If you want decent Broadband in Aus sign the petition.....it all helps

[Skippy1]

Petition for Fibre to Home Broadband

 

Every signature will help. Think of it as putting one over on Rupert Murdoch :biggrin: he would just love to stop the Fibre to the Home

[starlight7]

Why would Rupert even give a toss about whether we have broadband? He has bigger fish to fry than in Australia - we are just a little speck to him

[Petals]

Well the big telcos will not be happy if they pull the plug on it either as all lines belong to Telstra now and they were looking to have their own networks. Got this from my brother who works for one of them.

[Toussaint]

Your in sunny oz, forget the Internet, "that ain't livin'" !!!

[boganbear]

Perhaps it may be the only thing that Mr Rabbit will listen to with his dumbass plans? I doubt it bu it shows how many people want a first rate NBN and not a 3rd rate one which will not be up to the job in 5-10 years time.

[Peach]

Why would Rupert even give a toss about whether we have broadband? He has bigger fish to fry than in Australia - we are just a little speck to him

 

Because fast broadband gives choices to the consumer, why get expensive Foxtel, when it becomes increasingly reliable to stream media from cheaper global sources? Nearly every TV you buy these days has internet connectivity built in. Slow internet maintains the status quo..... The existing infrastructure or cut price NBN solution just couldn't cope.

[flag of convenience]

Your in sunny oz, forget the Internet, "that ain't livin'" !!!

 

As if OZ are not one of the bigger users. Must be sun avoidance then.

[Xenon4017]

Because fast broadband gives choices to the consumer, why get expensive Foxtel, when it becomes increasingly reliable to stream media from cheaper global sources? Nearly every TV you buy these days has internet connectivity built in.

 

You've hit the nail on the head regarding likely usage. Forget all this crap about a digital generation earning their living at home while an OAP logs her blood pressure readings direct to the doctors surgery.

 

It's about getting the latest episode of GoT 5 seconds after it's been aired in the US. If you're such a TV addict, fine, but pay for it yourself. Same as the first people who got ADSL paid extra over Dial Up.

[Floplo]

Because fast broadband gives choices to the consumer, why get expensive Foxtel, when it becomes increasingly reliable to stream media from cheaper global sources? Nearly every TV you buy these days has internet connectivity built in. Slow internet maintains the status quo..... The existing infrastructure or cut price NBN solution just couldn't cope.

 

Given international IP laws, Murdoch probably loves if you adopt better broadband, since then he can charge you twice (on TV and Internet) for the same stuff...

[Peach]

You've hit the nail on the head regarding likely usage. Forget all this crap about a digital generation earning their living at home while an OAP logs her blood pressure readings direct to the doctors surgery.

 

It's about getting the latest episode of GoT 5 seconds after it's been aired in the US. If you're such a TV addict, fine, but pay for it yourself. Same as the first people who got ADSL paid extra over Dial Up.

 

The question was about Murdoch, not what all the other benefits of NBN were.

[Xenon4017]

The question was about Murdoch, not what all the other benefits of NBN were.

 

Actually, the question was "Will you sign a petition to get 'decent' internet speeds"?

 

Without much of a definition of what 'decent' means. I'd argue that it's already decent. And that there's little rational case for a nationwide roll out to domestic addresses of a quicker connection. Not that I wouldn't find quicker transfer speeds useful, but I'm not prepared to pay through the nose for it. Or ask other people who will never even use it to pay for it. There's lots of other things to spend money on rather than entertainment.

[Bobbsy]

You've hit the nail on the head regarding likely usage. Forget all this crap about a digital generation earning their living at home while an OAP logs her blood pressure readings direct to the doctors surgery.

 

It's about getting the latest episode of GoT 5 seconds after it's been aired in the US. If you're such a TV addict, fine, but pay for it yourself. Same as the first people who got ADSL paid extra over Dial Up.

