# Forum More Stuff At the end of the day  Rudd's legacy to Australia - NBN

## phild01

It makes my blood boil that the NBN was ever considered a great way forward.  From the outset I told people what I thought of it as a massive waste of money and I feel I will be vindicated.  People, just let it go, we should have stayed with cable and ADSL.  It was always my belief technology would overtake the fibre by any time a roll-out could ever be completed,  Laugh at me but I was happy with 4Gb of wireless now sitting at 30.  The cost to me has been far less than the old cable connection I once had.  Let's see how 5G changes the scene if the government gives it a chance.

----------


## sol381

Agree 100%..im getting 100Mbps with my optus cable.. doubt ill get anywhere near that when nbn rolls into my street. NBN and the insulation fiasco are about equal..

----------


## Bros

I would differ as I know many people who have better service with NBN where due to distance ADSL was quite slow.  
Cable is only available is the big cities and I'm sure to selected locations there. The great unwashed have to rely on lesser services. 
We will have access to NBN by June in our area.

----------


## DavoSyd

> .im getting 100Mbps with my optus cable.. doubt ill get anywhere near that when nbn rolls into my street.

  well, actually....  https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/06/n...able-nbn-says/ 
...but lets not get any facts involved...  https://www.computerworld.com.au/art...fc-technology/ https://www.nbnco.com.au/corporate-i..._1-trials.html https://www.bit.com.au/news/nbn-co-h...s-1gbps-464332 NBN hails 'game-changing' DOCSIS 3.1 gigabit speeds on HFC | ZDNet

----------


## phild01

> I would differ as I know many people who have better service with NBN where due to distance ADSL was quite slow.  
> Cable is only available is the big cities and I'm sure to selected locations there. The great unwashed have to rely on lesser services. 
> We will have access to NBN by June in our area.

  And it cost an absolute fortune to get NBN to remote areas. We should have provided satellite wireless to these areas at far less cost IMO.  Many still don't have NBN (including my area), not because of government policy but because of the unreasonable demand to implement it across the country in short time, and without the resources/technical ability to do it competently.

----------


## Uncle Bob

In my opinion Rudd and Conroy NBN was the right plan. 
Unfortunately we're ended up with an expensive white elephant thanks to the current government.
I'm confident that history will prove this correct, especially after the current NBN is rectified. 
Here is what fibre can deliver to you (this is the connection I'm posting this from):  
This will be my last post in this thread.

----------


## phild01

So you are the traffic holdup holding everyone up :Biggrin:

----------


## toooldforthis

my ADSL was 5mbps down / 1mbps up
now have FTTN and get 25mbps down and 6 up
but some in my suburb (6070) have had to stay on ADSL - they are told no NBN for them cause they are too far from node (the implication is that they won't get the min 25 Mbps). They will be on a deteriorating adsl (some currently as low as 2 Mbps download) for several years at least until the installers come back again and install some more nodes. They have asked for FTTN even if it means less than 25 Mbps - bureaucracy says No.

----------


## Bros

I was talking to the Telstra bloke who was with the installers when they were pulling the draw ropes in and he told me that we would be getting FTTC which is faster than FTTN, currently don't need it as the ADSL2 is sufficient but with the advancing of technology who knows.  
If you told me 10 yrs ago I could pay all my bills from home or talk to someone by video in real time I would have given you strange looks but now who knows the future.
As far as technology is concerned and the reason behind it for medical reasons I have found the medical profession extremely poor in understand basic internet technology, some don't even have he ability to read scans. One we went to for my wife couldn't even send emails he had to rely on his receptionist.
 So for getting the benefit of the NBN for medical uses the medical profession has to really get their finger out.

----------


## pharmaboy2

I’m getting 70 to 80 which is faster than I could ever use, BUT, the connection is @@@@, it drops out, slows down, speeds up, resets etc.  ultimately, with both NBN 1 and NBN 2.0 it’s all about speed into homes - zero regard for backroom which could cope with people chatting on forums, but can’t cope with a couple of hundred thousand households watching HDTV over the internet. 
the headline numbers are rubbish

----------


## Marc

> And it cost an absolute fortune to get NBN to remote areas. We should have provided satellite wireless to these areas at far less cost IMO.  Many still don't have NBN (including my area), not because of government policy but because of the unreasonable demand to implement it across the country in short time, and without the resources/technical ability to do it competently.

  I have satellite NBN
I get 21 download speed when before with the Optus satellite I was getting 4.
My home address had Optus cable that gave me a mixture of 2 MBS to 12 MBS and many times ZERO. Now I get 80 to 100 with NBN.
 Optus has been a joke in my experience and their so called technical support should be purged en masse.

----------


## phild01

> This will be my last post in this thread.

  Am okay with that.
Fibre is unquestionably great and back in 2005 it was being routed through the city in a beneficial way.  Our organisation did it between campuses in the city and I do recognise that technology.  But to get it to every home in the country is what I am on about.  It (the roll-out) should have been dedicated to business and essential services only in a progressive manner.  Homes should never have been a priority and the costs should have been weighed up against provision by other means for the regional areas.  I reckon the cost so far would have got us some rapid transport between our major hubs and by the time everyone has NBN it will be redundant by wireless.

----------


## toooldforthis

who am I to bring this around to renovating but...  saw a guy complaining on a forum about moving a telecom pit that was where the proposed driveway for a new build was to go - cost was $2k. Of course there are older issues regarding developer doing the plans wrong etc but he was complaining cause now he had to bear the cost. It was pointed out that the $2k sounded cheap causeanother guy was trying to negotiate a $30k bill for damaging the fibre when doing some site works. dialb4udig is only an approximation of location.but I was wondering about a new driveway. my boundary is a lot higher than the road and normally a drive would be cut into the slope, but with the fibre running just 450/600mm below the surface at the boundary it would be well above where it should end up. It seems there is no slack in the fibre so lowering it is not an option. The 'no slack' is why that guy's $30k is so high. They need to relay it. no splice/join this fibre.

----------


## UseByDate

> It makes my blood boil that the NBN was ever considered a great way forward.  From the outset I told people what I thought of it as a massive waste of money and I feel I will be vindicated.  People, just let it go, we should have stayed with cable and ADSL.  It was always my belief technology would overtake the fibre by any time a roll-out could ever be completed,  Laugh at me but I was happy with 4Gb of wireless now sitting at 30.  The cost to me has been far less than the old cable connection I once had.  Let's see how 5G changes the scene if the government gives it a chance.

  I live 20 km from the centre of Adelaide, on the coast, and did not have the option of ADSL or cable. No ADSL because Telstra did not install a dedicated cable from my house to the exchange. Only about 10% of houses could get ADSL. So I went with mobile internet using a “dongle” modem. The problem with that was that there is no “line of sight” from my home to a telecom tower. The result was a very low quality radio link. If it rained I got NO internet. The rest of the time I had to move the modem to different locations to establish the low quality link.
 I have had NBN for just over a year now. It is FTTN and the maximum data transfer rate is 44Mb/s. I am about 600m from the node. It has been very reliable. I get a drop out about once a week and it takes a minute to reconnect. Compared to what I had, I am in heaven.    :Smilie:

----------


## craka

> Am okay with that.
> Fibre is unquestionably great and back in 2005 it was being routed through the city in a beneficial way.  Our organisation did it between campuses in the city and I do recognise that technology.  But to get it to every home in the country is what I am on about.  It (the roll-out) should have been dedicated to business and essential services only in a progressive manner.  Homes should never have been a priority and the costs should have been weighed up against provision by other means for the regional areas.  I reckon the cost so far would have got us some rapid transport between our major hubs and by the time everyone has NBN it will be redundant by wireless.

  Fibre is for the most part already available to businesses in any built up area but is expensive for them to get through Telstra Wideband.    
I do wonder what the nay sayers would have said back in the day when someone turned around and said we are going to put this new technology in called a telephone, and if everyone bawked at the cost to do so then. Kind of think in the decades that came after that, most people thought it was worth while.  Maybe a bit like the Sydney harbour bridge, there was only approximately 30,000 vehicles that existed in Sydney at the time the bridge openned, it now has over 1million vehicles a week pass over it.  
The cost really had nothing directly to the actual fibre, or regional areas they already have telephone exchanges, and fibre cable is relatively cheap. Remote areas I can understand not doing but NBN isn't running fibre there anyway.  
The cost with FTTP (fiber to the premise/home) was the civil cost, due to the fact for some reason they decided to run fibre into home (ie the normal private lead in that one normally pays for to get a copper telephone line). Thus if there were blockages etc that had bore or drill or trench, cutting private driveways etc and then on top of that had to pay to repriate what ever private stuff they dug up or damaged. ( 
The FTTN (fibre to the node) really was a political stunt, and is damn shameful. 
FTTC (fibre to the curb - Yankee spelling [Australian Kerb])  is really what they should have went for in the beginning and is what is starting to roll out in some places now.   In this scenario fibre is run along every residential street , pretty much like all other services. From here houses are connected using their existing copper phone lead in to a gateway that is fibre connected, and there is bugger all copper length and only 4 houses connected to each. 
People that go on about wireless technologies yes it has a place but the are for more technical obstacles, such as regarding RF bandwidth as there is only so much usable spectrum. 
The thing with fibre is the transmission of light can allow for extremely high bandwidth, it's current limitation are more to do with the modulation of the signal and the hardware at either end, not the physical fibre itself.  This is why fibre is important, and the fibre runs are also not susceptible to any sort of electrical interference either.

