Election Issues: National Broadband network

[bennymacca]

If this is such a killer idea, where is the cost benefit analysis that proves it, or is it just "the vibe" and anyone that doesn't agree simply a backwater yokel? Why does this government feel it doesn't need to explain this "investment", which is the biggest infrastructure investment in our history - its been what, 12 months? Surely it deserves more than that.

because most people dont know how or why the services they have right now are delivered.

once again, you are thinking in present terms, not in future payoffs.


i want you to specifically address this,

think about the history of data transfer over copper wire

first there was morse code/telegraphs
then phones (8kbit multiplexed onto 64kbit pipes)
then 16k dial up
then 32.64 dial up
then 128 ISDN
then 256 ADSL
now 1500 ADSL
and 24000 ADSL2+

this is ALL using copper cables and nothing more.

and then tell my why you think new infrastructure is bad.
when people were sending morse code down the telegraph, do you really think that they envisaged that the infrastructure would one day be used to carry adsl2?

[rcon]

for you to say "why do we need the bandwidth" is just a bit short sighted.

Sorry, my statement was a little brief - why do we need so much speed at such a cost, paid for by the taxpayers. There may well be a convincing argument for it, however this government pretends to know best and will not subject its decision to a CBA, why?

They claim it will stand up as an investment on its own, so why not actually cost that, show what returns we'll get? What will the uptake be, how many millions of killometers of fiber will they have to lay - LOL at "dissing" the libs over towers when Labor infrastructure challenge is so much greater.

As for not bothering to innovate, there is already "super fast", NBN speed in the capital cities on the east cost - nobody wants it tho because no one has a use for it. Not to say it wont happen, but again, the government is "picking winners" about what technology will we use AND how we will use that technology. Not really a proposition to inspire confidence.

[bennymacca]

There may well be a convincing argument for it, however this government pretends to know best

ALL governments do this.

They claim it will stand up as an investment on its own, so why not actually cost that, show what returns we'll get? What will the uptake be, how many millions of killometers of fiber will they have to lay - LOL at "dissing" the libs over towers when Labor infrastructure challenge is so much greater.

yes, but current wimax technology is only as fast as current adsl2 (i know, i have wimax). so all this plan will be doing is in-filling people that cant get adsl1

As for not bothering to innovate, there is already "super fast", NBN speed in the capital cities on the east cost - nobody wants it tho because no one has a use for it. Not to say it wont happen, but again, the government is "picking winners" about what technology will we use AND how we will use that technology. Not really a proposition to inspire confidence.

i assume you are talking about cable internet?

in general, the problem with cable is that it is owned wholly by telstra - so it is just too damned expensive, because telstra is the sole operator of this technology.

in the case of the NBN, sure it will cost a lot, but if the government foots the bill instead of telstra or someone else, this will allow competition straight away in the market and drive down prices accordingly.

further, it will create a critical mass of people with fast internet which will allow innovation to take place

[rcon]

i want you to specifically address this,

and then tell my why you think new infrastructure is bad.
when people were sending morse code down the telegraph, do you really think that they envisaged that the infrastructure would one day be used to carry adsl2?

Have a read of both turnbull's article and the first one i posted - both far more succinct than I could possibly be.

It boils down to the fact that whilst the NBN proposal is an awesome technology bet, it is a bet and a effing great big one at that.

Some of the bets....
Bet1: it will ONLY cost $43
Bet2: nothing will come along which is better
Bet3: it doesn't stifle innovation in the "delivery" side of the technology

Is it really the best way we can spend $43b? as Turnbull points out, you can only spend that money once. Unless you're labor and then you can just borrow it again I suppose.


This has been fun, but I have to do some work now

Nah, I'm referring to Hybrid Fiber Coax

[Gaz787]

While I think the NBN would be a welcome improvement to Australia's infrastructure, I will endure crappy infrastructure a million times over if it means that ISP-level filtering and other such draconian censoring policies are permanently taken off the table.