 

Sorry, but just because YOU don't need high speed broadband don't assume everyone is the same--you're being very presumptuous. I've never watched a pirated show (indeed, rarely watch video at all) but the existing ADSL service I get is nowhere near adequate for work related things that my wife and I both do. My wife runs a small online jewellery company and I do sound recording and mixing, often for clients in the UK.

 

Beyond that, there are 5 smartphones and 4 laptops in the house all doing normal internet stuff and sharing the highly limited bandwidth (because of our distance from the exchange our max speed is about 3900Mbps). We all endure frequent freezes and lag when everyone is trying to do something.

 

I've already signed the petition noted above--but I also done personal emails to both my MP and to Tony Abbott himself. Politicians take more heed of personalised communication rather that an easy-to-sign petition.

 

If you want proper FTTP, by all means sign...but write an email or letter as well.

[Toolbox]

Best wait until the country can afford it first.

[Xenon4017]

Sorry, but just because YOU don't need high speed broadband don't assume everyone is the same--you're being very presumptuous. ...the existing ADSL service I get is nowhere near adequate for work related things that my wife and I both do. My wife runs a small online jewellery company and I do sound recording and mixing, often for clients in the UK.

 

 

 

I make my living online too. I use Skype, Lync, Remote Desktop to PCs in Europe, and use comms software to customer PCs around the world. I would benefit from a faster connection. It would make my job more comfortable. But I'd make the following 2 points:

 

1) I can already do my job with existing technology. Anyone who thinks that the technology is holding back more people from working like me is kidding themselves. The reasons for restraint are personal and social, not technological.

2) Most people won't gain from a faster connection. You say you would. I probably would too. But the vast majority wouldn't. So why should they pay for it?

 

It's like building a high speed rail link between Dubbo and Broome. It's great for the people in Dubbo who need to visit Broome, but where's the benefit for the rest?

[Peach]

I make my living online too. I use Skype, Lync, Remote Desktop to PCs in Europe, and use comms software to customer PCs around the world. I would benefit from a faster connection. It would make my job more comfortable. But I'd make the following 2 points:

 

1) I can already do my job with existing technology. Anyone who thinks that the technology is holding back more people from working like me is kidding themselves. The reasons for restraint are personal and social, not technological.

2) Most people won't gain from a faster connection. You say you would. I probably would too. But the vast majority wouldn't. So why should they pay for it?

 

It's like building a high speed rail link between Dubbo and Broome. It's great for the people in Dubbo who need to visit Broome, but where's the benefit for the rest?

 

where's the benefit to me for paying a levy for floods in Queensland or helping the disabled, or schools in Darwin? NBN is an infrastructure project that potentially can benefit all....

[paul1977]

I make my living online too. I use Skype, Lync, Remote Desktop to PCs in Europe, and use comms software to customer PCs around the world. I would benefit from a faster connection. It would make my job more comfortable. But I'd make the following 2 points:

 

1) I can already do my job with existing technology. Anyone who thinks that the technology is holding back more people from working like me is kidding themselves. The reasons for restraint are personal and social, not technological.

2) Most people won't gain from a faster connection. You say you would. I probably would too. But the vast majority wouldn't. So why should they pay for it?

 

It's like building a high speed rail link between Dubbo and Broome. It's great for the people in Dubbo who need to visit Broome, but where's the benefit for the rest?

Standard backwards attitude .... It's called MODERNIZATION.. Think forward not backwards

[Bobbsy]

Best wait until the country can afford it first.

 

I'd characterise it as "we can't afford not to". Our competitors in the developed world already have better broadband infrastructures than Australia but all already rolling out FTTP systems. That includes New Zealand, the UK and a roll out by Google of all people in the USA. Aus can't continue to be rich because we mine and sell coal. A) We'll run out, and B) The world...even China...is moving away from dirty energy sources.

 

Australia needs to be preparing now for a high tech future--and the internet will be key to that.