----------


## craka

> who am I to bring this around to renovating but...  saw a guy complaining on a forum about moving a telecom pit that was where the proposed driveway for a new build was to go - cost was $2k. Of course there are older issues regarding developer doing the plans wrong etc but he was complaining cause now he had to bear the cost. It was pointed out that the $2k sounded cheap causeanother guy was trying to negotiate a $30k bill for damaging the fibre when doing some site works. dialb4udig is only an approximation of location.but I was wondering about a new driveway. my boundary is a lot higher than the road and normally a drive would be cut into the slope, but with the fibre running just 450/600mm below the surface at the boundary it would be well above where it should end up. It seems there is no slack in the fibre so lowering it is not an option. The 'no slack' is why that guy's $30k is so high. They need to relay it. no splice/join this fibre.

  Your fibre could be a high up as only 300mm under if not a driveway or footpath. Under footpath or driveway it should (stipulate should and not absolute) be down a minimum of 450mm.  
I'm a little bewildered by the statement of 'relay' it and not splice?    There is only one way to join fibre and that is splicing, all other means by way of connector have higher loss and no network operator would allow that.

----------


## Bros

> FTTC (fibre to the curb - Yankee spelling [Australian Kerb])  is really what they should have went for in the beginning and is what is starting to roll out in some places now.   In this scenario fibre is run along every residential street , pretty much like all other services. From here houses are connected using their existing copper phone lead in to a gateway that is fibre connected, and there is bugger all copper length and only 4 houses connected to each. 
> .

  FTTC devices are some electronic device that transfers copper to fibre where do these gadgets get their power from?

----------


## craka

> Originally Posted by *Bros* 
> FTTC devices are some electronic device that transfers copper to fibre where do these gadgets get their power from?

  Basically yes. They are back fed from each house hold.

----------


## Bros

> Basically yes. They are back fed from each house hold.

  I would never have guessed that.

----------


## UseByDate

> I would never have guessed that.

  FTTC power requirements are likely to be lower than if you had FTTP.   https://www.nbnco.com.au/blog/the-nb...echnology.html  
 “Translation: it’s likely a lower power requirement per household than is used by the box you would have installed on your home if you had FTTP.”

----------


## Bros

Just checked our address on line and it tells me we are definitely getting FTTC by June 2018.

----------


## UseByDate

> Just checked our address on line and it tells me we are definitely getting FTTC by June 2018.

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EI7p2p1QJI

----------


## Bros

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EI7p2p1QJI

  A bit like Telstra increasing my 100Gb to 1000Gb I have no idea what I can do with it.

----------


## commodorenut

I have had FTTP in this house for just over 4 years now.  Prior to that, ADSL2 would drop out every time it rained, and I was lucky to see 4Mb/s.  At my investment property, it was 12Mb/s on ADSL2.  Both places are the same distance from the same exchange, and the crap speed was the newer place too.  When they put FTTP into my IP, the conduit was crushed by tree roots (but still never dropped out) so they had to dig up the yard from the pit to the house, and it's only 300mm or so below the surface.  It was done with a small DitchWitch digger. 
I have a 50Mb/s unlimited data plan (no longer available) and I'm seeing 60 during quiet times, and low 50s during peak.  In 4 years I've only had to reset the NBN modem once, and that was after a blackout where the power flickered a bit when it came back on.  I've never had a dropout.   I am extremely happy with it, and we have multiple devices all pulling streaming content at the same time, with no hassles (HD Netfilx, Youtube on iPads & iPhones etc). 
The in-laws got FTTN about 2 years back.  After a debacle from their ISP, I eventually got their "gateway" up & running - they'd installed the NBN onto the old 2nd line that was used for dial-up, which was disconnnected 15 years prior when they went over to ADSL2.  He's had to turn the power off & back on about once a month to restore the internet, but I think that's more a problem with the cheap & nasty "gateway" modem/router they provide, as the phone also goes down when the net goes down, but it all comes back up after a power cycle.  He only wanted 12Mb/s, the same as he had (unreliably) with ADSL and it's been pretty much spot on 12 every time I've speed tested it. 
I am yet to find anyone in my circle of family & friends who has switched over to FTTP/FTTN who hasn't had a good, reliable service after switching over, and a marked improvement over ADSL/ADSL2.
I couldn't get cable at my place, so the NBN was a massive improvement for me. 
ADSL2 simply can't cope wth the data needs of a modern household, especially if kids or teenagers are also consuming data.

----------


## johnc

After 10 months and 70 phone calls and three site visits we are still waiting for NBN, however for being polite and patient we now have free line of siight 4g internet until the NBN get their act together and connect the building. We are very close to the tower and for once, thank you Telstra.

----------


## Jon

Firstly a disclosure, i work for one of the major Telcos. 
The principal of the NBN is good and once you have a quality fibre network installed you can upgrade things by upgrading the equipment on either end of the fibre at minimal cost.
As it has been stated, the wireless spectrum is not unlimited and while upgrades continually occur allowing faster and faster speeds, it can not be scaled up to supply the entire customer base at those speeds.
While this is not my field, the FTTC model looks like being able to supply a good speed to customers at a reasonable installation cost. 
There are lots of horror stories regarding NBN installations and they make great shock stories for news papers and current affairs programs, and I have personally seen a few.  And lots of these are from under ( think zero ) qualified installers doing the fastest cheapest job possible.  But good news does not sell papers so you dont hear about the majority of good outcomes. 
And for personal experience, I went from a barely adequate ADSL2 service that degraded during rain ( foreign battery that disappeared when the joint dried out ) to a 25Mbs NBN service that delivers me around 18.  I have 3 teenagers and they can all be watching stuff on line and I do not notice a drop in service. I am happy with my personal experience and the few other people that I know with it are also happy.

----------


## woodbe

> In my opinion Rudd and Conroy NBN was the right plan. 
> Unfortunately we're ended up with an expensive white elephant thanks to the current government.
> I'm confident that history will prove this correct, especially after the current NBN is rectified. 
> Here is what fibre can deliver to you (this is the connection I'm posting this from):  
> This will be my last post in this thread.

  Agree. The problem was the change of government decided to trash a good tech plan. The original plan was expensive but would have delivered the network capability that we need in the future. The result is a high cost and poor results with the FTTN. Another issue in the NBNco stuffed up the system by allowing the retailers to overload their purchased internet pipe which means most customers have poor internet at busy times, and they also told the customers that their network was at the top limit instead of the actual average capability. 
In our area, we should have NBN FTTC in the next couple of months as it has been running the infrastructure around our area since mid year. Will post the NBN difference when connected compared to this on ADSL2 now with regular drop outs and poor speeds.  
Today. We're about 3.9km from the exchange.  
Since 2016. Regular dropouts and usually takes a couple of days for repair.

----------


## phild01

I'm happy enough. 5G could be 100 times faster than this.

----------


## Bros

> I'm happy enough. 5G could be 100 times faster than this.

  At those speeds you will be able to get forum posts before that are written

----------


## phild01

> At those speeds you will be able to get forum posts before that are written

  ...and before I can think of what to write.  Noticed on the news that Telstra's rollout in 2019 has this expectation, and some 20 times faster than the NBN, whatever they are comparing that to though.

----------


## craka

I think one thing people fail to recognise is  the actual fibre going into the ground and just see it as NBN itself in its current state.     Having the fibre there now allows for changes in coming years, the fibre itself will not be outdated. Hardware changes that allow different modulation and thus higher speed transmission can be changed without doing anything with the actual fibre itself.  Whether it remains NBN or if some other entity bought or ended up with it, the main infrastructure will be there.

----------


## Bros

> ...and before I can think of what to write.  Noticed on the news that Telstra's rollout in 2019 has this expectation, and some 20 times faster than the NBN, whatever they are comparing that to though.

  Yes I saw that and the fact the lights went out. There is now a mishmash of systems available and I have no idea which one will win out if any does.  
I prefer the land line system as I have had bad experience with very slow wireless speeds due to congestion. 
I pity old people who are not tech savvy with the NBN. I was visiting someone today who was sold a Broadband system that was in excessive of their needs. They have very little use for the internet but were sold a 100Gb package. 
My SIL had Foxtel that here late husband got on and she was sent a new IQ3 box that is not compatible with her TV and as far as i can see its advantage is to connect to NBN. She doesn't want it and rang them to say come and get it on three occasions since last Oct and they haven't bothered to collect. She has never used the internet and doesn't want to but is forced to go to NBN just for here landline

----------


## phild01

> and doesn't want to but is forced to go to NBN just for here landline

  Have just now dropped my landline and will discontinue my voip soon.  Now on unlimited calls with the mobile.  Bought a Panasonic bluetooth link to cell twin handset.  Works pretty much like the old landline set-up.  Doubt NBN will ever be connected to my house, time will tell. 
The beauty of this is leaving the mobile on charge where it gets good reception in the house.  I am in a marginal area for mobile.  I'm sure my data speed would also be much better if I was more ideally located.

----------


## Bros

> Agree. The problem was the change of government decided to trash a good tech plan. The original plan was expensive but would have delivered the network capability that we need in the future. .

  What do we need high speed fibre in the future for as I am finding it hard to understand what we need but I realise the future is hard to predict.

----------


## Bros

> I'm happy enough. 5G could be 100 times faster than this.

   Have you tried streaming in the evening?

----------


## phild01

FTTC with owner having option of existing copper or new fibre might speed rollout a bit!?

----------


## phild01

> Have you tried streaming in the evening?

  On the odd occasion it might come back from that, but if below 15mbs might get noticed.
Thing is, since CGI, there is barely a movie worth watching for me. The PVR records what I want to watch anyway.

----------


## Bros

> FTTC with owner having option of existing copper or new fibre might speed rollout a bit!?