[bennymacca]

Bet2: nothing will come along which is better

this is INFRASTRUCTURE not technology. subtly different things.

i can confidently say that there wont be another method of transmitting light pulses for information transfer (optic fibre) for the next 50 years. maybe 100 years. most of the speed increases come with using the fibre in smarter ways

While I think the NBN would be a welcome improvement to Australia's infrastructure, I will endure crappy infrastructure a million times over if it means that ISP-level filtering and other such draconian censoring policies are permanently taken off the table.

i have to agree with you on this one. if you want to get me angry, say the internet filter is a good thing

[rcon]

this is INFRASTRUCTURE not technology. subtly different things.

i can confidently say that there wont be another method of transmitting light pulses for information transfer (optic fibre) for the next 50 years. maybe 100 years. most of the speed increases come with using the fibre in smarter ways

Doesn't change the fact it is a technology and a very very dynamic on at that. Who is to say you wont find a wireless variation able to cover 50mb/s with less spectrum sharing issues - what happens to our $43b investment then?

Yeah, wise investment of public funds this one! Pay to shut down one network that already delivers what you want so you can have public servants build you another one that might at some time in the future do the same thing. big lol.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/te ... 5904145854

Here's the real killer which has got lost in the frenzy. You want super-speed 100Mbps? Well you can actually get it much faster with the opposition plan than the government's.

At least for perhaps one-third of the population. You could almost instantly deliver 100Mbps to nearly three million households in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane by tapping Telstra and Optus's HFC cable networks.

Instead the government wants to close them down - wasting perfectly good and still very effective infrastructure. Although interestingly it can only force Telstra to close its.

NBN is awesome technology, even infrastructure, but it isn't about that, it is about what constitutes good use of public funds. Labor just doesn't get it.

[wabbit999]

Yep I don't agree with the filter either, but I doubt it will ever get through. The greens will apose it

It is governments that build infrastructure whether it be roads, hospitals etc if it privately done it is with government financial support. The NBN is no different, telstra never wanted to do it, they love their cheap copper and are now only seriously considering updating technology due to the NBN taking away more of their customers

[bennymacca]

NBN is awesome technology, even infrastructure, but it isn't about that, it is about what constitutes good use of public funds. Labor just doesn't get it.

this is NOT what you have said repeatedly throughout. you tried to poo poo the technology as well as the cost.

Yeah, wise investment of public funds this one! Pay to shut down one network that already delivers what you want so you can have public servants build you another one that might at some time in the future do the same thing. big lol.

the problem with this is that there is no competition, and no reason for telstra to lower their prices.

a similar thing was happening with adsl2+ - this was struggling to get off the ground until other providers were granted permission to install their own dslams into the exchanges, something telstra tried extremely hard to stop.

same thing with cable - telstra own the infrastrucutre, and have no incentive to lower their prices, so they wont.


if there was some way to force telstra to give up their infrastructure, then this would be a different story.


the cost figures in those articles are also laughable - trying to compare the price per household in singapore to australia borders on negligence. of course it is going to be many times higher, they are a postage stamp!!!


further, you say that this is going to take 10-15 years to come into fruition. this is once again completely wrong - the nbn is being rolled out in tasmania as we speak, and some areas in south australia will have it by 2012.



there is definitely an issue with the cost, and i agree that this should be studied in more depth. but to try and deflect it and make unfair comparisons to other countries is just silly.

[rcon]

rcon wrote:
NBN is awesome technology, even infrastructure, but it isn't about that, it is about what constitutes good use of public funds. Labor just doesn't get it.


this is NOT what you have said repeatedly throughout. you tried to poo poo the technology as well as the cost.

most certainly is - NBN *is* awesome technology, so are helicopters for getting to work, subways for congestion reduction, monorails for CBD transport, but its about why else you can do with this money.

As for poo poo'ing the technology, my point is whilst is currently seen as the gold standard, there is no guarantee it will continue to be seen in that light and as such, closer inspection is warranted, something this government has categorically ruled out. You've also got the point Turnbull makes so well, consumer preferences may well not run to broadband - who would have thought fixed line phones would go out of style so quickly, that SMS would be so popular - this is why you let the private enterprise make this investments because sometimes they go wrong.