Fraudband

[Jovial_Monk]

I thought you said you were an IT pro? 30 years or something? Or was that a lie, roach?

[Rorschach]

oh dear...

your point?

[Jovial_Monk]

IF you told the truth about 30 years in IT you would know what the terms mean. Don’t you read a lot? (Ha! not really, just the DT it seems.)

[Rorschach]

I know what they mean dubbo.
If I didn't I could always google them.
BTW new technology etc and new acronyms arise all the time.
30 years ago is a long time in IT you numbskull.

I merely asked you to spell it out to see if the penny would drop... obviously it still hasn't. IT moron.

My points still hold. A line is a line is a line even if it's fibre.

[Rorschach]

LOL
almost forgot... even NBN Co admit line charges are included in the access packages...

oh dear...

[Super Nova]

An old article Monk but has similar view to mine.

The promoters of the NBN keep saying that wireless just can't compete with fixed fibre, because of the immutable laws of physics and the way they play out with spectrum.

That only fibre can give the sustained guaranteed speed; that wireless degrades quickly depending how far you move from the base station and how many are hooked up and what they are downloading.

That's all true. At least it is, right now. But in 10 or even five years' time? The science of physics might be "settled". But the technology of data compression might not be.

But in any event, it's not the science of physics which is in play here. But the science of arithmetic and the social science of choice. Both go to the fundamental unsoundness of the fixed NBN.

What NBN Co and its CEO Mike Quigley are afraid of is what might be termed the Inverted (Kevin) Costner Effect. Build it, the NBN (at a cost of $40 billion going on $50bn and then they don't come.

That huge spend requires NBN Co to set a certain minimum figure for wholesale access to the NBN. You then have to add the retail margin and costs.

It does not want the other elephant in the telco space, and the one with not only a huge existing cashflow but up to $11bn of its money, offering a pervasive and cheaper wireless alternative.

Yes, it might not be a sustained warp-speed 100Mbps. But it might be a 4-20Mbps that is all most of the people want most of the time. Quigley doesn't want to spend $50bn and then find out. He doesn't want you to find out.

Now we know 5G will be even faster than they thought 2 years ago.

Why oh why is there this no compete clause in the contracts. This is just bloody stupid. Do you sanction this.

and here is the rub of it, the argument all along.

Secondly, the $50bn has to be serviced. By definition that means paying more for broadband in the future, than if you didn't spend it.

By further definition, alternatives could deliver broadband cheaper. So you have to ban them.

So consumers will pay more than they would otherwise. It is entirely rational for Telstra to aim at its biggest possible slice of that.

So Australia will pay more on a bet that is a monopoly.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busines ... 6081624053

[Super Nova]

So Monk you have raised EHealth as one of your arguments.

This recent article indicates it is the reliability of NBN that is the advantage over ADSL not the fucking speed for EHealth and says that "More than speed and latency, the NBN will provide greater reliability that is critical for health IT, Penno said. "The NBN ... is a whole lot more reliable than an ADSL service"

Another of your justification - dead.

Next and this is the funniest of all.

"Telehealth vendor LifeSize Communications can provide solid 1080p video over a 1.7Mbps downstream connection, " sas they can deliver EHealth with current bandwidths. Compression technology. It is the saving they will make not having dedicated lines due to reliability. Fuck you can have that with your current phone.

It is to laugh. The need a reliable network and don't want to pay for it. Fair enough. Reliability is the key benefit of a new infrastructure not the speed.

Another of your justification - dead

Telehealth vendors not fazed by NBN debate

By Adam Bender | Computerworld Australia | 30 April 13

The NBN will be a boon to Australian healthcare regardless of which political party has its way on the final technology approach for delivery, officials from health IT vendors said at a lunch in Sydney.

The officials indicated that either the Labor party's fibre-to-the-premises or the Coalition's fibre-to-the-node plan could offer the minimum speeds and reliability levels required by telehealth and other bandwidth-intensive health IT activities.

The Coalition has said its FTTN version of the NBN, which would provide slower speeds than the Labour's FTTP approach, will offer minimum speeds of 25Mbps.

Telehealth vendor LifeSize Communications can provide solid 1080p video over a 1.7Mbps downstream connection, according to the vendor's ANZ regional sales manager, Gerry Forsythe. It can provide 720p at 30 frames per second over 1Mbps downstream, he said.