  I don't think you initially get the option as it would delay the rollout it would be different work crews that would do jobs like that. 
All the pics I see shows 4 houses getting connected to the FTTC node but i was wondering if when they do the install the copper stays back to the exchange and then when you sign up to NBN they do the changeover to the node as they are going to cut the copper within 12 mths..  
I'll soon see if I am home.

----------


## Bros

> On the odd occasion it might come back from that, but if below 15mbs might get noticed.
> Thing is, since CGI, there is barely a movie worth watching for me. The PVR records what I want to watch anyway.

  I can stream at 9mbs quite well.

----------


## DavoSyd

> I can stream at 9mbs quite well.

  unless you are streaming 4K content, 9Mbps is plenty!

----------


## toooldforthis

> Your fibre could be a high up as only 300mm under if not a driveway or footpath. Under footpath or driveway it should (stipulate should and not absolute) be down a minimum of 450mm.

  there is a pit at the boundary about 600mm deep and the 'cable' in there is about 450mm deep.
my point was if the new driveway is cut into the bank then the existing cable needs to be lowered or rerouted.   

> I'm a little bewildered by the statement of 'relay' it and not splice?    There is only one way to join fibre and that is splicing, all other means by way of connector have higher loss and no network operator would allow that.

  sry. just paraphrasing what was said over in whirlpool forum. went looking for the post but couldn't find it.
apparently not possible to join where accidentally cut and whole section needed to be re-laid.

----------


## woodbe

> What do we need high speed fibre in the future for as I am finding it hard to understand what we need but I realise the future is hard to predict.

  Well, for a lot of reasons. 
Right now, fibre will have better connection and speed for anyone that has distance to the ADSL exchange. 
In a family home, the kids are using way more capacity than we did when the internet first began. The network needs to be improved to allow users to actually use the network. 
Workers with high speed internet can use it and work from home. Just down the road, there is a house that is doing surveying work for mining and stuff. The surveys are gigabytes per map. They have a fast network system that cost them squillions but once the NBN is connected any worker or business like that will be able to have adequate connectivity at reasonable cost. 
Before TV, people went to the movie theatres and saw documentary news before the film. Now the news is everywhere except before at the movies. Same sort of changes will occur when the community has excellent high speed network capability.

----------


## Bros

> In a family home, the kids are using way more capacity than we did when the internet first began. The network needs to be improved to allow users to actually use the network.

  Counts me out as they have left long ago.   

> Workers with high speed internet can use it and work from home.

  Sounds a bit like the paperless office that was promised a decade or more ago.   

> Just down the road, there is a house that is doing surveying work for mining and stuff. The surveys are gigabytes per map. They have a fast network system that cost them squillions but once the NBN is connected any worker or business like that will be able to have adequate connectivity at reasonable cost.

  I can understand that some of this final work will benefit from NBN but that is only a small part as I have never seen survey work done from a computer it is all done on site.   

> Before TV, people went to the movie theatres and saw documentary news before the film. Now the news is everywhere except before at the movies. Same sort of changes will occur when the community has excellent high speed network capability.

  Nothing can compare with the current range of movie theatres with screens and sound systems. News I can get now on TV and ADSL I don't think it will improve the quality of news just quantity and I'm somewhat sick of some of it. 
I notice you never mention medical where I believe there are advantages but a lot of the medical profession seems to be way behind.

----------


## phild01

How many times when talking to a business or retailer do we hear "just waiting, the system is slow" or the like.  It is maddening that somehow the kid's entertainment need overwhelms the priority of a business, organisation, _or medical provider!_

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Well, for a lot of reasons. 
> Right now, fibre will have better connection and speed for anyone that has distance to the ADSL exchange. 
> In a family home, the kids are using way more capacity than we did when the internet first began. The network needs to be improved to allow users to actually use the network. 
> Workers with high speed internet can use it and work from home. Just down the road, there is a house that is doing surveying work for mining and stuff. The surveys are gigabytes per map. They have a fast network system that cost them squillions but once the NBN is connected any worker or business like that will be able to have adequate connectivity at reasonable cost. 
> Before TV, people went to the movie theatres and saw documentary news before the film. Now the news is everywhere except before at the movies. Same sort of changes will occur when the community has excellent high speed network capability.

  Internet speed is like house storage - the more you provide the more it gets used. 
i had zero need for streaming tv or movies 3 years ago and comfortablely survived on a gig or 2 with 2 kids.  Now because I can watch tv on HD through the internet , I do, and so do my kids.  The idea that NBN direct to premises was needed for every house  as “infrastructure” is a patent load of rubbish. 
In reality it’s an awesome entertainment network, with maybe a few percent of use being commercial.  The point of course is that voters like entertainment and aren’t prepared to pay for it.  I’m sure it was all coincidence that the NBN started in the western suburbs and and important federal seats. 
signed, grumpy old man.....

----------


## DavoSyd

> How many times when talking to a business or retailer do we hear "just waiting, the system is slow" or the like.  It is maddening that somehow the kid's entertainment need overwhelms the priority of a business, organisation, _or medical provider!_

  kids should be in school when you are talking to a business or retailer? 
are you seriously trying to blame children on slow business processing speed? 
 most of the time slowness is APPLICATIONS related, not the bandwidth...

----------


## phild01

> kids should be in school when you are talking to a business or retailer? 
> are you seriously trying to blame children on slow business processing speed? 
>  most of the time slowness is APPLICATIONS related, not the bandwidth...

  Not sure if you deliberately miss the points I make but nothing to do with kids being in school.  It's about the provision of delivering such a high speed roll-out to the essential areas that need priority, rather than the high cost of satisfying the appetites of gamers and kid's entertainment.

----------


## DavoSyd

> Not sure if you deliberately miss the points I make but nothing to do with kids being in school.  It's about the provision of delivering such a high speed roll-out to the essential areas that need priority, rather than the high cost of satisfying the appetites of gamers and kid's entertainment.

  the POINT is that most businesses already have acess to high speed broadband.  
when a business says, "just waiting, the system is slow" they are talking about their applications, not an internet connection...

----------


## phild01

> the POINT is that most businesses already have acess to high speed broadband.  
> when a business says, "just waiting, the system is slow" they are talking about their applications, not an internet connection...

  8129.0 - Business Use of Information Technology, 2015-16

----------


## Bros

> 8129.0 - Business Use of Information Technology, 2015-16

  It tells you the type but not the amount.  
Take the first Agriculture forestry and fishing it is plainly obvious why they don't use much DSL is they don't have it they also make use of POTS a lot as well which doesn't get a mention..

----------


## phild01

What I am proposing is that a fibre line be available to every business zone first, not little Jimmy's need for video.  There is a lot of DSL being indicated there.

----------


## Bros

> What I am proposing is that a fibre line be available to every business zone first, not little Jimmy's need for video.  There is a lot of DSL being indicated there.

  Yes but it most proberbly FTTN that is part of the DSL which for most business now is sufficient.

----------


## phild01

> Yes but it most proberbly FTTN that is part of the DSL which for most business now is sufficient.

  What's good enough for business is good enough for all :Biggrin:

----------


## Bros

> What's good enough for business is good enough for all

  I did say "now" but who know what the future will hold.

----------


## DavoSyd

> What's good enough for business is good enough for all

  https://www.businesscom.com.au/info-...-business-adsl   

> *Difference Between Residential Grade and Business ADSL* Not All ADSL Connections Are Equal There is no shortage of cheap residential broadband and ADSL deals. You may often wonder why business broadband is more expensive, after all they're both ADSL services. So what's so special about business ADSL and what are the differences?  *Congestion and Contention Ratio*  This is the main reason why residential ADSL services are cheaper. ISPs (Internet Service Providers) share residential services between more users than they do for business connections (contention ratio). That means the quality and the speed of the service is prone to greater fluctuations. Although ISPs (Internet Service Providers) rarely publish the contention ratios, it's generally accepted that a residential ADSL service is shared by around three times more users than business ADSL.  *Service Level Agreements*  Business ADSL services are usually backed by written SLAs (service level agreements). Being an essential service these are quite important and ensure that the ISP is fully committed to performance targets. They usually cover installation lead times, service restoration and availability, and latency and packet loss. Residential ADSL services don't usually come with SLAs and are very much a best effort service.  *Static IP Address and Technical Support*  An IP address is a unique identifier of the location of the computer hardware that's accessing the internet. Because it's more cost effective for the ISP, residential ADSL connections are usually made using dynamic IP addresses, which the ISP allocates from a pool and changes from time to time. Business ADSL services come with a static IP address, which is a dedicated IP address and doesn't change. Static IP addresses are necessary when running a server and business IT networks. Business ADSL services are usually backed by a 24/7 technical support team that specialise in business connections and understand business requirements. They're usually based in Australia and provide immediate support for any technical faults. Residential ADSL technical support is generally handled by offshore customer service teams.

----------


## woodbe

> Counts me out as they have left long ago.

   The network is for all. Some need more, others less due to requirements and numbers in the home or business.   

> Sounds a bit like the paperless office that was promised a decade or more ago.

   Not really, the paperless office was a nice idea but never happened. A worker needs good connection to their business if they are able to work from home.   

> I can understand that some of this final work will benefit from NBN but that is only a small part as I have never seen survey work done from a computer it is all done on site.

  The survey work is done on the site, yes, but the analysis is better done by a fancy business that knows their stuff and has done effective analysis over the whole country. They're doing pretty well based on the stack of high end cars parked there every day.   

> Nothing can compare with the current range of movie theatres with screens and sound systems. News I can get now on TV and ADSL I don't think it will improve the quality of news just quantity and I'm somewhat sick of some of it.