 

Beyond that, of course we can afford it. The Australian national debt is far from in crisis--it's around 30% of GDP. The American debt is about 75% of their GDP and the UK debt is over 90% of GDP. That's why Australia still has an AAA+ credit rating. Even with that though, it will be telecoms companies and users who will pay back the cost of the NBN over time.

 

I make my living online too. I use Skype, Lync, Remote Desktop to PCs in Europe, and use comms software to customer PCs around the world. I would benefit from a faster connection. It would make my job more comfortable. But I'd make the following 2 points:

 

1) I can already do my job with existing technology. Anyone who thinks that the technology is holding back more people from working like me is kidding themselves. The reasons for restraint are personal and social, not technological.

2) Most people won't gain from a faster connection. You say you would. I probably would too. But the vast majority wouldn't. So why should they pay for it?

 

It's like building a high speed rail link between Dubbo and Broome. It's great for the people in Dubbo who need to visit Broome, but where's the benefit for the rest?

 

Your attitude is short sighted. Fifteen years ago I had 56kbps dial up and thought that was fast enough (compared to the 14.4kbps I had before). I got 512kbps ADSL in 2000 and my needs grew as did my reliance on the web. That migrated to 8Mbps in about 2003...and my use grew again. Stepping back to under 4Mbps here in Oz (at 3 times the cost) was a shock to the system.

 

The world is changing. Australia needs a broadband system expandable for the future, not one mired in the past. The LNP scheme will prove to be a giant waste of money when it has to be replaced or augmented in five years.

[Xenon4017]

where's the benefit to me for paying a levy for floods in Queensland or helping the disabled, or schools in Darwin? NBN is an infrastructure project that potentially can benefit all....

 

Actually, flood levy I wouldn't pay either. Other than to fix roads.

 

Disability can strike anyone randomly, so as an insurance it makes sense.

 

And you don't pay for schools in a particular place; you pay for schooling in general. And you've already been to school, I assume, so it's only fair that you pay that back. And even if you didn't, most people do go to school and benefit from it. Most people will visit a hospital at some stage and drive on a major interstate road.

 

You're right that NBN is an infrastructure project. But you still haven't really identified why it will benefit most people. The main argument is "If you build it, something nice will happen, but we don't know what it is yet". My argument is that 90% of the benefit to be gained from the internet is delivered through a reliable connection, not a fast one.

[Xenon4017]

Australia needs to be preparing now for a high tech future--and the internet will be key to that.

 

.

 

But how many people will be participating in that? As I've said, I already do the type of job that is supposed to be enabled by the NBN. What %age of the working population do you expect to join me? 1%? 0.1%? 0.001? And to facilitate (not enable) these few, everyone has to pay.

 

Beyond that, of course we can afford it. The Australian national debt is far from in crisis--it's around 30% of GDP. The American debt is about 75% of their GDP and the UK debt is over 90% of GDP. That's why Australia still has an AAA+ credit rating. Even with that though, it will be telecoms companies and users who will pay back the cost of the NBN over time.

 

 

So, by your reckoning, we should carry on borrowing until we lose the AAA+ rating? OK, looks like the Broome-Dubbo Express might happen after all. The cost is approx 40bn, which is 1000$ for person in Oz. So, I get to pay 1000$ to build it, then 50$(?) per month to use it. My neighbour pays 1000$ too, even though she doesn't even have a TV. If it's really so commercially viable, let a private company built it and charge whatever the market will stand.

 

Fifteen years ago I had 56kbps dial up and thought that was fast enough (compared to the 14.4kbps I had before). I got 512kbps ADSL in 2000 and my needs grew as did my reliance on the web. That migrated to 8Mbps in about 2003...and my use grew again. Stepping back to under 4Mbps here in Oz (at 3 times the cost) was a shock to the system.

 

 

 

Have you noticed a trend here? 12 months after you get your NBN connection, you'll still be whinging that it isn't fast enough. Then what? NBN2?

