t even be bothered delivering ADSL to some suburban areas, let alone fibre!

      The ALP may not have had a mandate for the FTTP NBN in 2007, but they certainly did in 2010. The problem with the original FTTN plan was that Telstra wanted to play hardball, effectively preventing the project. Thus, the FTTP plan was born.

      “The Government should of [sic] kept the network” Ummm. It was the Coalition who sold Telstra off, leading to this whole mess in the first place. If they hadn’t, then it would be Telstra building the NBN now.

      Funny that you apportion no value to the opinions of the numerous people who founded and ran the world largest ICT companies, plus assorted business groups and telecommunications experts, however you think we should listen to a single mexican billionaire?!

      So you think the NBN plan should be assessed by people like KPMG? Well, what a coincidence since it was KPMG who conducted the NBN implementation study and made assorted recommendations which were implemented by NBN Co. Then of course, there was the Caliburn report which also confirmed the NBN business case.

      You really need to keep checking your info. It’s only tasmania which has implemented an opt-out system, but it’s certainly the most logical method. I hope the rest of the states will follow suit, but they may not. And given the 90% connection rates in the mainland sites, they probably don’t need to. BTW, the opt-in system is only for connection to the house, it doesn’t mean you have to take up a service.

      [ignoring assorted rants]

      I must question your business understanding when you suggest the NBN investment be re-directed to on-budget spending. Anyone with a modicum of business sense would understand that as the NBN is off-budget with a positive return, it could only be redirected into a similar investment. ie, not agriculture or manufacturing.

    • Gran Depine says:

      07:35pm | 13/06/11

      @ jamie and persephone You have the cow anology all wrong. By cloning the genepool, you make the breed more susceptible to disease and elimination of the the entire stock. Similarly, if we have a just cable and not a combination of cable, wireless etc one big crash can knock out a medium of communication. If the power cuts out, we still have wireless and good old fashion copper wires to communicate.

      As for you comment on investment of private or public sector projects. Who gives a shit, the bottom line is does it sink or float. Our current world geopolitics pushes privatisation and data shows that private enterprises build and manage better projects than Government managed projects. That is a true fact.

      As for the ALP, look at the bloody score board. If they failed with their insulation bat and BER projects who in their wildest dreams, in the private sector, would employ them to manage a, is it $35Billion, $37 Billion, $50 Billion, ooopps we forgot about the Union’s involvement make that $60 Billion dollar project. You can not do this Jamie / persephone. If you were investing your own money you wouldn’t do it.

      I know what Fascism is. My Great grandfather fought it in Greece in 1913 during the liberation of Greece from the Ottoman Empire, he also fought in the Great war, my grandfather fought the Italian Fascists in Greece and kicked their arse on the mounatins we were born, he fought the Nazis and was finally killed by Communists from his own village, my father fought the Fascist Colonel rebellion US backed Junta and came to Australia…so yes I know aliitle about Fascism. When someone imposes something on your land and asks you to send a formal request not to place something on your land what do you call this. Usually, private companies and Governments ask whether you would like something imposed on my land before they do it. But our Neo-Fascist watermelon Federal Government would rather stick it on your land and ask and answer questions later. Why is this so? Because they know that % uptake will be 4/5th of F%$##@@ sweet all. Any one can be a mug and sell a car for half its retail price. In business you have to make the 30% otherwise get another job. It will be Australia’s greatest joke…I will be here shaking my head just like I did at the P&C school meeting and all we got from El Presidente Gillard was an insult by accusing us as Conspiracy Nutters. Well guess what? There is a conspiracy, it is an illusion to make this NBN project look “COMMERCIAL”... it will make 1% return and I think 1% is being very kind. Once again as Prof Clive Palmer said during the “Mining rent tax debacle” we need money invested in manufaturing Australia that would give added value to the mined products, we can not survive just by being a glorified quarryfor the world. Furthermore, agricultural infrastructure (eg..a water channel from Darwin to Adelaide) and we can feed the world. Manufacturing and agriculture will build our Sovereign Bank…not fast broadband to the perimeter of our shores. If they asked the customers how much they were willing to pay for the NBN hook up…the project would go ahead and that is a fact.

    • Rhino says:

      10:49am | 12/06/11

      Ok, Kevin you are a deluded, partisan, rambling luddite hang over from the Howard years. I would write this message on my 3G enabled mobile phone (sturggling with the tiny on screen key board), but there is no point. I am sitting within 500m of a mobile phone tower owned by my phone company. Yet I get no signal. Why? No its not a Vodafail service issues. Its far simpler, its plain old physics. The mobile signal cannot penetrate the concrete and steel faraday cage that is the building I am in, plus a few other buildings in the line of sight. Stepping away from the building helps a little, but not much. So, all the smart mobile phone transmission technology you want will not change this fact. Only higher signal strength will make it work better. Alternatively another tower in a different location with a better line of sight to this building (think a tower on every corenr).

      So i do this on my fixed connection, ADSL2+, my computer runs through my TV. Fantastic stuff, which will be enhanced with a fibre connection. TV on demand, home movies without driving to get a DVD etc, etc, etc, etc.

      Sorry Kevin, you lost the election because you did not understand the power of the NBN, whilst the independents did. You then come up with this article and whine like a school boy debater at his first debate with cherry picked facts, but no understanding. I will embrace the NBN and use it. What will you do?

    • Marilyn Shepherd says:

      02:59pm | 12/06/11

      I think Andrews has missed the point.  Wireless does not mean wireless, it means towers and wires all over the country.

      and he missed the point that Telstra will be tearing up the defunct copper wire and the fibre optic cables will connect every little thing to every little thing.