  I think you missed my words. In the old theatres, news was interesting because it was unusual. Now, it is everywhere. Lots of home theatres are well on the way. News is way broader than the original commercial news companies.   

> I notice you never mention medical where I believe there are advantages but a lot of the medical profession seems to be way behind.

  I didn't mention everything. The ideas on Medical sounded good, but haven't heard much about it since. Maybe it is working?

----------


## phild01

> https://www.businesscom.com.au/info-...-business-adsl

  Why are you wanting to tell me about ADSL.  Again you miss my point, the inference you generalise is that business doesn't need fibre speed to which I therefore say neither does a household .... oh that's right so it can be a hugely expensive play thing!
BTW, I can differentiate between ADSL and DSL.  I don't care for either, time will come when people will be happy with 5G and then beyond.

----------


## craka

> sry. just paraphrasing what was said over in whirlpool forum. went looking for the post but couldn't find it.
> apparently not possible to join where accidentally cut and whole section needed to be re-laid.

  Wasn't haven't a go at you, just was a little baffled on what they meant.   Yes if there is a break, they will need to run another small section of fibre and than have two fibre joints at each end to joint up to the existing broken ends in which they will splice.   That is unless there are any service loops in nearby pits, in which they may have a little bit of slack in cable to use for a single joint.

----------


## Uncle Bob

I'm back  :Smilie: 
Phil, just a heads up, that x*G that you keep mentioning is supplied mainly by Fibre (and not so much, by microwave links, which have even less bandwidth). So x*G will only go as fast as Fibre, and that's if you're the only one using it. 
 * insert arbitrary number here.

----------


## craka

> I don't think you initially get the option as it would delay the rollout it would be different work crews that would do jobs like that. 
> All the pics I see shows 4 houses getting connected to the FTTC node but i was wondering if when they do the install the copper stays back to the exchange and then when you sign up to NBN they do the changeover to the node as they are going to cut the copper within 12 mths..  
> I'll soon see if I am home.

  If you become FTTC connected, you will not be connected to a node, you will have copper lead than through fibre to copper gateway (shared amongst four houses) than that fibre runs back to NBN equipment within the local exchange.    
 There are some nodes still being rolled out but that is still a FTTN connection where fibre point is shared amongst many houses and it is all copper from node to those houses.  
Yes there will be a point where they will have to disconnect the existing copper connection to the exchange and connect it to the new fibre to copper gateway (also called DPU) that is shared amongst 4houses.

----------


## Bros

> I didn't mention everything. The ideas on Medical sounded good, but haven't heard much about it since. Maybe it is working?

  From my experience over the last couple of years it is well behind.

----------


## craka

> FTTC with owner having option of existing copper or new fibre might speed rollout a bit!?

  Currently there is no option for customer to go to a fibre lead in with FTTC.  Currently the fibre to copper gateway (DPU) only has capacity for copper connection on the customer side. 
I can't really see that FTTC will be any faster than FTTN to rollout, however it should be significantly better than FTTN and at less cost than FTTP or FTTN.

----------


## craka

> What I am proposing is that a fibre line be available to every business zone first, not little Jimmy's need for video.  There is a lot of DSL being indicated there.

  The problem with that, under a model supporting that you would have a smaller amount of users paying a far far greater cost to use that service.  As I said previous businesses can subscribe to telstra wideband and have their own fibre running back to the exchange, but boy they pay for it.  
It is also from a network structure/topology not a very efficient way  of doing it either, as for instance in most cases say for instance an industrial state is often not in close proximity to an exchange thus you would have fibre through a suburb/town, still requires jointing as you cannot get fibre lengths of more than a couple kms. Basically what I am saying is in essense that whilst they are there, they may as well joint everybody not just a few.

----------


## phild01

> I'm back 
> Phil, just a heads up, that x*G that you keep mentioning is supplied mainly by Fibre (and not so much, by microwave links, which have even less bandwidth). So x*G will only go as fast as Fibre, and that's if you're the only one using it. 
> * insert arbitrary number here.

  I would never argue the speed of a fibre strand, just the cost of getting it into each home in Australia when wireless speeds are getting so fast with a greater bandwidth allowance for their carrier. But it comes down to what can be delivered to each subscriber and at what cost.  https://crowdsupport.telstra.com.au/...bn/td-p/715062

----------


## craka

> I'm back 
> Phil, just a heads up, that x*G that you keep mentioning is supplied mainly by Fibre (and not so much, by microwave links, which have even less bandwidth). So x*G will only go as fast as Fibre, and that's if you're the only one using it. 
>  * insert arbitrary number here.

  Yay, somebody gets it.  This is true.

----------


## Bros

> I would never argue the speed of a fibre strand, just the cost of getting it into each home in Australia when wireless speeds are getting so fast with a greater bandwidth allowance for their carrier. But it comes down to what can be delivered to each subscriber and at what cost.  https://crowdsupport.telstra.com.au/...bn/td-p/715062

  It comes down to the comparison where every bank member of a bank decided to withdraw their money at the same time it would fall over. So if every household went to wireless the system would collapse as the infrastructure would not be there and it possibility could not be built.

----------


## craka

> I would never argue the speed of a fibre strand, just the cost of getting it into each home in Australia when wireless speeds are getting so fast with greater bandwidth allowance. But it comes down to what can be delivered to each subscriber and at what cost.  https://crowdsupport.telstra.com.au/...bn/td-p/715062

  Phil01 you have to understand that the actual fibre that is being put in the ground doesn't have those limitations.  It will be relatively easy for equipment in an exchange to be updated to get far greater leap in speed.  For FTTN connections they would need to change equipment there, but it would not involve a great deal.   Pretty much the same as going from the original ADSL to  ADSL2+  copper wasn't changed just equipment at either end. 
G.Fast is around the corner so I would imagine in time to come NBN may update to that.  
The problem with thing like 4G or 5G  and whatever the next progression is, is that you have hundreds to thousand connected and serviced by a tower. If that became the main source of connection that people were to use for broadband than bandwidth is shared amongst them and if you have them all using a lot of data at the same time it's going to become quite slow.

----------


## phild01

craka, I hear you.  My objection is the huge unrecoverable cost to satisfy an insatiable desire for home entertainment.  I believe the future generations of wireless will not traffic block as badly as 4G.  Time will tell.

----------


## craka

The cost will be recoverable just not in a timeframe that most probably would like.  Fibre itself, doesn't degrade like copper, and the physical transmission light doesn't really attenuate greatly either very very little in fact.  Thus fibre in the ground now , is probably an investment for the next 100years.
5G won't traffic block as much a 4G as has greater bandwidth but when you have everybody connected to it will.

----------


## Bros

Any big infrastructure projects be they freeways, power stations, railway lines, airports eg can only be financed by governments as the return on investment can take some time much more than private investment time frame where they are looking at a profit in a short time frame for their investors. The NBN will take a long time to make a profit much longer than any private investment so gov has to finance this.

----------


## DavoSyd

> oh that's right so it can be a hugely expensive play thing!

  yep. 
the internet. 
(my last post in this thread.)

----------


## craka

> yep. 
> the internet. 
> (my last post in this thread.)

  Anyone recognise the sydney opera house cost blowout, and it's controversy; built really for entertainment purposes.  It now pulls in over 700million dollars a year. 
Sometimse things are controverisal as some cannot see what it may bring or how it may be used, and for how long.

----------


## phild01

> Sometimse things are controverisal as some cannot see what it may bring or how it may be used,* and for how long*.

  As such fibre could have been laid out in a less expeditious manner as a routine instalment instead of fast tracking and blowing billions of dollars.  Somehow my contentions get missed.  The government has no clue in the execution of big projects and amass more debt than necessary as the contract operators screw them for all they can take.

----------


## Bros

> Fibre could have been laid out in a less expeditious manner as a routine instalment instead of fast tracking and blowing billions of dollars.

   Would not have happened as the private sector you allude to will just cherry pick the places where they give the maximum return. There would be no Skymaster satellites due to the cost and those in the bush would miss out and we in the country would never see NBN ir fast internet. While i don't need it yet I have enough faith in believing that there will be better uses by others not necessarily for entertainment.

----------


## phild01

> Would not have happened as the private sector you allude to will just cherry pick the places where they give the maximum return. There would be no Skymaster satellites due to the cost and those in the bush would miss out and we in the country would never see NBN ir fast internet. While i don't need it yet I have enough faith in believing that there will be better uses by others not necessarily for entertainment.

  This is what you get when the government privatises essential services, it shifts taxation and makes private operators very rich.  Not sure if government will have much to do in the future.  If we still had the postmaster general then the fibre would be laid out in a more cost effective way.

----------


## Uncle Bob

> If we still had the postmaster general then the fibre would be laid out in a more cost effective way.

  Bingo! 
The privatisation of Telstra set this country back at least a decade I reckon. The NBN was to try and fix the mistakes made when it was privatised.

----------


## craka

> This is what you get when the government privatises essential services, it shifts taxation and makes private operators very rich.  Not sure if government will have much to do in the future.  If we still had the postmaster general then the fibre would be laid out in a more cost effective way.

  This I agree with you on, but they should have started doing it at least 30years ago. The first fibre was put in Australia in that late 70s, albeit as major backbone stuff, however the writing was on the wall by the time early 80s was around at this time Telecom from what I can remember was still government owned however the easier option was to maintain copper networks.  
Dont get me wrong I am certainly no advocate of privatisation, I pretty much despise it, and much prefer government owned services.

----------


## Cecile

We're on iinet cable and this is our result.  Pretty good, if you ask me. I think iinet told us that they are not putting NBN in our area because of the availability of the cable connection.  I don't mind!

----------


## phild01

> We're on iinet cable and this is our result.  Pretty good, if you ask me. I think iinet told us that they are not putting NBN in our area because of the availability of the cable connection.  I don't mind!

  Geeze, I remember when my Bigpond and Optus cable speeds were around 12Mbps!

----------


## Jon

The upgrade (?  :Smilie:  ) of cable to NBN is currently on hold while some issues are sorted out.  A significant number of users were getting serverly degraded service.

----------


## UseByDate

> Geeze, I remember when my Bigpond and Optus cable speeds were around 12Mbps!

  Geeze, I remember when cable speeds were 100 bits per second.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleprinter   Teletype Model 33 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAdlkunflRs

----------


## Bros

Hasn't NBN acquired all the cable?

----------


## UseByDate

> Hasn't NBN acquired all the cable?

  Only Optus and BigPond cable will be switched off. https://www.nbnco.com.au/learn-about...tched-off.html

----------


## Bros

> Only Optus and BigPond cable will be switched off. https://www.nbnco.com.au/learn-about...tched-off.html

  What's left? Only very small players

----------


## phild01

> Geeze, I remember when cable speeds were 100 bits per second.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleprinter   Teletype Model 33 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAdlkunflRs

  I do also recall how marvellous it was having the modem card instead of the audio coupling to the telephone.

----------


## toooldforthis

> I do also recall how marvellous it was having the modem card instead of the audio coupling to the telephone.

  old enough to have used them

----------


## phild01

> old enough to have used them

  yes

----------


## Bros

Before my days of internet use.

----------


## UseByDate

> What's left? Only very small players

  NBNCo probably has too much on its plate to be bothered with the small players.

----------


## craka

HFC has a lot more limited physical bandwidth than fibre, yes can get better with further developed equipment but does not have the 'capacity to grow' as such. 
To be honest I do not know why NBN is bothering with HFC at all, now that FTTC is being rollled out.  Pretty much everyone has a physical copper phone line to their premise, coax installed is not install in every residential client in an area.  A lot of installed Coax is in poor shape.   So any new HFC customer where there is no physical coax going to the building NBN is going to have to physically access to install.
  Main reason I think NBN want or wanted to persist with HFC is that they bought the networks but than as a double wammy decided to contract out maintanence to Telstra, so if they don't use it it will be for nothing and an utter waste of expenditure.  I can see this one coming back as quite  a legal battle between NBN and Tesltra or any other main HFC players in a similar position.

----------


## UseByDate

> It makes my blood boil that the NBN was ever considered a great way forward.  From the outset I told people what I thought of it as a massive waste of money and I feel I will be vindicated.  People, just let it go, we should have stayed with cable and ADSL.  It was always my belief technology would overtake the fibre by any time a roll-out could ever be completed,  Laugh at me but I was happy with 4Gb of wireless now sitting at 30.  The cost to me has been far less than the old cable connection I once had.  Let's see how 5G changes the scene if the government gives it a chance.

  5G v NBN 5G vs NBN: Next-gen mobile network will be a convenient but expensive alternative - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
 The maximum download speed of 5G networks could be more than 1Gbps (one gigabit per second). But in practice, it will likely provide download speeds around 100Mbps or higher.   
 Also going from 4G to 5G is not as simple as upgrading the present mobile towers. Because 5G uses much higher frequencies, to gain higher bandwidth, then a lot more mobile towers will have to be built. These new mobile towers will be linked by fibre. 5G is just a parallel NBN with the last link to the house being radio rather than fibre or wire.

----------


## PhilT2

> then a lot more mobile towers will have to be built.

  This was one of the issues considered when the NBN was first proposed. People want good mobile reception but nobody wants a mobile tower anywhere near their home, workplace or their kid's school. There were calculations done on the number of new towers that would have been required; I don't recall the number but it was huge.

----------


## phild01

As it is now the cost of the NBN probably breaks down to a cost of just under $6000 per dwelling.  Just so you we can have movie downloads.

----------


## craka

> As it is now the cost of the NBN probably breaks down to a cost of just under $6000 per dwelling.  Just so you we can have movie downloads.

  It is a very simplistic view you have.   If all people had that approach we would all be still driving a horse and cart.  
Here is only one thought process,  if those in professional occupations, prodominately office workers that travel into a CBD everyday for work, are afforded the opportunity to work from home the is a burden taken off the arterial roads leading to cities and also off the public transport syste. Therefore yes on one side you may be spending more for a different type of infrastructure but you may not have to increase massive expenditure on the already congested city arterial roads for instance. The is only so much available land for road use in a city.  
Here is some data on cost point the nation has already hit due to traffic congestion amongst cities  https://bitre.gov.au/publications/2015/is_074.aspx

----------


## craka

> 5G v NBN 5G vs NBN: Next-gen mobile network will be a convenient but expensive alternative - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
>  “The maximum download speed of 5G networks could be more than 1Gbps (one gigabit per second). But in practice, it will likely provide download speeds around 100Mbps or higher.”   
>  Also going from 4G to 5G is not as simple as upgrading the present mobile towers. Because 5G uses much higher frequencies, to gain higher bandwidth, then a lot more mobile towers will have to be built. These new mobile towers will be linked by fibre. 5G is just a parallel NBN with the last link to the house being radio rather than fibre or wire.

  Whilst fibre technologies will allow data transmission in the Terabytes in coming years.

----------


## phild01

> It is a very simplistic view you have.   If all people had that approach we would all be still driving a horse and cart.  
> Here is only one thought process,  if those in professional occupations, prodominately office workers that travel into a CBD everyday for work, are afforded the opportunity to work from home the is a burden taken off the arterial roads leading to cities and also off the public transport syste. Therefore yes on one side you may be spending more for a different type of infrastructure but you may not have to increase massive expenditure on the already congested city arterial roads for instance. The is only so much available land for road use in a city.  
> Here is some data on cost point the nation has already hit due to traffic congestion amongst cities  https://bitre.gov.au/publications/2015/is_074.aspx

  Didn't someone here say that business is already well catered for.  If so then I am not so sure that fibre facilitates the work from home much more than what we currently have.  I don't agree it is a simplistic view either, personally I, and many others, will have no benefit from fibre unless free to air TV is removed in an artificial way to justify the NBN expenditure.

----------


## Uncle Bob

> I do also recall how marvellous it was having the modem card instead of the audio coupling to the telephone.

  I had the opposite thought. I never had to use one of those, but I only missed using them by months or a year or so.
Anyone remember those acoustic diallers you could carry around?

----------


## craka

> Didn't someone here say that business is already well catered for.  If so then I am not so sure that fibre facilitates the work from home much more than what we currently have.  I don't agree it is a simplistic view either, personally I will have no benefit from fibre unless free to air TV is removed in an artificial way to justify the NBN expenditure.

  Only businesses that are in major centre, virtually needing to be a cbd are able to get fibre through a very expensive option of fibre. Which a business would need to pay for themselves, virtually only enterprise companies can afford it. A business that is say based in residential area cannot get that type of fibre service. 
Decent broadband is a essential service these days, and in the future will be more so.  
I think you may have missed the point I was making with expenditure on NBN,  even if it does cost $6000 per dwelling it is a large capacity infrastructure.  From doing some calculation I think I remember reading the average road cost in Australia is $200000/km  estimaging you have one house every 20m it works out to 50 dwellings per km thus road expenditure  somewhere around $4000 per dwelling.  That is without expenditure in maintaining said road. 
Personally I do not think free to air TV will be around for very long, I would say within next 20years it will be gone. It is isn't a case to support NBN expenditure it is the fact that RF spectrum is limited, in media broadcast there will be higher quality content (thus high bandwidth required) and more of them. There is already a change in view pattern from people watching Free to Air to watching online content.

----------


## Bros

> Anyone remember those acoustic diallers you could carry around?

   Wasn’t that what Kevin Mitnick used to use?

----------


## Uncle Bob

I don't know

----------


## phild01

> Personally I do not think free to air TV will be around for very long, I would say within next 20years it will be gone. It is isn't a case to support NBN expenditure it is the fact that RF spectrum is limited, in media broadcast there will be higher quality content (thus high bandwidth required) and more of them. There is already a change in view pattern from people watching Free to Air to watching online content.

  I suppose that is what we are on about, the return benefit so we watch marketing and crap entertainment all day long.  By then the youngsters will only want 10G streaming to their virtual reality video goggles 24/7.  NBN finally redundant :Wink:

----------


## craka

> I suppose that is what we are on about, the return benefit so we watch marketing and crap entertainment all day long.  By then the youngsters will only want 10G streaming to their virtual reality video goggles 24/7.  NBN finally redundant

  I don't deny that's what some of the bandwidth will be used for. It is not why the NBN is being built, like I said you seem to have a very simplistic view on it. Obvioulsy you cannot see outside the square on this topic, and do not wish to broaden your thoughts to anything outside of the 'entertainment' realm as a use for the fibre network.

----------


## phild01

Well, honestly, let me know.  Let's hypothesise that entertainment doesn't enter the equation,  how does every household get a value benefit from the $6000 expenditure.  Trust me, I would like to see fibre go past every household currently but I only see benefit there for those who must have lots of video and that is hurting the country financially.

----------


## craka

> Well, honestly, let me know.  Let's hypothesise that entertainment doesn't enter the equation,  how does every household get a value benefit from the $6000 expenditure.  Trust me, I would like to see fibre go past every household currently but I only see benefit there for those who must have lots of video and that is hurting the country financially.

  I gave you a scenario above, but I feel like you ignored it.