[paul1977]

But how many people will be participating in that? As I've said, I already do the type of job that is supposed to be enabled by the NBN. What %age of the working population do you expect to join me? 1%? 0.1%? 0.001? And to facilitate (not enable) these few, everyone has to pay.

 

 

 

So, by your reckoning, we should carry on borrowing until we lose the AAA+ rating? OK, looks like the Broome-Dubbo Express might happen after all. The cost is approx 40bn, which is 1000$ for person in Oz. So, I get to pay 1000$ to build it, then 50$(?) per month to use it. My neighbour pays 1000$ too, even though she doesn't even have a TV. If it's really so commercially viable, let a private company built it and charge whatever the market will stand.

 

 

 

Have you noticed a trend here? 12 months after you get your NBN connection, you'll still be whinging that it isn't fast enough. Then what? NBN2?

God help if you were PM .. People would still be living in caves

[Bobbsy]

Have you noticed a trend here? 12 months after you get your NBN connection, you'll still be whinging that it isn't fast enough. Then what? NBN2?

 

Once you have a fibre into your home or office, the maximum speeds can be increased as needed. NTT (the Japanese telco) did an experiment last year of feeding a 1 petabyte (a million gigabytes) data rate over a single strand for 50 km. The difficult/expensive bit is getting the fibre in the ducts in the first place. Once the FTTP infrastructure is installed (and it will be eventually--the issue is whether the LNP first waste billions on technology that the UK and NZ have already thrown out as a mistake) we'll be future proof for at least our lifetimes.

[Xenon4017]

Once you have a fibre into your home or office, the maximum speeds can be increased as needed. NTT (the Japanese telco) did an experiment last year of feeding a 1 petabyte (a million gigabytes) data rate over a single strand for 50 km. The difficult/expensive bit is getting the fibre in the ducts in the first place. Once the FTTP infrastructure is installed (and it will be eventually--the issue is whether the LNP first waste billions on technology that the UK and NZ have already thrown out as a mistake) we'll be future proof for at least our lifetimes.

 

[bTW, I'm glad we're on the right thread. Last time I think we hijacked some unrelated thread]

 

Anyway, it's all very well if you can receive data very quickly (you didn't say how long it took to transfer the petabyte, but I assume it was 1 second), but what good does it do you if the party on the other end can't send it as fast? You say you transfer video files to the UK. Is your partner (and all the other nodes in between) also up to speed? If not, you'll never see the benefit.

[Bobbsy]

[bTW, I'm glad we're on the right thread. Last time I think we hijacked some unrelated thread]

 

Anyway, it's all very well if you can receive data very quickly (you didn't say how long it took to transfer the petabyte, but I assume it was 1 second), but what good does it do you if the party on the other end can't send it as fast? You say you transfer video files to the UK. Is your partner (and all the other nodes in between) also up to speed? If not, you'll never see the benefit.

 

Yup, it was a 1 Petabyte per second transfer rate. It'll be a very long time before we need speeds like that into our homes but, for example, server to server for a multinational company might need it a lot sooner.

 

The bigger issue for Australia in the short/mid term will be this country's interconnections to the rest of the world. Right now both Telstra and Optus are cheaping out and not leasing sufficient capacity on their links to other countries--but that will inevitably change. I am to long out of the industry to know the details but the number of undersea fibres has been increasing rapidly for the last 20 years or so and the cost to lease capacity coming down equally fast. The same has happened with satellite channels. When I started in TV News in London in 1976, the average cost of a ten minute satellite was over $2000 and we did one or two a week. When I retired the cost of a ten minute feed by satellite or fibre was down to just over $100 and we did probably 20 per day. Similarly, our first 24 hour lease in about 1990 was $1.2 million per year. By the early 2000s that was down to around $200k per year. (And, of course, in the late 1980s thing were deregulated so we could operate our own uplinks.)

 

The trick is to be ready for the future, not invest in the wrong technology and be taken by surprise.