      Wireless still needs wires, wireless cannot pick up radio signals out of fresh air.

    • J says:

      03:13pm | 12/06/11

      Wireless for serious broadband usage? Cute.

    • Darragh Scully says:

      03:28pm | 12/06/11

      Allright Dollies, get this. If you sign up to Naked DSL now, you dont need a line rental.  Did you include this in your golly stats.
      ta ta precious.

    • Tucky says:

      05:24pm | 12/06/11

      Good to see another dumbass politician opposing a much need upgrade to critical national infrastructure. Seriously guys, get your heads out of the sand and learn some basic IT. Wireless is a useless solution without the fibre backbone behind it

    • neilmc says:

      07:33pm | 12/06/11

      I’ve got 3 mobile data devices (via telstra NextG). They’re good for portability, but for real speed and consistency they’re a mere shadow of fixed line broadband (which I also have).

      The fixed line broadband I have is more consistent than mobile, but limited to 1mbps upload.

      Then there’s the cost. Per megabyte there’s nothing remotely close to fix line in costs today and it’s getting worse. The telcos won’t change that because large migration of data use from fixed line to mobile will bring their networks to their needs.

      The core tech in the NBN will serve us for many decades to come. Andrews is talking out of ...... well I’m not sure what he’s talking out of, but it’s not exactly inspiring.

      Wireless is awesome for mobility, but for the most part it’s complementary to fixed line

    • Sony B Goode says:

      02:39pm | 13/06/11

      NBN will never make a profit. Another massive labor free lunch for the needy paid for by the greedy

    • James A says:

      02:44pm | 13/06/11

      Politicians need to get their heads out of the sand on this Wireless attack on the NBN. The limitations in both Wireless Spectrum, and the air-radio interface means Wireless Networks will never supersede Fibre Networks. In fact, you need optical fibre to actually connect Wireless base stations to, therefore these wireless networks being discussed will never trulely be fully wireless.
      In this case the Liberal-National party are just attacking it “for the sake of it” and because it’s been conceived and sponsored by Labor. It’s time that brainless “drones” like Kevin Andrews start THINKING about policy, and stop apposing things just because someone else conceived the idea and has got the vision to implement it. Normally politicians make decisions for short term gain and “marketing” to make sure they get themselves re-elected. In this case, the project wont be completed well and truly until after Stephen Conroy and Julia Gillard are gone, so this is a Visionary infrastructure project that should be left alone to completion and not continuously questioned by “unqualified” minds - the generations ahead of us will thank us.

    • geniesis says:

      05:59pm | 13/06/11

      When we run out of wireless spectrum due to overcrowding I will definitely laugh at all the people who thought that wireless technology was the way to go and that wired infrastructure is a waste of money.

      Until we develop a whole new means of wireless communication which allows every device that connects access to the full speed afforded by the technology no matter how many users connect - without using more spectrum, there will always be one factor that will leave wireless take up to trail fixed/wired. The fact that with wireless I am not guaranteed access nor bandwidth.

      Try going into the CBD, you will find areas of blackspot where the reason is not because you are out of reach of a tower but because there are too many users in your area and hence cannot get broadband access.

    • Jay says:

      10:02am | 14/06/11

      Again another Liberal nut proving they know nothing of how wireless works. I’ve shoved my palm through my face.  It should be ilegal to mislead the public with incorrect information.

      And as an example to why his weak lines are weak: a) I don’t have fixed-line because I use voip and naked Internet (ADSL without a fixed-line telephone subscription) and b) I use wireless-internet/Mobile only because I DON’T HAVE MY FIXED LINE HIGH SPEED INTERNET CONNECTION WITH ME AT TIMES.

    • csudholz says:

      02:23pm | 16/06/11

      Incorrect Kevin.  What you are saying is that mobile technology is now only just as fast as fixed line that have been around for 50 years.

      NBN will deliver services 10 times faster than wireless in its first year!  You will quickly see a reversing trend in the figures you have used in your flawed argument.  And that doesn’t even consider that scope for service improvement. 

      The 50+ year old copper line services improved in data transfer rates of a few bits/sec to a few Megabits per second in 20 years.  How much will the speed of a modern technology line (optics) improve in that same period?

      Moores law indicated that the NBN will deliver gigabit/sec services by 2030 at a fraction of todays cost.  Wireless could never deliver that, and it comes with no risk of cancer!

    • Busterbest says:

      07:51pm | 09/08/11

      Good to see a lot of knowledgable people commenting favourably on the NBN. I’m no techy, I’m just an old fart with a working brain! The NBN is not just a communication network, It’s a conveyer belt of goods and services streaming into your home. Try ignoring Abbott the Rabbit (where’s the Myxo when you need it) and use your own imagination, try thinking in the future instead of the past!!!

    • Jules says:

      03:32pm | 08/09/11

      The transmission devices that provide wireless to people have to plug into something to connect to the larger internet. Fibre optic is excellent for this! It’s not wireless all the way, unfortunately, and there do actually have to be wires at some point, making the term a bit of a misnomer.

      Future proofing in this instance is money well spent.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

#markwebber just wasted petrol faster than everyone else in monaco #f1

Anthony Sharwood

In my sports column on The Punch tomorrow: why Eurovision was easily the best game on the weekend. Mummy bloggers, you'll like this one!

Daniel Piotrowski

The Logies could learn a lot from Eurovision #lamethings#sbseurovision

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @ellehardytweets: Already despondent about the next fifty one weeks. #sbseurovision

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter