The NBN’s the culmination of 150 years of cock ups

Edward James says:

08:03am | 19/05/11

I expect government to use its control to censor what the proletariat are permitted to access. Thats what governments do. Edward James

Luke says:

08:14am | 19/05/11

“Will it impose censorship?”

Given the Labor/Conroy hard-on for forcing a hidden censorship regime, I think the answer to this question is a resounding “HELL YES”.

Naverly Klitgaard says:

10:02am | 19/05/11

Yes Erick, ‘the Internet did manage to grow very well for over thirty years without government interference’, but not in this country. Your private enterprise pals have delivered Australia a shockingly overpriced, slow and just generally shitty network. But I guess mediocrity satisfies the mediocre.

Reggie. says:

11:04am | 19/05/11

Good on you Erick, open your mouth and put your foot right in there.

History Erick. Did you know that the distance between railway stations was once limited by the inefficiency of telephonic signalling? Not the water, they could always drag a tank full. A doubling of efficiency meant a halving of the number of necessary stations. This is pretty basic but I think it illustrates the advantages to be gained by keeping pace with technology.

Erick: ”  I don’t trust politicians not to grasp for power over what the people are allowed to say and see.”

Now Erick we know enough about you to know that you don’t really trust anyone, which I guess is why you have buried yourself in some remote location with your back to the Indian Ocean. I’m an indi-bloody-vidual myself Erick but there are times when a team effort is required and I don’t trust some of the private enterprise groups that you apparently do. There are plenty of them you know, from the insulation fire-lighters to the big banks that cause people to cry themselves to sleep each night.

Now you just get back to work there sending our dirt off to the Chinese and leave the important tasks to those who know about these things.

Thomas Anderson says:

11:35am | 19/05/11

My internet runs at about 1.5 megabytes per second (ADSL2+). Unlimited downloads for $60 a month. I live close to the exchange. This is competitive with the world standards. My mates who have cable get even faster speeds, albeit, at higher prices.

There is no need for the NBN, if you want to spend some money, build more exchanges or work on increasing the living density. For rural people, faster wireless is a much better solution. If you chose to live in a remote area, deal with everything that comes with it. If it’s more flies and slower internet, so be it.

Tom says:

12:36pm | 19/05/11

@Naverly Klitgaard “Your private enterprise pals have delivered Australia a shockingly overpriced, slow and just generally shitty network.”

... and in the same period of time, your socialist pals all over the world delivered nothing. But I guess nothing satisfies nobodies.

TheRealDave says:

12:38pm | 19/05/11

Good for you, 1.5mb is enough for you. Most ‘mums and dads’ were satisfied with abysmal speeds and high cost pricing from Telstra for a decade before Telstra was forced to compete with other providers. What you are comfortable with is not reflective of the market. 1.5mb is third world broadband. There is no way I’d be payig $60 a month for 1.5mb per second….its not 2001 anymore….

Naverly Klitgaard says:

12:40pm | 19/05/11

I’m very pleased for you ‘you and your mates’, Thomas Anderson, but if you don’t want it or can’t grasp its potential or don’t have the imagination to appreciate the benefits of the NBN, it doesn’t automatically follow that there’s therefore “no need for the NBN”. It’s like saying because you’re satisfied with McDonalds there’s no need for KFC. Or Hungry Jacks. Or, heaven help us, a proper grown up restaurant which serves quality food.

Pete #205 says:

12:52pm | 19/05/11

@Thomas.  Well a golf clap for your 12Mbps.  Lucky you.  How you summise that the NBN isn’t required because you and your mates have decent speeds is interesting. 

Do I have good internet speeds?  No, I don’t.  In fact, I’m lucky to have any access at all in my area because Tesltra’s wisdom of installing RIMs in the late 90s and early 00s.  Even if you’re not behind a RIM, you’re lucky if there are any ports left at the single exchange that services some 80 000 people.  Do I live in the middle of nowhere?  Arguable by some, but I do of think Canberra as at least a large town, worthy of such “modernities” as reliable internet access.

Naverly Klitgaard says:

01:02pm | 19/05/11

Thanks Tom. I’d forgotten what slackarses my socialist pals are. Y’know, what we really need is Romans;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSELOCMmw4A

Tom says:

01:09pm | 19/05/11

@Naverly Klitgaard, you just don’t get it do you? Maccas, Hungry Jacks might not be up to your exacting standards, but their food certainly beat what your Russian pals were eating all those years.

Naverly Klitgaard says:

01:39pm | 19/05/11

@Tom 01:09pm

Those Russkies were never my pals — not commie enough for mine. North Korea’s my pal. I like the purity of their socialism and their canine cuisine can’t be beat by youse capitalist running dogs.

IP Monkey says:

04:47pm | 19/05/11

“The Internet managed to grow very well for over thirty years without government interference.”

Umm no, virtually every major peice of the internet was developed by Advanced Research Projects Agency of the US Ministry of Defence, sometimes with help from various uni’s.

The interent (or ARPANET) started in 57 by the US goverment and then developed with government agencies (mostly research) and educational institutions. In the late 70’s and early 80’s the underlyling ‘internet’ protocols, DNS servers and naming were established by ARPA. Even Berners-Lee (inventor of the web) was a gov scientist when he created it.

ISP’s did not exist until the 1980’s and only really took off in the 1990’s.

Tom says:

05:46pm | 19/05/11

@IP Monkey, thanks for your good blog. However, if I am reading you correctly, “ISP’s did not exist until the 1980’s and only really took off in the 1990’s.” you seem to be confirming rather than refuting Erick’s assertion that it “managed to grow very well for over thirty years without government interference”.

Most of us defer the initial government origins and are vaguely aware of milestones such as Mosaic / Netscape etc, but my impression is that the “explosion” took place outside government.

@Eric, My impression is that government attempts at censorship are just speedbumps or challenges for the true geeks. I honestly believe even Conroy (with all his pig headed stupidity) knows this but is dangling the bait to divert us. I believe Conroy’s only agenda is to gain control over infrastructure and re-introduce a government / union monoply. I don’t discount that Conroy would be salivating at the prospect of government boosting their surveillance for a political gain via the internet.

Erick says:

06:10pm | 19/05/11

Thank you for that defence, Tom.

IP Monkey, you should pay attention to my wording. I said “without government interference”, by which I meant that until the 21st Century governments mostly allowed the Internet to evolve naturally, and apart from funding some developments, kept their noses out of it.

The NBN and the Internet filter are examples of governments meddling with what has largely worked just fine under their previous benign indifference. The Internet doesn’t need politicians trying to “improve” it.

Shifter says:

07:34pm | 19/05/11

@Thomas - I wouldn’t want to share at those speeds. Imagine a household in the evening where father wants to watch a video stream of a EPL match, daughter is browsing youtube and son is downloading porn via torrent. 1.5 Mbit/s won’t cut it and the torrents will probably choke whatever measly upstream you’ve got.

This might not be what you use your internet for, but it is a pretty common scenario in many households. We’re at a stage where more bandwidth intense activities are becoming the norm.

Now there’s some problems with your solution. Firstly increasing the living density will only make the issue (internet speed) in it’s current state worse. In a telephone exchange there are 1000s of ADSL connections, each 1.5 Mbit per second or more. They are connected via what’s termed a backhaul link to a more central location. This backhaul link is not infinitely sized. It does not even provide each any every connection with it’s own 1.5+ Mbits/s. In fact some exchanges are so over subscribed they cannot provide users with the full speed of their advertised product.

So adding more users to these exchanges will be like filling a full bottle. The current system, in certain areas, is at the limit.

Build more exchanges you say? Well sure, but why bother building more 20th century tech? It’s like building an exact replica of your house next door and then moving into it. The only advantage you get is you can hoard more junk.

skepdad says:

10:05am | 20/05/11

The NBN and the filter are two very different propositions.  It’s worth noting that the internet could only get to its current position by the use of public infrastructure - namely the telephone system.  From bleeping modems to ADSL2+, the copper overhead and underfoot was what allowed the internet into every home.

The NBN is an upgrade to that public infrastructure, replacing copper with fibre.  We can argue the effectiveness of the implementation, but let’s not confuse that with a monopolistic grab - the monopoly already exists and I’m depending on it to type these comments, as are you all.

The filter, by comparison, is self-styled moral guardianship policy driven by myopic lobby groups.  It would result in a greater (not reduced) chance of minors being exposed to undesirable material; hand the government power to impose their, or any effective lobby group’s, morality on the country; and take money away from genuine child protection initiatives.

If the government railroads a mandatory filter through, it won’t need its own fibre network to make it happen.  It can legislate just as badly for privately-owned cables as for public infrastructure.

Yes the government wants to control what you see and hear.  Yes, they have ulterior motives. Yes, they are stirring up moral panic which they see as vote-winning.  But they also want to provide the nation with an infrastructure legacy that will keep Australia competitive.  The two are not the same, nor are they co-dependent.

Thomas Anderson says:

01:49pm | 23/05/11

It’s not 1.5 mbit, it’s mbyte. As someone has pointed out, that’s 12 Mbit/s. Plenty to sustain a multi user network, unless you’re running p2p and clogging every possible connection.

Which is just slightly slower behind the few countries who get outrageous speeds (because of very high living density). 12 Mbit would put me in top 10, maybe even top 5 in the world. Now, I know this also puts me in the top percentile in Australia. Logically, if everyone lived as far from the exchange as I do, everyone would have good internet. No need for the NBN.

And yeah, the RIMs was a retarded idea by Telstra way back when. I lived with pair gains for a year, I know how bad it is. The answer lies in providing enough copper lines so households don’t have to share. It will be cheaper than the NBN.

DMc says:

07:29pm | 19/05/11

And there’s the problem in a nutshell.  For the vast majority of domestic users, mobile broadband will be preferred.  The telco’s prefer mobile for its relatively low capital cost, scalability, and ease of upgrading.  For businesses in major cities, high bandwidths are already available.
The only beneficiaries of the NBN will be bandwidth-hungry businesses and facilities in relatively remote areas.  And how many of those are there?  Enough to warrant the big $$$‘s being thrown around?  I think not.

Mark says:

08:17pm | 19/05/11

While wireless broadband offers the convenience of mobility, it is between four and eight times more expensive per Mb downloaded compared to a fixed fibre connection. Most broadband users will find it much cheaper to connect to the NBN and suplement it with small amounts of data sent to a smart phone etc when on the move. With the data sent via broadband expected to increase fourfold by 2015, wireless only users will be paying huge internet plan fees.