----------


## phild01

> I gave you a scenario above, but I feel like you ignored it.

  This one!?  

> Here is only one thought process, if those in professional occupations, prodominately office workers that travel into a CBD everyday for work, are afforded the opportunity to work from home the is a burden taken off the arterial roads leading to cities and also off the public transport syste. Therefore yes on one side you may be spending more for a different type of infrastructure but you may not have to increase massive expenditure on the already congested city arterial roads for instance. The is only so much available land for road use in a city.

  No, didn't ignore that one, don't accept that fibre will make much difference to road traffic congestion.  Many people today work from home and it's not from a lack of connectivity that more don't.

----------


## craka

> This one!? 
> No, didn't ignore that one, don't accept that fibre will make much difference to road traffic congestion.  Many people today work from home and it's not from a lack of connectivity that more don't.

  If that is your belief.

----------


## phild01

> If that is your belief.

  Indeed and no apparent reason otherwise.
I find it strange that more priority was not considered for a fast train for the east coast.  That NBN money could have removed a great deal of traffic movements had that been worked towards, and a second Sydney airport might have been unnecessary.  It would have meant less pollution and facilitated new urban growth areas.

----------


## craka

Whilst I agree we should have a fast train service, I can only see it allowing working comuters to travel further distances between their place of residence and their place of work.

----------


## phild01

> Whilst I agree we should have a fast train service, I can only see it allowing working comuters to travel further distances between their place of residence and their place of work.

  I think the new growth areas could have been major centres rather than urban sprawl for the 3 state capitals!

----------


## Bros

> Whilst I agree we should have a fast train service, I can only see it allowing working comuters to travel further distances between their place of residence and their place of work.

   These sort of things only benefit the very very large population centres the other places get no benefit. The likes of the NBN benefit all so it levels the playing field between big big cities and smaller towns and cities.

----------


## Bigboboz

> As it is now the cost of the NBN probably breaks down to a cost of just under $6000 per dwelling.  Just so you we can have movie downloads.

  And in many cases households already had this capability! So $6k to do what could be done before... 
So the logic of the NBN is, because some people didn't have decent speeds, we upgrade everyone? Brilliant.  I get the arguments that better speeds are useful for more than just video streaming (I do like to work from home time to time) but the majority connect to the NBN at speeds not too dissimilar to what they had on ADSL.  What does that say?

----------


## craka

> I think the new growth areas could have been major centres rather than urban sprawl for the 3 state capitals!

  That would only happen if goverment, presurred or supported industries in regional urban areas, but for as long as I've been on the planet they have not.  To me it is quite logical for the goverment to do such, rather than having the hurdles of building road tunnels etc in a already confined densely populated area.

----------


## craka

> These sort of things only benefit the very very  large population centres the other places get no benefit. The likes of  the NBN benefit all so it levels the playing field between big big  cities and smaller towns and cities.

  I agree with you Bros.

----------


## Bigboboz

> The likes of the NBN benefit all so it levels the playing field between big big cities and smaller towns and cities.

  Yep benefits them regardless if they want or need it. Hey it's "free" so may as well get it.

----------


## UseByDate

> Whilst fibre technologies will allow data transmission in the Terabytes in coming years.

  http://www.abc.net.au/technology/articles/2012/09/26/3598036.htm

----------


## UseByDate

Japan's NTT breaks fibre optic data speed record â News â ABC Technology and Games (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

----------


## phild01

> And in many cases households already had this capability! So $6k to do what could be done before... 
> So the logic of the NBN is, because some people didn't have decent speeds, we upgrade everyone? Brilliant.  I get the arguments that better speeds are useful for more than just video streaming (I do like to work from home time to time) but the majority connect to the NBN at speeds not too dissimilar to what they had on ADSL.  What does that say?

  It's an interesting point.  If only those who desire and have a need for the layout of the NBN were known, I bet it would amount to a value in 5 figures for each of them if presented with the itemised bill.

----------


## commodorenut

> This one!? 
> No, didn't ignore that one, don't accept that fibre will make much difference to road traffic congestion.  Many people today work from home and it's not from a lack of connectivity that more don't.

   

> And in many cases households already had this capability! So $6k to do what could be done before... 
> So the logic of the NBN is, because some people didn't have decent  speeds, we upgrade everyone? Brilliant.  I get the arguments that better  speeds are useful for more than just video streaming (I do like to work  from home time to time) but the majority connect to the NBN at speeds  not too dissimilar to what they had on ADSL.  What does that  say?

  Until a couple of years ago, I was working from home quite often (usually 1-2 days a week in total). 
On ADSL, it would drop out 5-6 times a day, which means signing back into a VPN, re-launching all the software again, and hopefully not losing too much of your work.  It got to the point where I reckon I wasted over an hour a day just in reconnect time - not including the 5-10 minutes down time before it would come back (I'd usually put that time to use on a local task like a word or excel doc).  In wet weather it was a joke - 5-6 times a day turned into 5-6 times per hour, and made it almost impossible to work. 
Calling Telstra resulted in "call your ISP" - calling them, it was "poor connection, contact Telstra" - and on a fuzzy line, they would tell you there's no problem.  Even had one fool ask me to speak up because the line was poor and crackly, and that's when I told him how much "hash" and noise was on the line after wet weather, and that it was a regular problem.  His reply was that there was no problem with the line, and he could not hear any noise - very different to 10 seconds earlier!  Eventually NBN replaced copper at my place, so I didn't nd up getting it resolved, but the NBN guys showed me the old pit was full of sludge, and there were open connections in there.  It wasn't until after NBN that we spoke to neighbours and all of us had the same issues, and were fobbed off by smellstra. 
On NBN, it's rock-solid stable - no droputs at all, and productivity was much more improved.  On the odd occasion I do work from home (rare now) it's perfect - almost as fast as being online in the office. 
Working from home (and a lot of my colleagues still do) I would receive a number of updated files each morning - some are only around 5Mb, but a couple are 30Mb.  I used to start the download & hop in the shower, as it would take 10-15 minutes on ADSL to get them all down - if it got them all before the line froze, or dropped out.  On NBN, it's 20 seconds at most.   There's only a few guys at work left on ADSL, and they can't wait for NBN. 
I have friends with a wedding photo business, and they find it so much better for sending proofs of magazine type layouts & edits to customers for approval.  The upload speed is important to them, as they host it on a server, so they're regularly uploading, so their clients can download from a server.   Many people in media also work from home now - the old incumbent staff in the magazine office have morphed into an army of freelancers working from home, submitting content that is hundreds of Mb in size.  Many of them also submit print and digital editions too.  Couldn't do that on ADSL.

----------


## phild01

I would expect 4G have been okay with that though.

----------


## UseByDate

> And in many cases households already had this capability! So $6k to do what could be done before... 
> So the logic of the NBN is, because some people didn't have decent speeds, we upgrade everyone? Brilliant.  I get the arguments that better speeds are useful for more than just video streaming (I do like to work from home time to time) but the majority connect to the NBN at speeds not too dissimilar to what they had on ADSL.  What does that say?

  Your $6000 figure may be out of date. https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/02/this-is-how-much-the-nbn-spends-to-hook-up-your-house/   $4405 FTTP existing house
 $2172 FTTN existing house
 $2504 FTTP new house
 $3551 Fixed wireless 
 It costs $4405 for the NBN to hook up an existing house (brownfield) with fibre all the way to the premises. Fibre just to the node  a communal box in the neighbourhood  with existing copper connecting the rest of the way, costs the NBN $2172 per premise.
 While that is a significant difference, there is a compelling argument to lay fibre-to-the-premises for new housing developments (greenfield). The NBN revealed that cost is just $2,504 per premise.
 In some areas, the NBN uses Telstras old pay-TV cable  called hybrid fibre coax  and this cost compares favourably, at $2259.
 In locations where physical NBN connections are difficult, fixed wireless technology is used to deliver broadband. This costs $3551 per premise.

----------


## commodorenut

> I would expect 4G have been okay with that though.

  If you could get 4G reliably, and if there's not too much congestion on the local tower, 4G might be.  But my experience with 4G (using my phones tethered to my laptop - both iPhone and Samsung) is less than encouraging - even in city areas like Carlton in Melbourne, and when I can see the tower in the distance (about 2km away) from my study window.

----------


## phild01

> Your $6000 figure may be out of date.

  I guestimated that by the number of dwellings in Australia and some estimate cost of $49b.  I did see some other figure of $75b.

----------


## commodorenut

> Your $6000 figure may be out of date. https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/02/this-is-how-much-the-nbn-spends-to-hook-up-your-house/   $4405 FTTP existing house
>  $2172 FTTN existing house
>  $2504 FTTP new house
>  $3551 Fixed wireless

   Surely the $4405 figure has a hefty component assigned to the CEO's bonus, as well as covering the cost of the backend, and the major infrastructure - like the new ducts laid up main roads, new pits sunk etc etc. 
To physically connect my house (FTTP) it took 2 guys less than an hour (they fed the fibre up the existing duct - about 8m away from the pit), a bag of rapid set to repair the small section of path that I jack-hammered out for them, to allow the conduit to be fitted better than Telecom did it in '79, affixed a box to the wall & onto the next.  Labour & materials wouldn't have cracked $500.   
Then the guy came out to install the equipment.  I had pre-installed a cabinet, had the power point put in, and data lines run.  He was quite impressed, and had the whole lot in within 1/2 an hour.  OK, I made his life easy, but it only took him an hour to do next-doors, with no pre-install assistance.  So if you add his labour, and a generous amount for the equipment, you'd still be lucky to get close to $800. 
At my other place, they had to dig a trench across the yard to connect it, so there was more cost there (ironically, today I noticed a "crack" in the ground running in an almost straight line, and at one point you can see the white conduit no more than 3 inches below the surface).   But even with trenching, they were in & out in under 2 hours - 2 guys.  So unless somebody is getting very, very rich off this $4405 per house, then it would have to have a substantial amount of that cost allocated to the upstream infrastructure as well.

----------


## Bigboboz

> Couldn't do that on ADSL.

  Couldn't do that on YOUR ADSL connection. Rather than redo the entire country, wouldn't an option be to just fix the dead spots?  I'm not disagreeing a brand new fibre connection isn't better than a crap ADSL connection, I don't see how your statement then justifies the whole NBN.

----------


## Bigboboz

> Your $6000 figure may be out of date. 
> In locations where physical NBN connections are difficult, fixed wireless technology is used to deliver broadband. This costs $3551 per premise.”

  Translation: Difficult = Expensive. Drop the expensive connections and BAM your average goes down! What am I missing?

----------


## UseByDate

> Translation: Difficult = Expensive. Drop the expensive connections and BAM your average goes down! What am I missing?

  NBN never ever planned to connect all houses via FTTP. It was planned to use fixed wireless where FTTP was uneconomic. What you are missing is that the cost to connect FTTN has dropped significantly.

----------


## commodorenut

> Couldn't do that on YOUR ADSL connection. Rather than redo the entire country, wouldn't an option be to just fix the dead spots?  I'm not disagreeing a brand new fibre connection isn't better than a crap ADSL connection, I don't see how your statement then justifies the whole NBN.

   For my colleagues still stuck on ADSL (with 3-4Mbit speeds, because of distance to the exchange, or the poor souls on DSLAMs) the NBN will make a huge difference to many.
Lots of people in new-ish housing estates are still putting up with crap speeds and poor connections too.  Many could only dream of 12Mbit/s speeds.
And I don't know of 1 person on ADSL/ADSL2 that works from home (with a VPN) who doesn't have drop outs that interrupt their work. 
But you missed a lot of the point I was making about NBN and work-from-home people too - speed, not only downloads, but also uploads - that's where there is a HUGE benefit over ADSL/ADSL2.

----------


## craka

> Couldn't do that on YOUR ADSL connection. Rather than redo the entire country, wouldn't an option be to just fix the dead spots?  I'm not disagreeing a brand new fibre connection isn't better than a crap ADSL connection, I don't see how your statement then justifies the whole NBN.

  The copper side of the network is in a appalling state,  part of what I would see from privatisation of Telecom/Telstra ie maximum profit cut cost thus less maintenance.  So many joints would in be in poor condition, the actual copper degraded as well, it would be a poor decision to continue maintenance on a neglected network and one that will is old technology that will become redundant.

----------


## UseByDate

> Surely the $4405 figure has a hefty component assigned to the CEO's bonus, as well as covering the cost of the backend, and the major infrastructure - like the new ducts laid up main roads, new pits sunk etc etc. 
> To physically connect my house (FTTP) it took 2 guys less than an hour (they fed the fibre up the existing duct - about 8m away from the pit), a bag of rapid set to repair the small section of path that I jack-hammered out for them, to allow the conduit to be fitted better than Telecom did it in '79, affixed a box to the wall & onto the next.  Labour & materials wouldn't have cracked $500.   
> Then the guy came out to install the equipment.  I had pre-installed a cabinet, had the power point put in, and data lines run.  He was quite impressed, and had the whole lot in within 1/2 an hour.  OK, I made his life easy, but it only took him an hour to do next-doors, with no pre-install assistance.  So if you add his labour, and a generous amount for the equipment, you'd still be lucky to get close to $800. 
> At my other place, they had to dig a trench across the yard to connect it, so there was more cost there (ironically, today I noticed a "crack" in the ground running in an almost straight line, and at one point you can see the white conduit no more than 3 inches below the surface).   But even with trenching, they were in & out in under 2 hours - 2 guys.  So unless somebody is getting very, very rich off this $4405 per house, then it would have to have a substantial amount of that cost allocated to the upstream infrastructure as well.

  Of course most of the cost is in the infrastructure. The cost to physically connect my house (FTTN) was almost nothing. One technician at the node and one technician in my house. The technician in my house calls the technician at node and tells him that he is ready at my location and to switch cables. Thirty seconds later the technician at the node calls the technician at my house and says done. The technician at my house plugs test equipment into my telephone socket and declares that I am now NBN connected. One technician switched the lines and one technician checks the work. All done in a couple of minutes.

----------


## UseByDate

> I guestimated that by the number of dwellings in Australia and some estimate cost of $49b.  I did see some other figure of $75b.

  The guestimate would have been made at the start of the project. Maybe the cost of equipment and materials has dropped. Maybe the installers have become more skilled. Or it might be that they are installing where it is easy to do so, so the politicians can grandstand.

----------


## Moondog55

> In my opinion Rudd and Conroy NBN was the right plan. 
> Unfortunately we're ended up with an expensive white elephant thanks to the current government.
> I'm confident that history will prove this correct, especially after the current NBN is rectified. 
> Here is what fibre can deliver to you (this is the connection I'm posting this from):  
> This will be my last post in this thread.

  
I want 1Gbs Rudd was right What some businesses actually need is much much faster than that The current government SNAFU will haunt us for decades if not longer

----------


## phild01

> The guestimate would have been made at the start of the project. Maybe the cost of equipment and materials has dropped. Maybe the installers have become more skilled. Or it might be that they are installing where it is easy to do so, so the politicians can grandstand.

  From what I can glean, $49b is the projected cost by 2020 completion, and I bet that wont be full disclosure. Earlier projections were nearly double that.  I don't believe the figures include interest on borrowed money either.  There are some 9 million or more dwellings in Australia.  The cost to connect some properties lies between $20,000-$90,000. 
And what happens when Labour get back in, more tampering and further cost blowouts! I don't trust Chris Bowen's treasury abilities.

----------


## Bros

> The copper side of the network is in a appalling state,  part of what I would see from privatisation of Telecom/Telstra ie maximum profit cut cost thus less maintenance.  So many joints would in be in poor condition, the actual copper degraded as well, it would be a poor decision to continue maintenance on a neglected network and one that will is old technology that will become redundant.

  I have seen how bad the system first hand. Telstra has almost all of the copper network and they are reluctant to do any upgrading as it eats into the bottom line, one of the drawbacks of privatizing.
The NBN has taken that away from private hands as the government is the only party that can get the funds to do this big infrastructure project.

----------


## Bros

> The cost to connect some properties lies between $20,000-$90,000.

  What sort of properties require that much cost?

----------


## phild01

> What sort of properties require that much cost?

  Costs balloon in all-fibre National Broadband Network rollout | afr.com

----------


## Uncle Bob

Well those should have never gone ahead without the property owner ponying up the excess.

----------


## Bros

> Costs balloon in all-fibre National Broadband Network rollout | afr.com

   Yes but we’re these done before FTTN as Tasmania was FTTP. FTTN or FTTC would be much cheaper. I would make the comparison with underground power as the consumer has to pay for the service to the street and for overhead them supply authority pays for 6m any more and the consumer pays so I can’t see any difference.

----------


## phild01

Those costs would be to NBN according to what I am reading and possibly why earlier estimates were around $80b.  Labour might fight back and say rolling out fibre is now cheaper but what are they talking about.  Probably equipment cost which would form a small part of the overall cost of getting FTTP.  This comment in the article was interesting too:  "From an engineering point of view it would be incredible – the problem is that it is just not feasible to do it in a country like Australia. In fact, no country in the world has rolled out an all-FTTP network - with the exception of the city-state of Singapore."

----------


## David.Elliott

So... leaving the office one day for lunch to see two guys in uniforms looking in our pit just outside the front door and to the left a bit. I asked them if they were here to connect our NBN FTTP...the reply was "yes, but we'll need to get a guy in to cut up and remove the bitumen in the drive and the concrete in the pavement, and book someone to come and make good once we're done..." 
"What about just pulling through with the old copper?" I asked. 
"Do you think that will work?" they asked. 
"Worth a shot" I said, and left them to it...  
Came back under an hour later and all connected with 98/38 all day, every day since.

----------


## Bros

I thought FTTP was stupid but remember it was a politician talking and they are advised as Rudd would proberbly have thought fibre was what you ate to keep you healthy.
When it came out i was looking at my place and thought this will be interesting. FTTC will be much more attractive as far as cost is concerned and if I need fibre later I should have to pay.

----------


## Bros

> So... leaving the office one day for lunch to see two guys in uniforms looking in our pit just outside the front door and to the left a bit. I asked them if they were here to connect our NBN FTTP...the reply was "yes, but we'll need to get a guy in to cut up and remove the bitumen in the drive and the concrete in the pavement, and book someone to come and make good once we're done..." 
> "What about just pulling through with the old copper?" I asked. 
> "Do you think that will work?" they asked. 
> "Worth a shot" I said, and left them to it...  
> Came back under an hour later and all connected with 98/38 all day, every day since.

  A gamble that may or may not have come off, luckily it did. Certainly wouldn’t work in my place.

----------


## phild01

> I thought FTTP was stupid but remember it was a politician talking and they are advised as Rudd would proberbly have thought fibre was what you ate to keep you healthy.
> When it came out i was looking at my place and thought this will be interesting. FTTC will be much more attractive as far as cost is concerned and if I need fibre later I should have to pay.

  Rudd is a complete idiot and had FTTC occurred to him, I doubt I would have been boiling as much as I was back then.

----------


## Bros

> Rudd is a complete idiot and had FTTC occurred to him, I doubt I would have been boiling as much as I was back then.

   He may have been an idiot but remember I said he had advisors and it would have been them to blame. I think many have to thank him or his advisors as the current government would have done nothing towards this infrastructure project however when they got into government they refined it but the concept remained.

----------


## UseByDate

> Rudd is a complete idiot and had FTTC occurred to him, I doubt I would have been boiling as much as I was back then.

  Was FTTC (to the driveway) available in 2010?

----------


## phild01

> Was FTTC (to the driveway) available in 2010?

  ? if not then the idea of taking it to the front door was lunacy.

----------


## craka

[QUOTE=phild01;1070015] Rudd is a complete idiot and had FTTC occurred to him, I doubt I would have been boiling as much as I was back then   [/QUOTE] 
It would appear this is more about political persuassion.   Both major parties have been complete idiots over this,  Rudd should have not gone down the path of full FTTP where the government(tax payer) pays for the private lead in cost.    Rudd should have gone with FTTC if he was advised and knew about it,  perhaps giving an option for FTTP for those willing to pay for it. 
Turnbull was advised not to,  and quite publically not to go down the path of FTTN however did.    This is when the switch to FTTC should have occurred not FTTN. 
As far as Australia not physically suitable for FTTP it's a complete cop out,  all telephone exchanges are interconnected via fibre already that is pre NBN days. Those in remote areas are not connected via copper lines currently so they wouldn't be getting fibre but would be relying on satellite connections. 
Have a look at this link this show some of the current state of copper phone lines in Australia. https://delimiter.com.au/2012/05/01/...opper-network/

----------


## UseByDate

> The cost to connect some properties lies between $20,000-$90,000.

  An option today could be (I don't know NBN policy) to connect difficult sites via satellite at about $3000.   Ten cool facts about NBN's forthcoming Sky Muster satellite service

----------


## phild01

> It would appear this is more about political persuassion.

  No, I don't think so.  I have little respect for Turnbull too.  It's just a matter of what party of the time does the smart things with smart people, something Labour currently has little of.  Plibersek has fallen off my favourites only leaving one person left.

----------


## phild01

> Have a look at this link this show some of the current state of copper phone lines in Australia. https://delimiter.com.au/2012/05/01/...opper-network/

  Funny but sad.  The thing is that the copper network evolved over many decades and is complex.  Changing it to fibre should have been a gradual process with some forethought.  Not something dreamed up on a plane on drink coasters or however it was likely done.  The process was urgency over professionalism.

----------


## craka

> No, I don't think so.  I have little respect for Turnbull too.  It's just a matter of what party of the time does the smart things with smart people, something Labour currently has little of.  Plibersek has fallen off my favourites only leaving one person left.

  To be honest I have no respect for any of them, these day.  They are all too occupied with lining their own pockets and worrying how to get elected again rather than running a country.

----------


## phild01

> To be honest I have no respect for any of them, these day.  They are all too occupied with lining their own pockets and worrying how to get elected again rather than running a country.

  I want to be a Labour man but resigned to favouring the other party.  See I can't even say their name :Biggrin:

----------


## Marc

It would all change if they introduced legislation that makes politicians accountable of their actions like CEO of a company. 
And pig's will fly and orbit the moon.

----------


## craka

> Funny but sad.  The thing is that the copper network evolved over many decades and is complex.  Changing it to fibre should have been a gradual process with some forethought.  Not something dreamed up on a plane on drink coasters or however it was likely done.  The process was urgency over professionalism.

  That's what I elluded to earlier. That fibre should have started to rollout out 30 years ago, it is not like they didn't know at they stage. They have be installing fibre since the late 70s.  Telstra/Telecom was left to fester, than the easy option was to privatise so the goverment could wipe their hands off doing anything at the time.  
The exiting copper network is complex as it is so adhoc, but it is also in a very poor state and is a redudant technology thus it would be absolute stupidity to replace it with copper.

----------


## UseByDate

> I want to be a Labour man but resigned to favouring the other party.  See I can't even say their name

  And not spelling correctly the name of the party you now do not favour.   :Biggrin:

----------


## phild01

> And not spelling correctly the name of the party you now do not favour.

  That's American spelling.  The party used to be spelt 'Labour' but then more recently thought 'Labor' was catchier. Idiots!
I use the original version.

----------


## PhilT2

> It would all change if they introduced legislation that makes politicians accountable of their actions like CEO of a company. 
> And pig's will fly and orbit the moon.

  Name me one CEO held properly responsible for their bad decisions eg any coal mine owner held responsible for the hundreds of thousands of men who have lost their lives in mines; or one held responsible for the unrealistic schedules truck drivers are forced to keep.

----------


## craka

> That's American spelling.  The party used to be spelt 'Labour' but then more recently thought 'Labor' was catchier. Idiots!

  As recently as 1912.

----------


## phild01

> As recently as 1912.

  More recently than that.

----------


## craka

> More recently than that.

  It has been known as Labor since 1912, prior to those year it was known as labour or labor.  https://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/sena...4/mcmullin.pdf  
"Ross McMullin
 —
I happen to have written the official centenary history of the ALP, which came out in 1991, and this was something 
I had to grapple with for that project. 
I ended up putting in the preface that in my view it was a pretty haphazard sort of an outcome in that ‘labor’ and ‘labour’ were both used freely for at least the first decade. 
The  main  supreme  decision-making  body,  now  called  National  Conference,  then  was  called Federal Conference. I ended up coming to the view that the way the spelling of ‘Labor Party’ was consolidated had more to do with the chap who ended up being in charge of printing the federal conference report than any other reason. I think in 02 it 
was ‘or’ in the federal conference report, in 05 it was ‘our’, in 08 it was ‘our’, in 1912 it was ‘or’, and from then on it was ‘or’, so the person who did the 1912 booklet won the day. That’s all I’ve been able to come up with. "

----------


## phild01

Check the newspapers, they continued sensibly with their spelling. Countless examples and this is the Canberra Times.  So it wasn't generally accepted.

----------


## phild01



----------


## craka

> Check the newspapers, they continued sensibly with their spelling. Countless examples and this is the Canberra Times.  So it wasn't generally accepted.

  Those among the Labor party, did.    I'm not saying Labour was not used in other media , but the party has been known as Labor party since 1912.

----------


## phild01

But wasn't generally accepted until possibly the '70's.  When I was a kid I always saw it spelt correctly.

----------


## Bros

Do we have to??

----------


## UseByDate

> That's American spelling.  The party used to be spelt 'Labour' but then more recently thought 'Labor' was catchier. Idiots!
> I use the original version.

    Surely, the owner of a name gets to define how it is spelt. It is not for others to “accept” the spelling. They are required to adopt the spelling or choose to spell the name incorrectly.

----------


## Bigboboz

> Do we have to??

  Already did

----------


## Bigboboz

> NBN never ever planned to connect all houses via FTTP. It was planned to use fixed wireless where FTTP was uneconomic. What you are missing is that the cost to connect FTTN has dropped significantly.

  Sure a small percentage was for wireless but the vast majority was for a Rolls Royce connection.  Why am I missing the point about FTTN? I'm not arguing against FTTN, it wasn't part of the original plan.

----------


## Bigboboz

> Costs balloon in all-fibre National Broadband Network rollout | afr.com

  Getting FTTP is like winning lotto!

----------


## Bigboboz

> For my colleagues still stuck on ADSL (with 3-4Mbit speeds, because of distance to the exchange, or the poor souls on DSLAMs) the NBN will make a huge difference to many.
> Lots of people in new-ish housing estates are still putting up with crap speeds and poor connections too.  Many could only dream of 12Mbit/s speeds.
> And I don't know of 1 person on ADSL/ADSL2 that works from home (with a VPN) who doesn't have drop outs that interrupt their work. 
> But you missed a lot of the point I was making about NBN and work-from-home people too - speed, not only downloads, but also uploads - that's where there is a HUGE benefit over ADSL/ADSL2.

  Again not disagreeing with upgrading those with poor connections. 
Re upload speeds. Better upload speeds would be very welcome for when I work from home but mainly only impacts me sending emails with attachments or saving. In either case, I don't need to watch them do their thing so it doesn't impact me much (with what I do from home).

----------


## Bros

> Getting FTTP is like winning lotto!

  And have someone else pay for it, fantastic.

----------


## Bigboboz

Was going to add something similar but was scared I'd get Marc revved up about paying tax and everyone else benefitting...

----------


## Jon

In response to the I dont watch movies so I dont need it train of thought.  
My 3 children require good quality internet for their school work.  Their school uses google classroom and assignments and homework are listed and submitted on line.  Not only that, the teachers can also see their students work in progress and can pass comment and offer assistance if they can see the student is going off track or getting it wrong.  
When we were without any internet for two weeks after the Parklea exchange fire the children had to go to their grandparents every afternoon to keep on top of their work. 
When my wife was looking for a change in career a few years back she did her Cert3 to be a Teacher's Aide online.  Yes, she did it on ADSL2 but the online lectures were painful and our connection did not allow her to ask questions in real time ( poor upload speed ). 
Good quality internet is a requirement for everyone in  modern life and should not be limited to the few that can afford it or live within the radius of an exchange that ADSL2 can service at adequate speed. 
Please dont bring up wifi as for technical reasons it will not and can not service 100% of the population at high speed.  Think of a mobile tower every hundred metres or so, there is a finite number of users each cell can support.

----------


## UseByDate

:Iagree:

----------


## UseByDate

> Was going to add something similar but was scared I'd get Marc revved up about paying tax and everyone else benefitting...

  https://youtu.be/mmR5aun7WqY?t=24

----------