"Right now, [telehealth] works quite well over a dedicated network," Forsythe said. The NBN will enable even higher definition resolutions than 1080p, but "it doesn't have a big impact on me right now," he said.

.....

The NBN "just enables more things to happen," said Allied Telesis Australia country manager, Scott Penno. "If you've got multiple videoconferencing units, that just works so much better over an NBN [connection] than an ADSL link."

More than speed and latency, the NBN will provide greater reliability that is critical for health IT, Penno said. "The NBN ... is a whole lot more reliable than an ADSL service

Read more: http://www.computerworld.com.au/article ... z2TzpRiPw4

[Super Nova]

Older article but tells it like I see it.

The $43 billion National Broadband Network (NBN) is one of the biggest individual financial investments Australian taxpayers will ever make. When it was originally announced, taxpayers were only going to stump up with $4.7 billion of the total price tag. Following a study by McKinsey and KPMG that number skyrocketed to $26 billion because they found that during the early years private investors would not accept the NBN's risk profile.

If one works on the basis that the NBN will end up being wholly funded by taxpayers, which is likely given that its expected returns are (a) so low and (b) uncertain (read risky), it will increase Australia's national debt by roughly 30 per cent (assuming it stays on budget, which commentators believe is unlikely), and will cost every household in the country more than $5,000 before they even start paying for the NBN service. The interest repayments on that debt alone would be $2.4 billion per annum assuming that long-term interest rates do not rise.

On a per capita basis, the total cost of the NBN is between six and eighty times more expensive than what Singapore, South Korea and New Zealand are spending on their own lauded NBN solutions. And Australia has similar or higher levels of urbanisation. As the award-winning technology journalist Grahame Lynch recently concluded, the NBN "is the most expensive government intervention of its kind in the world".

My good. It must be more the $5 grand per household now, not including the interest payments. Monk, that's Ok for you, at your stage of life you don't pay tax.....

There has been a notable paucity of critical thought on Australia's extraordinarily large NBN commitment. Perhaps this is because media companies believe that they will be big beneficiaries. Yet in an increasingly mobile and wireless world, will cost-conscious households really want to spend extra dollars on fixed-line, fibre solutions just so that they can more quickly download content from YouTube or iTunes?

My views exactly.

Of course, this choice does not need to be binary; all or nothing. We can support the private sector in the development of better broadband technology. We just don't need to make a very risky $43 billion punt on one specific solution.

Too late for this.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/36660.html

[Super Nova]

The next shock will be the hidden costs.

I have 2 Mbps here in the UK. I have unlimited data access with no fair usage policy.

To address Aussie's question this gives me:
- Sky downloads on demand. I wait 2 seconds for the first data to be there and then start watching as the rest is downloaded while I view.
- Skype works great
- Games work great
- Browsing is fast
- On demand work fast
- UTube HD is perfect

So in Australia with NBN they have offers that have caps and you pay more for going over it on data usage. So NBN encourages you to use more and then has caps so you pay more. Most of the western world in a competitive landscape of moved to unlimited data for fixed and mobile. I have unlimited data on my mobile.

Australia with it's monopoly NBN will not do this. Pity, unlimited data for a fair price is what the game really is. Bandwidth over 5Mbps is just not value for money for 99% of the population.

The company has now revised its PAYG plans to include the first 10GB of data, with customers charged 85 cents per GB up to 25GB and 40 cents per GB from 25GB to 100GB. Beyond 100GB, customers will be charged 1 cent per GB.

PAYG NBN prices at AusBBS were initially priced at $39.95 for 12Mbps, which included the first GB of usage included. Beyond that, customers were charged 85 cents per GB up to 10GB and 40 cents per GB after on all NBN speeds.

Shame really.....

http://www.computerworld.com.au/article ... _feedback/

[Jovial_Monk]

Compression? Lossless or lossy compression? If lossy—useless for eHealth.

Reliability? Like wireless gets affected by rain, clouds etc?

Power requirements? Huge for ubiquitous wireless.

Glad to see you are just a little Lib fanboi, no real brains, no independent thinking. And contention will cut the speeds and reliability of wireless, assuming the thousands of towers needed can be built. Need thousands, assuming the spectrum is there or contention just cuts all the speed.

Backwards, old fashioned thinking.