The other issue for wireless is the increasing number of smartphone connections and increasing data usage by each customer. The available bandwidth is fixed so just like a highway on a holiday weekend, everyone’s speed slows to a crawl.

Grant says:

01:46pm | 20/05/11

Wireless networks aren’t magic. They have to connect to the wired networks somewhere (usually within 1 or 2 km, if not less) and those connections are then limited by the wired networks. Ipso facto, improving the wired network improves the wireless network.

Carter says:

08:44am | 19/05/11

In a sense, they have Anne. Electricity was a huge step forward for many people who could throw out their kerosene lamps and, while not as monumental, the advent of fast internet for schools, hospitals and doctor’s surgeries, regional small businesses and individuals is still huge. There’s little argument that, although speeds are adequate now, in the not-too-distant future we will need faster speeds to be able to maintian basic services as well as invest in the future. Think where the internet was a decade ago compared to now…

The problem is, the NBN should have been started ten years ago. Yes it is costing a lot, but if it had been done ten years ago it would have cost a fraction of the price. And if it is done in five or ten years, it will be infinitely more expensive.

It’s fine to offer wireless as an alternative, and it is, but the wireless routers still need some form of cabling to connect to the broader cables that run between countries/continents.

The best answer is probably a mixture of the two, but NBN is a good thing for our future.

Tom says:

01:01pm | 19/05/11

@Carter, You talk as if only Conroy and Gillard appreciate emerging technology. A few inconvenient truths:

1. Armidale already had the internet.
2. 10 years ago the technology was not available for the speeds being talked about today. Try reading up on Turing 1950 and Moore’s law 1970.

Internet started out as military. However, today’s technology owes everything to the private sector, not government. The Conroys and Gillards of the world only see the industry as another vehicle to political power and an opportunity to obtain fake kudos for what was happening anyway without them.

The internet is good for our future. However, NBN is just another failed socialist parasite attempt to jump on the bandwagon.

Carter says:

03:35pm | 19/05/11

@Tom

A couple of inconvenient truths back at you:
1.  I didn’t say anything about ONLY Gillard or Conroy appreciating technology, that was your interpretation,
2.  I also didn’t mentioned that Armidale now has the internet thanks to the NBN, your interpretation, just that faster internet would bring benefits,
3.  Fibre optics were being developed ten years ago. They didn’t have to be installed then but just as it’s taken four years for NBN Co. to get off the ground, seven years ago the technology to update the copper network was well and truly there. If you need an example, look at Canada. Or Singapore.

Doubtless politicians see technology as a vehicle for political gain. Here’s another inconvenient truth: that’s all politicians do. It is incredibly rare for a politician to do something simply because it is a good thing to do. There’s usually some political benefit for them. No matter which party they’re on.

Without even attempting to rationalise your bizarre comment on socialism, it’s not even clear you know why socialism is perceived as a bad thing – you’re just parroting soundbites, the crux of my comment was that in any form, the development of an NBN is a good thing, although politicians, spending and monopolies should be reigned in.

TheRealDave says:

03:41pm | 19/05/11

Tom, who built the current network we all enjoy?

Guess what, the answer isn’t Telstra nor is it ‘Private Enterprise’.

Nor did the military build ‘the Internet’...they built switching networks to ensure constant communications across the US in the event that large chunks of the country went ‘dark’ ie were destroyed in a nuclear exchange….but they didn’t ‘invent’ the internet.

But at least were right about…wait….nothing apparently…..but thanks for playing!

Tom says:

04:27pm | 19/05/11

Splitting hairs there Carter, “In a sense, they have [introduced electricity] Anne. Gillard and Conroy did not “introduce” anything in any “sense”.

Splitting hairs there RealDave. No-one “invented” the internet. It did owe origins to the government (military). You are trying to find disagreement where none exists. We agree, not disagree.

Real Dave, as best I remember Telecom or PMG put in the cables. But if you are trying to make the point that it was government that did it, I won’t argue. As best I remember, the early phone companies in USA were private. But so what?

You socialists are all about “moving forward”. You ridiculed Howard for 1950s bobby sox ideas. Now you are saying let’s go back to the good old of PMG and big government? Back to Tammany Hall? The BLF? Back to Barcaldine and the light on the hill? NBN? Conroy? No thanks, they are dinosaurs. We have much better delivery mechanisms available today.

All your bush lawyering does not alter the contention that your govenment blunderers are jumping in on the technology bandwagon and usurping credit where it is undeserved. That was Anne’s initial point and a pretty good one.

TheRealDave says:

07:17pm | 19/05/11

I’m not splitting hairs at all. I am merely pointing out the silly argument that ‘If there is a need then private enterprise will fulfill it’. Its plainly obvious that it never has and never will. Only governemnt can do nationwide infrastructure projects on the grand scale the NBN is. End of story. The current infrastructure we enjoy is further proof. Private Enterprise never built it, the government did, with out money, over several decades. Which, funnily enough, is what they are going to do with this new nationwide infrastructure roll out.

Tom says:

09:54pm | 19/05/11

Sorry RealDave,
- too many self evident truths in your blog. “Only governemnt can do nationwide infrastructure projects on the grand scale the NBN is.” Gee whizz I must be imagining Google, Microsoft, Optus, AOL etc.
- Too many presumptions Dave. “governemnt can do”. I am old enough to remember the snowy scheme, but gee whizz Dave many big things have happened since then.
- Too few qualifiers, Dave “governemnt can do” without sending Australia broke in the process.
- Too much narrowing of the argument to your option Dave, “NBN”. My counter is only government would be stupid enough to do NBN without rigorous consideration of the alternatives.
- Too many straw men arguments, Dave, I never said ‘If there is a need then private enterprise will fulfill it’. Nor did I say anything remotely resembling that. You said it, put it in quotesthat, then attacked it.

Dave, for all the above reasons I find your sophistry and bluster very shallow.

Carter says:

09:40am | 20/05/11

Not splitting hairs at all.

I was using a metaphor. Look it up. Comparing the positive benefits of introducing electricity to the positive benefits of introducing faster internet speeds. Go back and reread the definition of a metaphor. Gillard and Conroy have facilitated greater internet speeds to a regional city. They have, in fact, “introduced” a fibre optic network. Go and look up fibre optic network.

I also wonder why you’re calling TheRealDave and I socialists. Look up the definition of socialism. Introducing new technologies isn’t socialism.

The “military built the internet”. Wrong. The internet as we know it was “built” by Tim Berners-Lee and Robert Cailliau. Look them up. They developed the system of interlinked hypertext pages we call “the world wide web”. To carry these signals, they utilised cables that trace their origins to private telegraph cable companies, and eventually phone companies. Recently, it’s been a mix of private and public entities.

Then I take offence at you assertion that the government are “(my) government blunderers”. Aside from the fact they are everyone’s government, one of the reasons they are in government is their vision for a fibre optic network. If the Howard government had had such a vision, or Abbott had been able to talk confidently about an alternate, then they possibly wouldn’t be in power.

Governments are often stimulants for major infrastructure, but neither governments nor private companies can implement large scale infrastructure on their own anymore. “Google, Microsoft, Optus, AOL etc” haven’t developed their own infrastructure, but they utilise existing infrastructure. Yes many things have happened since the Snowy Mountains Scheme, all of which have been done either solely through government, or with significant government investment. Name a project that hasn’t. And Australia isn’t broke. We have one of the best economies in the developed world. So many (independent) authorities assert this, it’s only conservatives who don’t like admitting this because it blows their “only we can handle an economy” argument out of the water.

Tom, stop being obstructive, there’s a prominent politician who is basing his career on that. Open up to other people’s ideas – i.e. practice what you preach. Both TheRealDave and I, as well as you, have some good ideas. This should be a meeting of minds, not butting heads.

Chris L says:

12:14pm | 20/05/11

“Gee whizz I must be imagining Google, Microsoft, Optus, AOL” -

Gee whizz, I must have missed how those things are classed as infrastructure. I guess they could be, in a virtual sense. The NBN is not a virtual infrastructure.

Public circus says:

08:16am | 19/05/11

Nah mate… fibre to a hub is effectively fibre nowhere, cos the existing technology running from the hub to the user slows/clogs with usage.. so you’d get lightspeed to a ‘station’ but the queues to catch the train would be as long as they are now, effectively no increase in speed or accessibility for the user.

And if you’re going to talk labor vs liberal finance (“hock”), please apply the liberal finance methods to the labor expenditure. That is - do not count the capital cost of the NBN (because Costello never counted infrastructure spending, and neither did the media when he was in) - so the “$40 billion” everyone yells about is more like 6% (current interest) of $40bn at worst case scenario… and is actually 6% of 20-odd Bn since the cost is split 50-50 govt/private.

...and I work for a govt department (have done for both liberals and labor… know whats funny? It doesn’t matter who’s “in”) and our department comms ARE run by Singapore (optus=singtel). Woooooo.

TheRealDave says:

08:54am | 19/05/11

The Liberal plan was last minute thrashed together bollocks - and they knew it. Hence why they jsut shut their mouths and went around saying the NBN was a waste of money instead of actually pimping out an alternative coherent vision.

Anyone with more than half a brain knew it

Tony of Poorakistan says:

10:13am | 19/05/11

Dave

not so. It was simply badly explained by Abbott. The real problem was in getting competitive or Govt owned high-speed backbones to regional centres and ensuring Telstra could not wholesale and retail. The way it was, Telstra had a monopoly and, regardless of who your retailer was, you ended up being screwed because Telstra screwed *them*.

TheRealDave says:

10:46am | 19/05/11

No Tony, it was a craptastic plan that would do NOTHING to improve communications quality around the country and only give Telstra, a public company from memory, Billions of dollars to upgrade its Privately owned infrastructure that we would see ZERO return on investment

Erick says:

07:39am | 19/05/11

L., you made the rookie mistake of assuming I meant the NBN when I said “the Internet”. I did not. I was referring to the Internet, that is, the entire set of computers connected to one another by Internet Protocol, and all the services carried by that network, throughout the world and beyond.

Jade says:

03:27pm | 19/05/11

Glad I am not alone in the whole not being able to get internet thing. I live 55km south of Brisbane CBD and am in a total black out zone. No phone reception and only satellite internet and telstra for home phone.  I use to live 90km west of Brisbane CBD and got better reception than I do now.  Its pretty sad in my opinion.

Erick says:

08:19am | 19/05/11

Whoops, L., I fired off a response before I saw your second comment. Please forgive any undue harshness.

Anubis says:

09:53am | 19/05/11

I would agree with that one L. I live in a regional town within 50k of the CBD of Melbourne. We have a local exchange but no ASDL ports are available (and haven’t been for a couple of years. Telstra outright refuses to add additional capacity, even though the area is a growth area. Their argument is that they would need to pay to add the additional ADSL capacity but would be forced to make it available to their competitors so they will not invest. Fair enough from a business point of view but absolute crap from a client point of view.

Just Sayin' says:

01:36pm | 19/05/11

No need to apologise Erick.  If L could work out how to reply to a thread instead of creating a new one, the confusion would never have arisen.

Tom says:

02:12pm | 19/05/11

@Anubis, I don’t exactly love Telstra, but bullying by Conroy and NBN halted any aspirations or plans Telstra would have had in rolling out ADSL protocol. Would you build a new garage knowing that government would be taking it over (at their price)?

Anubis says:

03:31pm | 19/05/11

Tom - As I said “fair enough from a business point of view”. I was just saying that as a customer it sucks when you are forced on to an inferior service (in this case erratic, slow and unreliable wireless.

TheRealDave says:

03:44pm | 19/05/11

@Tom, utter bollocks. Even Telstra themselves have come out and said their plan was to take the government for as much money as it could in ‘compensation’ and then build their own fibre network with the money. It was only in the media two weeks ago..or less….did you even read it or have you conveniently forgotten?

Tom says:

04:38pm | 19/05/11

RealDave, “compensation”? ... for what? ....  Are you saying that the spectre of “compensation” was there without NBN?

Cummon Mr Clever Clogs, tell us all. Why would Telstra be dreaming up the tought of “compensation if it wasn’t for NBN? Otherwise, your bollocks comment is looking pretty stupid.

Tom says:

04:47pm | 19/05/11

Anubis, as I said, I am no fan of Telstra. I lived in Campbelltown where, not so long ago, the local exchange restricted me to dial up when ADSL was everywhere else. Telstra’s arrogance was astounding and I went to Exetel wireless which gave a brilliant reliable service.

No doubt, Telstra would have rolled it out to your town “in its own sweet time”, but your point is 100% valid, it is the customer who is being left out.

nossy says:

07:43am | 19/05/11

@dale - well said Dale - silly old Howard spruiked “Telstra Shares will be good for the Mums and Dads of Australia” ! Good grief - Telstra shares today are BELOW the issue price of 1999 ! Beware Liberal politicians trying to tell you about economic matters - many are failed business people who have turned to the Taxpayer for succor - as did Johnny GST who spent a lifetime sucking the Welfare teat - I doubt he ever even had a real job outside politics !

*face palm* says:

08:38am | 19/05/11

Hahaha yes Liberals are failed business people on the government teat Nossy…compared to an overwhelming majority of union hacks populating the Labor front benches? People who have only ever existed on the public teat and never had a real job in their lives.  Yes, they would know best how to create wealth…what are we counting, 9 deficits in a row for the Labor party in successive governments.  No no, they are economic conservatives, Kevin Rudd said so in a couple of press conferences.

Mouse says:

09:31am | 19/05/11

Actually nossy, Howard was a solicitor for 12 years before he won the seat of Bennelong in 1974. The majority of Liberals have successfully worked in the business sector before entering politics. 
Telstra shares were good for Mum & Dad investors but when Telstra was removed from the National Broadband Network RFP process late 2008 by Conroy, their share price suffered the biggest one day percentage fall in its history.
I don’t think I need to compare Liberal and Labor economic management though, hate to see a grown man cry.  ;o)
Have a wonderful day nossy. Hope the weather is a bit warmer where you are, getting very nippy down here, brrrrrrr! lol

Naverly Klitgaard says:

10:13am | 19/05/11

@Mouse, Telstra shares were well and truly stuffed well before 2008 — it was one of the great failings of Howard and cohorts. Please stop defending the indefensible, it makes you look delusional.

TheRealDave says:

10:22am | 19/05/11

Mouse, please don’t try to re-write history. Telstra shares have performed poorly since they were launched. They just further nose dived after Telstra handed in a contemptous 4 page report that didnt even address the criteria propelry at the last minute.

The only people top blame for Telstra’s poor share performance is Telstra itself.

Sony B Goode says:

11:43am | 19/05/11

How is that different to saying, leaving food production to the private sector is like doing nothing?

There is a good reason for the state of play in broadband, and it’s called Telstra, a former monopoly protecting its turf. The problem of course is that competition was not allowed in the first place leaving the market in a hopeless mess when Telstra was privatized as a monopoly.

Howards fault really for thinking just privatising Telstra would sort out the mess. Telstra privatised had a strong incentive to protect its monopoly.

There are no easy solutions because the markets where kept out at the initial stage of rolling out networks, now the cost and the entrenched, once public funded, competition (Telstra) are an obstacle to investment.

Anyone that pretends they have a good solution is having themselves on.

Anubis says:

01:31pm | 19/05/11

The fundamental mistake made when Telstra was privatised was not splitting the business. The infrastructure and physical resources (Exchanges, lines, etc) should have been one company, under Government control and regulation. The Commercial, or sales arm, should have been sold separately. But Howard needed the cash quickly so he could ensure Public Service superannuation through the Future Fund. Which raises the other question, employers who do need contribute the mandatory superannuation contributions are liable to prosecution, why then is the Government permitted to neglect paying contributions without penalty? and have subsequent Governments continued making the contributions or do they all now rely upon the Future Fund to cover this ?

Tom says:

01:58pm | 19/05/11

Telstra was already a dinosaur. Howard flogged it as a budget measure. It produced instant revenue and staunched a bleeding budget. Let’s get real, Keating would have flogged it too.

Problem is that the same Mums and Dads that bought shares in Telstra or had super funds in Telstra voted for “Little Johnny” as you JWH haters call him. He had to protect Telstra’s ugly monopoly. The ugly socialist monopoly became the ugly capitalist protected monopoly.

When the moment came for new technology to take over copper wires, new players such as Westnet were coming onto the market. They were (are) better at what they do, retailing. However, no-one apart from Telstra had the gonads to deliver infrastructure. The problem was that they were old gonads and comfortable with pipe and slippers.

The USA has all these go-getter companies such as Google, Apple, Microsoft etc. They are similar to the old rail companies in USA. Naked capitalists, corrupt as hell and malignant in the niceties.

But the kicker is that they do deliver. Obama understood this and his vision is co-ordinated delivery as opportunity presents itself. Obama is committed to wireless and cable plus whatever new technology comes along but not tied to wanting to control it.

Conroy and Gillard on the other hand are tied to centralised and control by a ruling elite. Such a mechanism is like Telstra (tried and failed).

The only two people in Australia stupid enough to believe that Corrigan did the wrong thing by the wharfies and Australia’s wharf infrastructure are Conroy and Gillard.

NBN is nothing more than Telstra II. It is nothing more than a dinosaur with a high tech hip replacement.

TheRealDave says:

09:02am | 19/05/11

Lets be clear Joel, since you haven’t been. 7 test cases were rolled out BEFORE the launch of the system by ISPs testing in the area….not 7 total customers signed up.

Now that the system has launched ISPs can start selling their services

Or are you trying to deliberaately mislead everyone here?

Joel B1 says:

09:37am | 19/05/11

@TheRealDave,

Well come then, if you can find the number of people “signed-up” to a RSP anywhere, you’re a better data miner than I am.

So how many people have signed-up with a RSP in Armidale?

You don’t know do you?

What about Tassie?

You don’t know do you?

The Badger says:

09:45am | 19/05/11

I don’t think he is deliberately trying to mislead TRD.
He is just a technical lightweight with no grasp of the terminology and is confused by the facts and conflicted by his political posture.

He doesn’t understand what a trial is so I’m sure he has no idea what an alpha or beta site would be.
 
Wonder how many users The University of New England at Armidale and the Presbyterian Ladies College will have connected to the NBN.

Joel B1 says:

10:14am | 19/05/11

@Badger,

you’re a laugh!

I can CVC your RSP anyday son!

Naverly Klitgaard says:

10:16am | 19/05/11

Joel B1 says: “I’ve accessed an internal NBN document that shows what the hidden agenda is.”

Bullshit.

TheRealDave says:

10:23am | 19/05/11

No I don’t know, considering it only ‘launched’ yesterday. As I mentioned.

Jim says:

12:02pm | 19/05/11

Yeah Badger…good call mate. There are a total of 7 - SEVEN subscribers to the NBN in Armidale!! One is the Library, and 6 are in Windsomes office.

The Badger says:

12:17pm | 19/05/11

Up out of the coalface into the light of day comes levity
gotta love it.
Thanks jim

Joel B1 says:

12:40pm | 19/05/11

@Naverly

Try reading all the comments, although I imagine it’ll be a bit of a strain for you.

Naverly Klitgaard says:

01:30pm | 19/05/11

@Joel B1 12:40pm

Oh, I read your other rant and I still call bullshit. Post this scoop “internal NBN document” of yours and prove “the hidden agenda”.

And the insult at the end of your comment? Really? C’mon, a bigtime investigative activist like you should be above such petty childishness.

Tom says:

03:56pm | 19/05/11

@Joel B1, secret agenda? I agree with Naverly Klitgaard, let’s see it.

There are enough common sense reasons to despise Conroy and NBN without some “tinfoil hat” gibberish discrediting the cause. Are you a labor stooge appearing to be a moron? Or are you trolling?

MarK says:

04:24pm | 19/05/11

“The Badger says:

09:45am | 19/05/11

I don’t think he is deliberately trying to mislead TRD.
He is just a technical lightweight with no grasp of the terminology and is confused by the facts and conflicted by his political posture.”

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

From the Badger who thinks there are so few to sign up because

”  It would never dawn on mark that many people have broadband contracts that run for one to two years and would pay dearly for an early termination of an existing contract.”

Yes that’s right. Badger still thinks internet plans require you to sign up for 12 to 24 months.

What a laugh you are Badger. Still stuck on a 24 month Telstra 256/64 plan are we?

Please let the adults talk you great big roly poly luddite you.

Joel B1 says:

04:45pm | 19/05/11

@Klitgaard,

My “other rant” as you so ironically put it is straight from that internal NBN doc.

BTW it is SEVEN customers signed-up to a RSP, ha ha ha ha!

TheRealDave says:

09:08am | 19/05/11

Privatisation is going to save us all money as increased competition will drive prices down.

Or so I was told

Oh look, my electricity bill has arrived, let me see how much I have profited from Privatisation!

St. Michael says:

11:09am | 19/05/11

Privatisation doesn’t mean anything without actual competition.  And though governments are usually pretty keen to privatise services and thus remove them from their budget forecasts, they’re not so smart when it comes to the concept of breaking down utility monopolies so somebody can actually, y’know, compete.

Electricity is one.  There’s only one provider.  Thus no competition.  Thus no reduction in price.
Telstra is another.  There’s more than one provider, but they all have to work off Telstra’s lines, so it is in fact still Telecom calling the shots.  And everyone remembers how shit Telecom was when it didn’t have shares on the stock market.

acotrel says:

09:50pm | 19/05/11

The first ‘remedy’ was to spit the Post Master General’s Depatrment.  The second ‘remedy’ was to create Australia Post, and Telstra as privatised corporations.  The same cynical management hierarchy still exists, so what has changed?  The cure seems to be worse than the disease? Another failure of the free market economy?

Sony B Goode says:

11:46pm | 19/05/11

Acotrel: Another failure of the free market economy?

Hardly, more like a failure of government to understand what to do with monopolies.

Privatising a monopoly is short sighted imo. Privatising something like a single electric grid is hardly creating competition. There is very little value that can be added to the product to differentiate suppliers and hence pricing. Worst still government regulates that pricing.

Free markets can’t create miracles.

ChrisW says:

10:30am | 19/05/11

There’s an excellent case for the primary network backhaul to be publicly owned; also that is relatively cheap.  The argument really is about immediately installing, at needless taxpayer expense, 100Mb-capable communications where most will only be used at the lowest cost option(12Mb).
If a hospital, school, apartment block needs 100Mb that’s fine.  If a single householder wishes to indulge Conroy’s fantasy of 5 children all watching different TV channels while simultaneously tweeting on their iPads and their parents each playing an online computer game, that’s fine too - except let them pay for the bandwidth used and the necessary “last 100 metres” physical connection.
The issue is that most end-users don’t and never will actually need the highest speeds and the corresponding physical connection - and if they do, well just upgrade the link into their house.
Postulating never before dreamed of applications a la Conroy without also admitting the possibility of more effective transmission technology is plain wishful thinking.
Promoting the furphy that knock-on benefits will necessarily follow from a high-speed connection is equally dishonest.  Employers not technology decide whether employees work at home or not; GPs would likely benefit from access but perhaps largely independent of speed; computer-aided design and hospitals could well benefit from very high-speed. 
The NBN case would be a lot more believable if attended by substantially less political hyperbole.

Markus says:

11:55am | 19/05/11

That’s not how wireless works. The higher concentration, the higher degradation.
ie 100mbps / 1 person = 100mbps, but 100mpbs / 100 people = 1mbps

Moving three companies onto one tower would essentially cut speeds to 1/3 of their current.

dale says:

12:52pm | 19/05/11

And to communicate with all the phones the transmit power of the tower would grow exponentially into a dangerous amount…

But lets not worry about RF radiation

Your name:Pete #205 says:

01:10pm | 19/05/11

Your comment:Paul, the frequency spectrum is a bit like land.  There is a finite amount of it and not all of it is useful.  No two people (or say, buildings) can share the same bit of land at the same time.  Two things to point out from this:

First, you can’t just build a massive wireless network to service everyone with huge individual throughput without using huge amounts of spectrum.  That spectrum is needed for other things like TV, emergency service communications etc.  And, the spectrum has to be managed, which costs money.

Second, the three towers you mention probably can be co-sited as if they as close as you imply, they wouldn’t be on the same frequnecy (and in spectrum licensing, only one company “owns” one frequnecy in any one small area anyway).  The reason they aren’t is because it makes it harder for the opposition to find new sites as they have to talk to building owners etc and, not every site is suitable to get the desired coverage.  It has to be relatively high, with few obstacles in the way.

Wireless is part of the solution, but it is not a complete one.  Fibre avoids most of the issues encounted in wireless networks.

SimpleSimon says:

01:21pm | 19/05/11

Paul you don’t seem to be a technology person - higher concentration all running off the same towers would be much slower than is currently experienced.

That said, I’m not at all opposed to building a new national mobile infrastructure, but without the NBN powering it, and indeed powering homes, it would be of little to no benefit. If everyone is using wireless, nobody will get good speeds. If most people are using fibre-to-the-home and only those who need wireless are using it, then the people using FTTH will get great speeds, and the wireless users will get good speeds and improved reliability.

Wireless is simply not a viable solution for a national network on its own. Wireless is slow, expensive and unreliable when compared to fibre - or even copper, in most cases. Wireless definitely has its place in the world, but it is NOT the solution.

Paul C says:

02:47pm | 19/05/11

Thanks everyone for the insight - As Simple Simon pointed out - I am not a technology type person.  Better understood now - thanks

Rose says:

11:20am | 19/05/11

Is this the type of question you asked when Janette turned up at official functions? If not, why not?     
There is no difference in Julia taking along her partner to when any previous PM took along theirs.
It just proves you are too shallow and ignorant to mount a real argument!

Mr TuTu says:

10:27am | 19/05/11

“Can someone tell me do we have to pay if we want to be part of the new super high fast broadband”

Dear Ms Lulu
For the next ten years only, this new super high fast broadband is going to be free for people who have two l’s in their name or know someone who has two l’s in their name.

Lloyd Llewellyn says:

10:44am | 19/05/11

And anyone who has more than two L’s in their name receive a rebate, Sweet!

fml says:

11:07am | 19/05/11

I thought there was an opt-out clause? if you dont want it you can opt out,

But just imagine trying to sell your house when its the only in the street with out high-speed internet.

Reggie says:

11:14am | 19/05/11

This is discrimination, how about Chinese and Arabic script?

RyaN says:

02:41pm | 19/05/11

@fml: like that is going to be a reason why someone doesn’t want to buy a house. Hilarious if it wasn’t so delusional. Next you are going to tell me that its going to be hard to sell a house without solar panels on the roof.

I wonder if the Labor party is so hell bent on super fast internet because of this.. http://www.news.com.au/national/mp-sex-charges-shatter-labor/story-e6frfkvr-1226043161422

TheRealDave says:

08:59am | 19/05/11

Les, do you know how data is transmitted from continent to continent around the world?

Here’s a tip: Its not via Wireless, satellite or copper wires. Its huge bundles of fiber laid across the bottom of the sea floor. And guess what else? A lot of it has been down there a longer than 15 years. Do you honestly thing ANY communications company in the world would lay down BILLIONS of dollars of fibre if it needed to be replaced every 15 years? Not only that, but more and more of these huge fibre pipes are going down as we speak including another huge pipe from Perth to Indonesia from memory as well as a duplication of the successful Southern Cross pipeline.

This is just another example of the absolute crap that has been fed to the public who have no technological nous at all. Instead of listening to editorial diots at The Australia maybe use google to research a few actual techincal articles from people who actually know what they are talking about??

acotrel says:

09:22am | 19/05/11

@Les Sutton Conservative supporters should never mention the Sydney Harbour Bridge or the Snowy Hydro Scheme!  The LNP has a long record of never intiating major infrastructure projects, including the NBN.  If it was left to Abbott etc. we’d be using the internet via carrier pigeon!

Tony of Poorakistan says:

09:44am | 19/05/11

Dave

in this instance, you are wrong. The sheath on the fibre cable, because they are stupidly running it overhead, *will* degrade due to UV and yes, it will take only 10 - 15 years. That’s if other pests like galahs don’t get to it first.  I’ve seen them sit on the lines and sharpen their beaks, stripping the sheath off in minutes.

TheRealDave says:

10:26am | 19/05/11

Tony, I have Foxtel and Optus cable, plus all the other usual wires hanging form poles running past my house. DO you know how many times in teh last 15 years any of them have been replaced?

Yes, thats right - zero.

Despite birds sitting on them, possums running along them, despite hot sumemrs, storms, brisk winters (hey, I live in Brisbane, it doesnt get THAT cold).

Next fallacy please?

Knemon says:

10:51am | 19/05/11

@ TheRealDave - Good call, one thing conservatives are not - technophiles.

Fibre optic cable is made from glass, 15 years my arse.

I’m amazed that some people can actually figure out how to comment on The Punch let alone understand what the NBN actually is, the dinosaurs have awoken, they have lifted their heads from the Jurassic sands.

TheRealDave says:

10:56am | 19/05/11

@Knemon they are technically profficient at cutting and pasting though

Tim says:

11:17am | 19/05/11

Knemon,
“Good call, one thing conservatives are not - technophiles.”

Good to see you don’t know the difference between conservatives and people who are simply stupid.
There’s plenty of them to go around on all sides of politics.

Tony of Poorakistan says:

02:01pm | 19/05/11

Dave

I suggest you check with Telstra and ask how many complaints and faults they’ve had from bird damage in the PM’s electorate, for example. My phoneline from the pole to the house was replaced twice in one season….

Tom says:

03:37pm | 19/05/11

@acetrol, the internet was delivered to its present speeds by capitalists. In the same time, your precious socialist parasites delivered a big zero. Nothing, nothing, nothing.

Now you socialists want to rebadge the internet calling it “infrastructure” and spread propaganda that somehow we never had an internet until your socialist mates Gillard and Conroy invented it.

Your dicking with reality is only matched by your blind obedience to whatever the comrades tell you.

Chris L says:

12:30pm | 20/05/11

“the internet was delivered to its present speeds by capitalists.”... using the copper wire infrastructure created by the government.

wakeuppls says:

07:59am | 23/05/11

Lasts 15 years? Where do you get your info from?

Paul Carr says:

09:14am | 19/05/11

Nothing is ever Future Proof - ever—Everything gets replaced eventually.

Joel B1 says:

09:26am | 19/05/11

@Billy, you’ll do.

The NBN is all about taking over the telephony market from Telstra. NBN delineate 4 levels of traffic class. RSP (retail service providers) have to pay according to the proportion of each in their CVC (Connectivity Virtual Circuit).

As I’m sure you know Telstra is decommissioning their copper network as the NBN rolls out. Indeed, Telstra’s refusing to install new copper in some places, instead giving the customer a crappy make-do phone service, with no internet either BTW (so those people have to wait 8 years or so to get the internet).

Level 1 is real-time traffic and is used for telephony, this is the most expensive category in the NBN POI and you can bet your RSP will keep this as low as possible. So you will get “congestion” on telephone voice calls. Why? because it’s the most expensive and least profitable for your RSP.

Skipping Traffic Classes Levels 2 and 3 let’s have a look at THE INTERNET.

NBN calls the application category “BEST EFFORT” for the internet. Yep, the entire reason Gillard sprouts for the NBN is called “Best Effort”. This is the least expensive of the traffic classes and suggested end users applications are browsing, YouTube, Google and Skype. And once again, even though your RSP will contract for the majority of their CVC in this level it’s still going to be slowed as it’s the slowest traffic class.

“Best effort” just inspires a lack of confidence to me.

Of course the NBN is just duplicating the existing and working Telstra telephony network. “Rotting copper” is just nonsense, telephone calls can be made on a circuit drawn on paper if you use a high carbon pencil (like a 4B not a 2H). Billions of dollars to just do what’s happening now.

And don’t forget the much hyperbowled Internet comes last in the traffic allocation.

So Billy, your RSP gets charged differently for your IP TV, Video Conferencing, telephone calls and Internet. Your Nan’s replacement “dedicated Internet Phone” will be subject to massive congestion, ‘cause RSP don’t want to pay for Category 1 traffic. And your internet is just “best effort” as it’s the cheapest traffic class.

wakeuppls says:

08:04am | 23/05/11

Considering that currently we exploit fibre to around 40Gb/s downlink, and there is talk in the industry that the next step up could be 400Gb/s to possibly 1Tb/s within 10 years, the future-proofing is correct. We have only just begun to exploit the bandwidth potential of fibre, with many more advancements ahead. With PON’s we can also reconfigure at will.

John K says:

09:40am | 19/05/11

Oh yes, I love those Poll Numbers too!  I want to see them get so low that they are wiped out completely.

fml says:

11:10am | 19/05/11

I care not for poll numbers i do however like pole dancers.

Markus says:

11:50am | 19/05/11

I would support a $42 billion investment into increased access to pole dancers for all Australians. Especially regional Australia!

Kika says:

01:47pm | 19/05/11

Poll numbers, schmoll numbers. I’ve never been asked who I would vote for. Nobody that’s who. Bring on the new world order please. Shapeshifting Reptilians welcome. It’s not like our human overlords are any good at running a world.

Jay-ded says:

01:50pm | 19/05/11

Set top Pole Dancers?

TheRealDave says:

10:29am | 19/05/11

The problem with Fibre to the Node is that the ‘last mile’ to your house is still the same decayng copper thats killing your current broadband connection. Why throw billions elsewhere when the main poroblem is still there??

Naverly Klitgaard says:

10:38am | 19/05/11

Sony B Goode says: “Billy, the same could be accomplished with fiber to the node.”

Wrong

Sony B Goode says:

12:27pm | 19/05/11

Saying wrong does not make it so.

Why throw billions away unless it going to be used effectively?

Don’t get me wrong I love the idea of fiber to the home but believe nationalising it will create more headache than progress. In the long run it will be another bit of outdated government infrastructure that will be privatised with a repeat of the telstra mess.

Naverly Klitgaard says:

02:43pm | 19/05/11

And neither does simply saying “the same could be accomplished with fiber to the node” make it so.

In reply to Billy you said fibre to the node could accomplish all the things he listed, among them; IP TV, Multiple IP phones connect to different providers, Internet, File share, Video conferencing…  what ever else you can think of.

As TheRealDave graciously stated for you, you’re still stuck with a flimsy corroding copper wire with fibre to the node — you won’t ever be able to do all those things listed by Billy, and future households will routinely NEED to conduct ALL those things SIMULTANEOUSLY.

Feel free to express your opinion, but please, even if it’s borne of ignorance, not at the expense of the truth — politicians and vested interests commonly engage in that sort of crap — they’re the best in the field and still fool no one; you don’t stand a chance.

PTom says:

02:55pm | 19/05/11

You do know Sony B Goode that if a private company like internode cabled up a suburb they too could connect to the NBN.

“the same could be accomplished with fiber to the node”
The would then still be copper and some of us would only get the speed we get now because that is what we have in a few suburbs now.

Sony B Goode says:

06:23pm | 19/05/11

The capacity of dark fiber is now up at around 100gigabits, divide that by 100mb and you have can service about 1000 homes from each fiber to the node, not to the exchange, roll out a bundle of fibers and you have nodes that can support 1000s of 100mbit homes with ease.

The capacity constraint of copper is well over 20mbit, from memory now up to around 100mbit. You can run all the applications you mention with ease at the same time with nodes supporting up to 1000 homes.
A 1080p hi-def stream with hd audio will fit in 20-30mbit, so at 100mbit a home can easily run 3-5 channels full hd channels simultaneously.

Unless you need gigabit into the home then fiber is overkill.

People that need gigabit can pay for fiber on the last mile, but the cost of data traffic in oz is prohibitive.

Please have facts to back up your argument, Argumentum ad nauseam does not make it valid.

jf says:

10:57am | 19/05/11

NBN Co has more employees than customers. Yep, another win for the gummint.

Tony of Poorakistan says:

02:03pm | 19/05/11

Post of the decade.

bs says:

02:13pm | 19/05/11

Come back in 10 years jf
In the meantime, keep replacing the string between your tin cans.

Tom says:

05:02pm | 19/05/11

@Drew(Darlinghurst), ICT

jf says:

05:30pm | 19/05/11

bs says:02:13pm | 19/05/11

“In the meantime, keep replacing the string between your tin cans.”

Not I mate. I’m wireless. No need for string, cable, fiber optic or any other type of technology.

I just wish I didn’t have to subsidise your antediluvian attitude to communications.

L. says:

12:16pm | 19/05/11

“Oh but wait, telecommunications is different? Yeah? Why? “

Simple..

Remember the days when we had a sole provider for telecommunications..?? STD phone calls were $1.24/min because there was zero competition.

Id the NBN wants to raise it’s wholesale rate, there is no competition to keep them in check, as they are a monopoly unto themselves…protected by legislation no less.

Justin says:

01:10pm | 19/05/11

Guess what, there still is zero competition on a provider end. I don’t remember any of the other companies coming through and digging up my lawn to install a new line when they entered the fixed line market, do you?

What you are saying is utter rubbish. Telecommunications comes under the same banner as roads and electricity in that it can not be infinitely duplicated.

That means there can not be any real competition for the wholesalers, as there is no opportunity for 18 different companies to run parellell but entirely seperate networks with zero sharing of assetts. You have not explained why it is different, you have just explained why infrastructure of this kind poses a problem, which the NBN attempts to at least partially adress by ensuring the wholesaler can not retail.

It’s not like a shop, where if I want to compete because I feel i can do so more competitively, I can set up shop anywhere I like, it is essential infrastructure, just like roads, rail and electricity. Do you also advocate having 17 different rail lines and 17 stations per suburb where you choose which companies infrastructure you choose? Of course not, it would be completely impractical.

As an Internode customer, I’m annoyed that a company like Telstra can get away with retailing for a lesser amount than they wholesale for, and I can either save money and reward Telstra for having a monopoly on infrastructure, or I can suck it up and support Internode, cause I can’t just rip out the Telstra copper and put Internode copper in instead.

That can’t happen under the NBN. Every single person foolish enough to return to Telstra for their ultra cheap prices would pay the price when the other retailers died out and Telstra was allowed to price as they saw fit.

dale says:

01:51pm | 19/05/11

Isnt this what happens now?

If telstra raise wholesale prices arnt all users that run on there copper charged more?

Ane the price decrease is mainly due to technology not compitition. if end users got charged wholesale prices then wouldnt calls and data be cheaper? where do the resale companies make profit if they sell at the same price they buy? look at the mark up on food, what % do farmers and producers get compared to the resale outlets?

Sony B Goode says:

12:04am | 20/05/11

Why have only two major supermarket chains? wouldn’t it be cheaper and more efficient to combine all that doubled up space everywhere into a single set of stores and have government set the pricing?

What makes you think government has a clue about setting any pricing?

Wait I get it now, the difference here is that one player, Telstra was a public funded monopoly now private still defending its monopoly with a stupid inept and corrupt set of regulators on the side line like the ACCC unable to call foul every time Telstra moves and squashes one of the small ants at its feet.

The US has multiple fibre grids, what’s the problem with that???

Optus tried to roll out fibre and government got in the way at every level. Nobody has been stupid enough to try it since.

Reggie says:

12:11pm | 19/05/11

The “Private Enterprise” mantra of supplying “Least product for maximum Profit” is completely contrary to achieving high standards. Higher standards cost more to achieve and cannot be left in the hands of those with a vested interest in building DOWN and raising prices.

fml says:

10:56am | 19/05/11

I agree with you TRD,

I do not understand how the author can say Telstra is not the problem,
Telstra is the problem, Your exactly right in saying telstra will not outlay anything unless it is massively profitable to them.

Labor is going to spend money implementing the NBN and as soon as the liberals come in they are going to sell it off to private enterprise and call themselves fiscal experts. The only thing thats going to result from that is that the private company that buys it is going to stop rolling out the NBN in areas where its seen to be unprofitable.

Its labors job to implement public infrastructure and its the job of the liberals to sell it off after the expense has been paid.

Jay-ded says:

02:00pm | 19/05/11

@fml

Is that why Labor is selling of all of Queenslands assets?

Naverly Klitgaard says:

11:09am | 19/05/11

Try the quality over quantity test, MdP. Not only did Australia have a “world class” network as Kevin said above, it had one of the very best telephone networks. Right up till privatisation PMG/Telecom was exporting its technology. I think it may have been classed the world’s most reliable network for quite some time too. Of course, all that changed after the miracle of privatisation introduced us to the delights of Sol Trujillo, Vodaphone…

TheRealDave says:

11:33am | 19/05/11

to be fair Nav, Ziggy was screwing Telstra long before Sol put a few more roundsintot he back of its head

Naverly Klitgaard says:

12:52pm | 19/05/11

Ziggy! I completely forgot about Ziggy. I forgot about those OneTel chaps too. Another example of privatisation fostering entrepreneurial brilliance benefiting all of society.

fml says:

11:15am | 19/05/11

The government making a decision for the benefit of all australians!

Shhhhhhhhhhh not too loudly, some people will call you a communist marxist lefty tree hugging socialist. :p

Tom says:

09:31pm | 19/05/11

@fml, some australians live at the South Pole. Will the fibre extend to them? ... but you said “for all Australians” ... oh that’s right, you sort of just say these things because they sound nice, not because they are practical or feasible.

Before you come back with some exasperated blarney that “for the benefit of all australians” doesn’t mean equality, prove that the opposition doesn’t act “for the benefit of all australians”.

Then perhaps tell us where your precious Labor mates are building new hospitals “for the benefit of all australians”. That’s right, Oakshott’s electorate, Wilkie’s electorate, Windsor’s electorate.

I won’t call you a communist marxist lefty tree hugging socialist. Shallow, gullible and stupid perhaps. Or is it just smug in your trendy socialist groupthink.

fml says:

09:38am | 20/05/11

Tom,

“I won’t call you a communist marxist lefty tree hugging socialist. Shallow, gullible and stupid perhaps. Or is it just smug in your trendy socialist groupthink.”

You just did. Im shallow and gullible? when your argument against is that we cant get fibre to the south pole?

I dont see how this is not practible or feasible, we have a plan and its already being put into effect. All the technical talk here shows that the opposition plan is useless.

Im not going to use the NBN as a be all end all justification for the Opposition not acting for all Australia, unlike you i dont use extremes to prove my point, one point i will say is that this benefit for the country would not occur if the opposition was in power.

Michael de Percy says:

01:26pm | 19/05/11

Thanks David, but using an Australian government publication doesn’t make my argument “plain wrong”. Have you ever seen the government critique itself in its own publication? Indeed, if you look at recent Australian government attempts at “measuring” broadband, the ACCC was referring to 200kbps download as broadband while the Canadians were referring to broadband as symmetrical 1.5mbps way back in the early 2000s. Colour TV, FM radio, Pay TV - all held back by successive governments, and certainly not in the interests of the people. Besides, natural monopoly theories have been disproven so many times they are considered passé.

TheRealDave says:

10:54am | 19/05/11

Wandering around with an Ipad/Androind Tab is a bit different to sititng at a PC powerful enough to do anything actually useful in a business environment. Whilst it might be convenient to play Angry Birds while waiting for a bus or listening to Justin Beiber on the train or updating your Facebook status to say you are eating lunch @ King George Square its not actual work is it? Sure you can check/send/‘receive email and a few other handy tools…but thats about it really. Its a convenience. Its a bit hard to crunch data across 4 open spreadhseets, firefox with 7 tabs open, Outlook with an email being written, skype, messenger etc all open at once on a tab/pad isn’t it?

Horses for courses. Those of you who think we will be all carrying around wireless data pads to do all our work will need to hold onto that dream for a few more decades.

Wireless is COMPLIMENTARY not a REPLACEMENT. Convenience versus practicality.

un-PC says:

11:24am | 19/05/11

TRD said, “...Whilst it might be convenient to play Angry Birds while waiting for a bus or listening to Justin Beiber on the train or updating your Facebook status to say you are eating lunch @ King George Square its not actual work is it?...”

LMAO!!

Adam says:

01:12pm | 19/05/11

“Wandering around with an Ipad/Androind Tab is a bit different to sititng at a PC powerful enough to do anything actually useful in a business environment”

Ah, you forget Moores Law. A modern day mobile phone is already more powerful than the ships computer that powered the apollo rockets to the moon. This trend will continue and all your computing power will soon be mobile. Furthermore, mobile devices are now becoming more powerful and cheaper than their desktop counterparts, primarily because of the economies of scale associated with laptops and the like.

“Those of you who think we will be all carrying around wireless data pads to do all our work will need to hold onto that dream for a few more decades.”

That’s kinda the point Dave. The future is in becoming more mobile, not less mobile. The NBN is locking us into a technology that doesn’t necessarily facilitate this.

“Wireless is COMPLIMENTARY not a REPLACEMENT. Convenience versus practicality.”

I disagree. In the future what is today’s convenience becomes tomorrow’s standard, particularly as standard of living increase. I see wireless as ultimately replacing all hardline connections, not merely being complimentary. This is the natural progression of such technology and is already underway. Who knows, someone may figure out an ingenious way to pack way more data into wireless bandwidth which would herald a whole new age of wireless technology and render the NBN obsolete overnight.

Perhaps this is something best left to the innovation of the more economically efficient free market to provide?

P.S. The angry birds and facebook status comment was gold LOL.

Justin says:

01:17pm | 19/05/11

“Technologies we cannot even conceive or imagine today will have been developed and likely rendered the NBN obsolete before it is even fully rolled out, particularly given the ever increasing rate of technological change we are undergoing. “

Wrong. Wireless at it’s theoretical maximum is a long way behind the theoretical max of fibre. Neither of these theoretical caps have been achieved as of yet, but they are ceilings based on the theory behind the technology. I feel those that claim wireless is capable of infinite progress have longer arms than the rest of us, evidence they are closer to their knuckle dragging ancestors than those of us with half a brain to see through their misinformed and purposely deceptive lies and BS.

SimpleSimon says:

01:33pm | 19/05/11

Fibre will not become obsolete. There is no medium known to man that travels faster than the speed of light. Fibre transmits data via light. Ergo, the NBN will have a theoretical top speed of the speed of light. This is obviously theoretical, as data transmission speed is entirely dependant on the device transmitting it, but it means there is no material capable of carrying data faster than fibre.

Wireless definitely has its place, but a quality backbone infrastructure (such as the NBN) is paramount to taking our wireless networks in to the future.

Adam says:

01:44pm | 19/05/11

“Wireless at it’s theoretical maximum is a long way behind the theoretical max of fibre”

If there is one thing that science teaches us, it is that limits rarely stay in place for long. Or are you suggesting that at no point in the future will technology ever be created that will increase of capacity to transmit information wirelessly? You are deliberately applying static scoring to the theoretical maximums of wireless and fibre; such static scoring fails to account for any technological innovation of the human race at any stage in the future. Are you suggesting humans have already reached their technological peak and cannot possible discover anything new? Now I think it is you who has half a brain and is spouting misinformed and purposely deceptive lies.

Adam says:

01:53pm | 19/05/11

“There is no medium known to man that travels faster than the speed of light”

Actually, there already are. Google it. You may be surprised. We just haven’t figured out ways to transmit information using such mediums, but most of them rely on some kind of sub space link (i.e. they are wireless). See quantum entanglement for a basic rundown http://searchcio-midmarket.techtarget.com/definition/entanglement

Justin says:

01:59pm | 19/05/11

If you’d bothered to read Adam, I said theoretical maximums. These speeds have NOT been achieved with today’s technology, there is room for improvement in both technologies.

Yes improvements will continue to happen in both technologies, but for wireless to be faster than fibre, it requires not only human innovation on technology’s part, but for physics to switch sides for the sake of politics and rewrite the laws of physics to suit your fantasy. Your suggestion is akin to suggesting that with enough innovation the pedal powered bicycle could one day be a serious contender to beating a nitrous fuelled internal combustion engine in a drag car.

Adam says:

02:19pm | 19/05/11

“These speeds have NOT been achieved with today’s technology, there is room for improvement in both technologies.”

Agreed, there is room for improvement so it is unwise to lock ourselves into any one technology, when wireless seems to be what consumers want and is the way of the future.

“Yes improvements will continue to happen in both technologies, but for wireless to be faster than fibre, it requires not only human innovation on technology’s part, but for physics to switch sides for the sake of politics and rewrite the laws of physics to suit your fantasy.”

Let’s be realistic; the laws of physics already allow for wirelessly transmitting at faster than light speeds, ergo faster than fibre (see above – I’m guessing you never did quantum physics?). No fantasy here and my gripe is not political. This is why my concern is with locking into any one technology, which may be rendered obsolete within the next decade (i.e. before the NBN is even complete) and that’s not even accounting for other new technologies we haven’t discovered yet.

“Your suggestion is akin to suggesting that with enough innovation the pedal powered bicycle could one day be a serious contender to beating a nitrous fuelled internal combustion engine in a drag car.”

I think you missed my point. I’m advocating staying flexible and not locking into any one technology. I thought you were the one suggesting we lock into fibre (aka the bicycle) when there may be a nitrous fuelled internal combustion engine in a drag car right around the corner (what I’m suggesting). Correct me if I am wrong?

Justin says:

02:22pm | 19/05/11

lol, now you’re using quantam physics to explain how wireless is going to be faster than the NBN? You’re living in a complete dream land. If you had googled a litle more, the only means currently considered as being in any way shape or form as plausible to prevent the degradation of the photons from earths very own atmosphere is to transmit them via what?

Yar huh, optic cable. Same stuff the NBN is made out of. Well done champ.

Adam says:

02:58pm | 19/05/11

Quantum entanglement doesn’t rely on fibre in any way. The transmission is via a sub space link between the particles. It also instantaneous (i.e. faster than fibre and wireless). “Degradation of the photons from earths very own atmosphere” is entirely irrelevant to the process. I fear you are confusing how data transmission via fibre works and how quantum entanglement works.

Aside from that, you seem to have missed the point I was making entirely. The main point was to demonstrate how technological innovation can (and already is) making the NBN obsolete before it is even rolled out. We should not have locked into a particular technology. This is my problem with the whole thing.

I wonder, if I purchased an iPad for every person in Australia at today’s prices, and then promised to deliver it to them within ten years, would you think it is a good idea too? Would you blindly think no future technological innovation could possibly render that iPad obsolete in the next decade? Or would you concede that if you just purchased your own iPad equivalent in a decade’s time it would likely be much cheaper and much better than the one I was offering?

Adam says:

03:12pm | 19/05/11

“Now you’re using quantam (sic) physics to explain how wireless is going to be faster than the NBN?”

Yes, how stupid of me. Using cutting edge science to explain how current day technologies are going to be rendered obsolete. *sarcasm*

The saddest thing is you can’t even spell quantum physics.

TheRealDave says:

03:21pm | 19/05/11

Moores Law died once we hit 3ghz chip speeds. Instead of doubling we went mutlticore. Otherwise we’d all be running 12Ghz Intel CPU’s (or AMD if you prefer) by now. Instead we have 2, 4, 6 core processors still running @ around 3Ghz.

And even I am not touching that Quantum argument. Lets stick with some semblance of reality instead of delving into Star Trek shall we? If you need to stretch your argument to Quantum physics to prove your point - you’ve lost.

Justin says:

03:59pm | 19/05/11

Slip of the finger proves an inability to spell? Sorry champ, playing the man and not the ball. With all vowels under the home keys on the dvorak keyboard, my typos my look a little different, but they are still typos none the less.

Again, if you want to talk cutting edge science, the most plausible way to get such photons to play the game without the atmosphere breaking them down is propelling them through fibre optic cable. Again the same cable that the NBN is laying down, thus not wireless, and you never bothered to refute that little gem. If your fairytale fantasy of data tranmsission utilising quantum physics ever comes to pass, I can assure you it will be via optic cable long before, if ever it goes completely wireless.

The sad part is that you had to resort to an attempted attack on a person’s literacy in order to avoid refuting the very valid point that even the technology you sprout as a replacement to the NBN, would most likely utilise the NBN if it ever came to pass.

Adam says:

04:12pm | 19/05/11

“Moores Law died once we hit 3ghz chip speeds. Instead of doubling we went mutlticore. Otherwise we’d all be running 12Ghz Intel CPU’s (or AMD if you prefer) by now. Instead we have 2, 4, 6 core processors still running @ around 3Ghz”

Actually it didn’t die because we have been able to continue inexpensively doubling the amount of transistors in a computer each couple of years (the crux of Moores Law). You’re just trying to rely on the fact they aren’t on a single integrated circuit to claim he was wrong, which is nothing more than a technicality.

“And even I am not touching that Quantum argument. Lets stick with some semblance of reality instead of delving into Star Trek shall we? If you need to stretch your argument to Quantum physics to prove your point - you’ve lost.”

Gee Dave, how very scientific of you; implying quantum physics principles are outside any “semblance of reality” or like “delving into Star Trek” despite them being scientifically proven. Are there any other areas of science you’d like me to ignore so you blindly claim locking ourselves into one technology for the NBN is a good idea? Come on Dave, if quantum physics is so far from any “semblance of reality”, it should be easy for you to discredit the possibilities it offers in terms of data transmission (not to mention quantum computers).

“You’ve lost”

Far from it Dave. I think you are just trying to prematurely declare victory so you go home and bury your head in the sand, pretend quantum physics doesn’t exist and pretend no new technologies in the next decade are going to render the NBN obsolete.

Adam says:

04:39pm | 19/05/11

Fair enough about the slip of the fingers.

“Again, if you want to talk cutting edge science, the most plausible way to get such photons to play the game without the atmosphere breaking them down is propelling them through fibre optic cable. Again the same cable that the NBN is laying down, thus not wireless, and you never bothered to refute that little gem. If your fairytale fantasy of data tranmsission utilising quantum physics ever comes to pass, I can assure you it will be via optic cable long before, if ever it goes completely wireless.”

I wonder if I am just explaining this poorly or if you just don’t understand how entanglement works. Quantum entanglement basically means if I have a particle in lab on one side of the world and you have its entangled brother/sister particle in a lab on the other side of the world, they can instantaneously communicate with each other (i.e. when I manipulate my particle your particle on the other side of the world instantly displays signs of my manipulation). Einstein called this spooky science and it is theorised they communicate through some kind of sub space link (this is why they can communicate instantaneously i.e. faster than light). Some people think this link between all particles was established when all matter was squashed together just before the big bang. Regardless, there is no fibre optic cable connecting the two particles, nor anything tangible science can detect connecting them. Furthermore, there is absolutely no requirement to connect them using fibre or anything else to transmit data; they are already entangled and have a sub space connection that does this instantaneously when we manipulate them. Thus the connection will always be “wireless” (if you count a sub space link as wireless) and never fibre optic.

At the end of the day, I’ll be the first to admit such stuff is a little weird (even Einstein thought so) but not understanding how something works does not prevent us using it to our advantage to transmit data.

P.S. The reason I say photons breaking down in our atmosphere is irrelevant is because entanglement applies to more participles than just photons and we already have ways to stabilise such particles (including photons) for practical use. Let’s just say there are more ways than fibre to prevent photons breaking down and more particles we can use than just photons anyway.

Anyway, my point was we shouldn’t be locking into one tech for the NBN as there are better, cheaper things that will be coming out (some of which I certainly won’t be able to even imagine). Entanglement is just one example of something that already exists.

Adam says:

04:44pm | 19/05/11

“The sad part is that you had to resort to an attempted attack on a person’s literacy in order to avoid refuting the very valid point that even the technology you sprout as a replacement to the NBN, would most likely utilise the NBN if it ever came to pass.”

See above. There is no requirement for the NBN or fibre to enable the transmission of data using quantum entangement. So no, the technology I sprout would not ever utilise the NBN if it came to pass. Furthermore, the stuff I sprout is what’s available today (scientifically of course, not commerically). Just imagine in a decade what we will have!

Justin says:

06:09pm | 19/05/11

Adam I think you’re a bit confused on this entanglemnt stuff mate. The theory of entanglement doesn’t transmit cause, but is observable by measuring effect, and the process of entangling particles is NOT distance independant as your wireless suggestion would have us believe.

So you can not transmit data using entanglement, because any change will cancel the entanglement if I understand it correctly. The theory goes no further than observing that the quantum state of one particle correlates with the other. Any attempt to manipulate said particle causes the correlation to cease to exist.

What I’m talking about is not quantum entanglement, but rather quantum communication via the transmission of photons, this is much more likely to be plausible than wireless through particles that can not communicate, and such a communication would require the photons to be fired down fibre optic cable. While they can be transmitted wirelessly, the earths atmosphere is unsupportive of such a transmission and degrades the photons to a point of being unreadable.

Essentially TRD is right, what you are talking about is pure sci-fi fantasy stuff and never going to happen.

TheRealDave says:

07:27pm | 19/05/11

Adam, its quite easy to say ‘hey, some kind of new technology will make the NBN obsolete in 10 years….even if it can’t be proven theoretically let alone manufactured physically…but just take my word for it’.

Sorry, doesn’t work that way.

You may as well say ‘Stop building petrol powered cars because some scientists are working on cars that run on pure water…..and they will get it right sometime in the future…not sure when but its just a waste of money to build these newer, safer, more efficient petrol powered cars now…they are obsolete’.

Once Quantum Physics actually delivers some real results we can use - then come back to us…..in about 40 years….

Jason Todd says:

08:31pm | 19/05/11

I’m with you on this TRD. While I don’t have any real problem with accepting that there will be new tech, I do have a problem with hedging our bet on the fact that new tech is ‘right around the corner’.

It is like saying “Let stop investing in road infrastructure, because very soon we will have flying cars that won’t require roads”.

I’d rather be prepared and have to upgrade than be unprepared and forced to wait.

Adam says:

10:14pm | 19/05/11

@ TRD and Jason - No, no, no. I’m not suggesting we wait for new technology to be discovered, developed, marketed, etc before beginning construction of the NBN. We’d forever be waiting for what was around the next corner if we did that. I’m just acknowledging that technological change and improvement is inevitable over the next decade within which it will be built. As such, I’m suggesting we don’t lock ourselves into using any one technology but remain flexible enough to take advantage of such technological innovations.

Personally, I would have preferred to see an NBN that requested the construction of an X mb/s broadband network to all homes in Australia, using the best, most economical transmission methods that are available now or developed over the next decade, provided they meet consumer needs. This would be more flexible and allow us to leverage of new technology as it becomes available over the next decade. It would also allow us to adapt the network to meet changing/maturing consumer needs as required. I see this as being superior to simply requesting a specific technology [insert fibre here] network be built, knowing that such technology will inevitably become obsolete before completion and ignoring the fact consumer needs may mature. Further, if we go down the single current tech path (i.e. fibre) and only seek to meet current day consumer needs, we will inevitably miss out on valuable opportunities to exploit new technologies as they become available, potentially missing out on chances to reduce the cost of the NBN and offer a far superior overall product to all consumers that best fits their needs.

Adam says:

11:51pm | 19/05/11

“The theory of entanglement doesn’t transmit cause, but is observable by measuring effect, and the process of entangling particles is NOT distance independant as your wireless suggestion would have us believe. So you can not transmit data using entanglement, because any change will cancel the entanglement if I understand it correctly. The theory goes no further than observing that the quantum state of one particle correlates with the other. Any attempt to manipulate said particle causes the correlation to cease to exist.”

You’re half right. You need your two particles close together to initially entangle them, however, after this you can separate them by any distance you want (providing you don’t let stuff interfere with them). Even at 1 billion kilometres apart, if you measure particle A, then you will automatically know the quantum state of particle B (as particle B will instantaneously take on the same quantum state as particle A, once particle A is measured). Furthermore, in quantum physics, before you measure either particle they both exist in all quantum states and none at the same time (i.e. they do not have any particular quantum state until you force them to choose one by measuring them). Just google some double slit tests if you want to know more about it or check out this for a dumbed down version

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

Sure, you can say just two entangled particles on their own are useless for data transmission. But if you tap into whatever links an entangled pair and allows them to transmit their quantum state to their entangled partner (when you measure one and force it to choose a quantum state)......well, then you are onto something! And yes, I’d call it wireless given science cannot detect what is transmitting such info between the particles when you force one to decide on a quantum state by observing it and the second particle knows to take on the exact same quantum state instantaneously. Spooky huh? Einstein sure thought so!

“What I’m talking about is not quantum entanglement, but rather quantum communication via the transmission of photons, this is much more likely to be plausible than wireless through particles that can not communicate, and such a communication would require the photons to be fired down fibre optic cable. While they can be transmitted wirelessly, the earths atmosphere is unsupportive of such a transmission and degrades the photons to a point of being unreadable.”

If that is what you are talking about, then it may interest you to know the earth’s atmosphere doesn’t prevent such transmission of photons in a particular quantum state or degrade such photons to the point of being unreadable. No fibre required either. The European Space Agency published this back in 2007. See below link: quantum communication (i.e. transmissions of photons in a particular quantum state) has already successfully been done from space, without degradation, through the atmosphere and without fibre.

http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMXM7Q08ZE_index_0.html

I also believe plans are afoot to do the same thing from the international space station to earth over a distance of 1000’s of kilometres.

“Essentially TRD is right, what you are talking about is pure sci-fi fantasy stuff and never going to happen.”

Mate, every piece of tech we have today was “pure sci-fi fantasy” at some stage in our history. Also, every piece of tech we are still yet to discover is currently “pure sci-fi fantasy” to us right now. I fail to see your point? Unless you are somehow trying to draw the long bow that everything that is “pure sci-fi fantasy” today is “never going to happen”. If this is the case, I’d say you are categorically wrong.

Justin says:

02:01pm | 20/05/11

Adam, the tranmission from space covers 8km of dense atmosphere, with significant packet loss mind you. The earths atmosphere DOES cause a degradation of the quantum bits causing them to become unreadable. The record for sucessful wireless transmission on the earths surface is some ~130km, not to mention limitations caused by line of sight and the curvature of the earth. That is why the necessity for the cable to make ground to ground networks plausible.

As for entanglement, what makes you think they transmit at all? The way I read it, and please feel free to explain why I would be mistaking in believing so, but it doesn’t seem like they transmit at all, but rather share a set of properties that allow them to have a predictable an observable reaction when measured. That doesn’t seem to suggest transmission to me. Unless you can prove that the particles are transmitting something in order to have an observable measurement, I agree with the earlier post that states nothing exists that can travel faster than the speed of light.

Adam says:

04:53pm | 20/05/11

“Adam, the tranmission from space covers 8km of dense atmosphere, with significant packet loss mind you. The earths atmosphere DOES cause a degradation of the quantum bits causing them to become unreadable. The record for sucessful wireless transmission on the earths surface is some ~130km, not to mention limitations caused by line of sight and the curvature of the earth. That is why the necessity for the cable to make ground to ground networks plausible.”

My point was quantum communication (i.e. transmission of a particle a particular quantum state) can be done wirelessly (i.e. no fibre). Something I’ve already proven with the above link from the ESA. You can bang on about line of site limitations, curvature of the earth, etc, but these are problems easily solved by simply putting satellites in a similar orbit to those of GPS satellites. Such an array of satellites would give worldwide coverage.

As for degradation, I don’t want to appear rude but I can’t think of putting it any other way than simply saying you are incorrect. The earth’s atmosphere DOES NOT degrade all quantum particles that are ever communicated through it to a point where they all become unreadable. Yes, degradation can occur from the earth’s atmosphere; is it enough to make everything unreadable? No. If you have info that suggest such a thing does occur then you better flick a quick email to the people running the international space station. They are actually relying on quantum communication to enable secure comms from the international space station by transmitting particles in a particular quantum state through the atmosphere with degradation making them all unreadable (see below).

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14113-space-station-to-be-quantum-communications-hub.html

“As for entanglement, what makes you think they transmit at all? The way I read it, and please feel free to explain why I would be mistaking in believing so, but it doesn’t seem like they transmit at all, but rather share a set of properties that allow them to have a predictable an observable reaction when measured. That doesn’t seem to suggest transmission to me. Unless you can prove that the particles are transmitting something in order to have an observable measurement, I agree with the earlier post that states nothing exists that can travel faster than the speed of light.”

Happy to oblige Before the particles are measured they exist in all states and none at the same time (the wave of potentials that interferes with itself, in essence, as per the double slit experiments). This is different to just not knowing what quantum state they have; rather they actually exist as every state and none at the same time! By measuring them you collapse the wave of potentials (i.e. they cease interfering with themself, acting as everything and nothing, etc, so no more waves) and the particles take on a specific quantum state. If you have an entangled pair of particles that you so far have not observed, separate them by any distance you like, then observe one you collapse the wave of potentials and force the particle to take on a specific quantum state. When you do this second particle instantaneously, regardless of its distance, takes on the same quantum state as the first particle. This is where some form of transmission must take place (though it may not be in the classical form, but that is a story for another day).

I think the most fascinating analogy I have heard was a scientist saying it is like we are living in a computer simulation. The world around exists as a wave of undefined potentials when we are not looking at it, however, when we observe it the world solidifies itself; kind of like the way a computer renders an environment only as the character in a game observes it.

“I agree with the earlier post that states nothing exists that can travel faster than the speed of light”

Come out of the Stone Age mate! Heaps of stuff already exists that can go faster than the speed of light. Einstein’s theory on this never said that particles that continuously travel faster than light could not exist; just that ones that were already going slower than light (and of mass) could not be accelerated past this speed limit because of the energy requirements.

If you want some examples of stuff that goes faster than light google “Cherenkov Radiation”, “Speed of gravity”, “expanding universe making galaxies move away from us at faster than speed of light”, “Quantum tunnelling”, etc. Hell just google “objects that travel faster than the speed of light” and you’ll gets plenty of results.

Adam says:

03:21am | 22/05/11

They are actually relying on quantum communication to enable secure comms from the international space station by transmitting particles in a particular quantum state through the atmosphere ***withOUT*** degradation making them unreadable (see below).

My bad, made a typo.

P.S. Also, see tachyons for faster than light particles. They are theoretically possible too,despite not having been found yet.

TheRealDave says:

10:59am | 19/05/11

Lets face it. The real reason the LNP and its supproters are agaisn the NBN, the only real reason is - its not their idea and they are not in government to run the project. Thats it. End of story.

All the rest is just FUD and utter crap to cloud the issue to the easily led who can’t think for themselves.

Naverly Klitgaard says:

11:29am | 19/05/11

Of course LNP supporters would concoct an objection — it’s what they do. It’s the only thing they do. The odd thing is objecting NBN is a fool’s errand. Anyone halfway tech savvy, really wants it. Those who aren’t don’t care. They’re preaching/screeching to themselves. This is not an argument that will win anyone over.

TheRealDave says:

11:37am | 19/05/11

You don’t think greenfields developers decided to run fibre, starting years before the NBN was even announced, because it was….you know…the way for the future and all….. ??

Mathias says:

12:12pm | 19/05/11

Did I say it wasn’t? Just interesting that is was happening anyway, you know, without spending $46,000,000,000…

TheRealDave says:

12:42pm | 19/05/11

That fibre of yours needs to run into a huge backhaul, or else its kinda limited dont you think? A large chuck of those billiosn for the NBN is for just that. Its not all ‘last mile’ stuff.

TheRealDave says:

12:47pm | 19/05/11

Hang on, I’m lost…Roman Roads were built by a nation state (that stretched over all of Europe, North Africa, the now Holy Lnds etc) for one thing - moving her legions around as quickly and efficently as possible to guard its borders. Commerce and taxation was a by product. So how does a nation state create a road network…..that later rulers use to create nation states?!

Or am I reading that worng? TO be fair, I am running on one coffeee this morning….

Gladys says:

12:57pm | 19/05/11

Yeah, Rome only had a few hundred thousand citizens too. The rest were slaves and oppressed persons who could be raped and pillaged by the army at whim.

It was the same with Medicare/Medibank. A proportion of the population didn’t have access to health insurance so why didn’t the then Labor govenrment provide that proportion of the population with health insurance? All Medicare (read universal health care) did was hurt a good market based system.

Why does the NBN have to be in places where we get a good service now? Why not focus on areas which don’t get decent broadband?

Again, the market based system will hurt and it will never be competitive again.

Ima Conservative. says:

02:17pm | 19/05/11

“Private enterprise is legally obliged to maximize returns. This means extending the lifetime of infrastructure as long as possible”
Sounds like the power generation companies and their reluctance to move to greener forms of power generation.

fml says:

02:16pm | 19/05/11

Just use Cat 5e or Cat 6,

http://www.connectworld.net/syscon/support.htm,

pretty fast actually.

TheRealDave says:

03:27pm | 19/05/11

You may want to check the specs of Cat5e and Cat6 Jay and come back to us here with your answer.

http://www.lanshack.com/cat5e-tutorial.aspx - first result on Google that took me all of 2.7 seconds to get. Imagine what you could do wiuth 5 minutes of your time? You could even make give an informed answer to your own question! How bout that!

Jay-ded says:

02:11pm | 19/05/11

Didn’t Joe already try that?

sam says:

03:28pm | 19/05/11

if they do will they pay back all the money they got from nsw and vic taxs payers ?

TheRealDave says:

03:48pm | 19/05/11

Because Qlders don’t pay GST as well??

WA isn’t the only place thats having a ‘Mining Boom’ by the way.

TheRealDave says:

03:34pm | 19/05/11

Holy Crap! A talkback show minus all teh usual coalition sponsored crap and an actual IT expert breaking it down in simple language for the morons who listen to talkback!

Miracles do happen!

TheRealDave says:

03:35pm | 19/05/11

Nope, and its not ment to, nor ever has been.

Next furphy please

MarK says:

04:47pm | 19/05/11

Dave slow down son.

sam is not necessarily trolling. Did you stop and think he just might want the information in a genuine manner instead of being a smart arse?

The answer is no sam. The NBN is just hardware internal to Australia.

TheRealDave says:

07:10pm | 19/05/11

Given that ‘Sam’ is using an IT term like ‘bottleneck’ that the average punter would think is on a stubby, I’d put my, and yours as well Mark, balls on the fact ‘Sam’ already knew the answer before posting his question.

Any takers?

Richard says:

08:45pm | 19/05/11

I agree Frank, this is a stonking article, and clowns like TheRealDave are just raving imbeciles rushing about like a headless chicken spouting total nonsense.

Mattb says:

07:19pm | 19/05/11

Sorry to ask you another question in response to your question MarK, but

Did Howard commission a cost benefit analysis when he sold of Telstra?. Lot of ‘costs’ and very few ‘benefits’ in that little deal!.

As such, ICB on your question….

RyaN says:

10:24am | 20/05/11

@Mattb: what on earth does your comment have to do with MarK’s question? Is that one of those “my cats breath smells like cat food so your question is moot” type of comments.
Bring on an education revolution, at least we will have more liberal voters then.

ThE BadGeR says:

11:14am | 20/05/11

rYAn
Matt is probably making fun of mark’s cost benefit analysis obsession.
Perhaps he is still waiting for mark to tell him what the cost benefit analysis is for 16 billion dollars of fighter aircraft.
PS Doesn’t matter how you cap you name, your conservative drivel is still drivel.

Gerard says:

08:44pm | 20/05/11

MarK, surely there are two far more important questions that need to be asked:

1) How much control should the government be allowed to have over the dominant form of media in a society?

2) How does the NBN fit in with the rest of the government’s internet policy (ie censorship and data retention)?

TheRealDave says:

07:08pm | 19/05/11

Yes, because The Australian has been a bastion of integrity during the whole NBN saga hasn’t it MarK??

There should be a law about political advertising -passed off as editorial in this country. If there was the Australian would be closed down tomorrow…...it would be a race between The Oz and 4BC as to which would be the first closed down come to think of it…

Gerard says:

09:18pm | 22/05/11

I’m not listening to the coalition (they lost me years ago), I’m listening to George Orwell (because I’ve done some reading). The further the government can be kept from having control of the media the better. Unfortunately, most of the debate seems to be about how effectively the government will capture the market rather than whether the government should have control at all.