87% take up the NBN

[Jovial Monk]

The OO has an unrelenting campaign of lies about the NBN.

$3000 to rewire a house for the NBN (they claim they never said $6000, not gonna wade through their streams of tripe so I concede that.) But it is wrong as I have shown:

1. those taking up the cheap $35/mth for phone/fax/internet/IPTV 25mbps offering only need a $50 wireless router, perhaps one Cat6 cable to the lounge of Family room for IPTV/Ultra high definition TV etc

2. Those taking up the 100mbps option would need more Cat6 cabling, $4-500 for a whole house, except:

2.1. They can use the now redundant copper internal phone wiring, just needing a sparky to put a couple RJ45 plugs in, or

2.2. Ethernet over power lines, $50 for a couple of plugs

The OO lies and always has. It has an agenda of preferring a Liberal govt because a Labor one will sooner or later start thinking about media ownership/diversity laws. It has a particular agenda against the NBN because it will greatly devalue Foxtel and open up real competition and hundreds of new channels and it allows for ultrahigh definition TV and all those new technologies.

So the OO goes peddling lies, cherrypicks stats and presents them out of context, presents innumerable “comment” pieces railing against the NBN etc etc. Murdoch must have about shit himself seeing the 87 & 84% take up rates

[IQSRLOW]

You are a retarded fuck, aren't you.

The take up has been completely abysmal. Less than 1 in 10 are actively using it so your 50% figure is rubbish like all your other figures. It is why yhe govt is now trying to force people onto their wasteful project.

And see SN, there he goes again, supporting the LIebor insulation debacle when even liebor knew it was a complete screw up. Although I shouldn't be surprised. The man takes anti-psychotic medication and drinks himself into a stupour every night. Of course he will try and defend liebor. He would defend them if they brought in compulsory kiddy fiddling laws to suit most of their member base as well

[Robina]

Jovial Monk you argued your case well and passionately. I confess I am half swayed but just hope the delivery is made efficiently, timely and on budget!

[Super Nova]

Bipartisan support for the $43 billion national broadband network is in sight after the Coalition declared it would find a tick of approval from the Productivity Commission ''incredibly persuasive''.

Until now the Coalition communications spokesman, Malcolm Turnbull, has been arguing for a cost-benefit analysis of the nationwide project, but has declined to say whether even such an inquiry would make his parties support it. But speaking to Network Ten's Sunday program, he said the inquiry he was proposing might do the trick.

''I would not as a matter of principle give a blank cheque to anyone, even the Productivity Commission,'' he said. ''But if the Productivity Commission were to report on the [network] as they should, and if they were to give it a big tick from a cost-benefit point of view, it would be incredibly persuasive.''

Advertisement: Story continues below Mr Turnbull will introduce a private members bill this week calling for the Productivity Commission to inquire into the project and report by May 31.

Its administrative head, Michael Kirby, told a Senate hearing on Thursday he was prepared to conduct the inquiry and would be able to do it while work on the network proceeded.

The Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, knocked back the olive branch, saying an inquiry would ''waste money''.

''All around the world cost benefit analyses have been done into the productivity boost of a broadband network. And it's all been positive,'' he told the ABC.

''This is just another time-wasting proposal by an opposition that are desperate to stop the rollout of the national network. Even though Malcolm said he might be prepared to accept it, Tony Abbott has made it very clear they are not going to change their policy and they're going to demolish it.''

Mr Turnbull said he did not oppose new technology but wanted a ''hard-headed business-like'' approach to delivering it.

''What the government is proposing to do is to spend $43 billion without any cost-benefit analysis to create a massive government owned monopoly placing a bet on one technology.

''If you are concerned about what people are choosing today, they're actually choosing wireless. The government is using $43 billion of our taxes to back one technology where every indication from the market is that it is moving in another direction.''

http://www.theage.com.au/technology/tec ... 16z94.html

Monk. It looks like even the opposition is coming to the same conclusion I have drawn after our debate.

[Jovial Monk]

How do you do a CBA on a 60 year project? when the existence of the project (NBN rolled out 100%) will by itself change the conditions applying?

One of my charts posted shows that the amount of data downloaded has not changed much where wireless is concerned but has massively increased for ADSL? HM people on wireless are on wireless because Telstra has let the copper degrade? Pair gain, RIMS etc that do not allow DSLAMS being installed? Have you seen the 80+% takeup on the mainland?

[Super Nova]

Have you seen the 80+% takeup on the mainland?

I think the take up will grow as it becomes clear that not taking it up is to your disadvantage.

[Jovial Monk]

Yup. The NBN is just everything that a network should be:

1. Ubiquitous—covers all Australia

2. Symmetrical—alone of all competing wired/wireless technologies ADSL, wireless whether 3G or 4G fail this.

3. Massive bandwidth—alone of all competing wired/wireless technologies

4. Scalable—unlike all forms of wireless network. Adding another user or million user does not slow others already connected. Wireless networks are notoriously unscalable

3G wireless offers mobile networking but at cost of low bandwidth with low resolution images sent to iPhones etc. Ubiquitous wifi using FTTH for backwiring will be superior to 3G wireless.

[Jovial Monk]

From when one state is largely wired with FTTH changes to society will happen—telecommuting is much more possible due to bandwidth and symmetry. Some wired up already have a camera covering part of a kitchen on all the time—someone in that kitchen can have immediate video conversations with those on other end of FTTH connection: e.g. married daughter can have a spot in kitchen where she can have videophone conversation with her mother just by walking into that part of the kitchen. Broadband is always on.

Because telecommuting is possible I can see people moving to the regions where houses are much cheaper than in capital cities and much more liveable (low crime say, close to local town centre) and working from home or some community-provided facility. But they will require fast train etc communication for when physical presence is needed. Correspondence/external courses at Uni become much more attractive where you can see Prof talking, read what he writes on smart whiteboard, even hold tutes where everyone can attend via videocall.

If capital cities facing a drain of young people to the regions then those cities have some problems and also new opportunities.

And Truffles wants a CBA on this?????

[Super Nova]

And Truffles wants a CBA on this?????

Monk,

A cost benefits analysis should always be done for major projects. It is also important to measure the sucess of the project. If you don't set these parameters (what sucess looks like) you can never know if you achieved your goals. It is also good practice to help justify the investment. Just because it is big and maybe a no brainer does not mean good practice should not be followed.

Since this is such a clear benefit to Australia (not just technically good as i have agreed) it should be a piece of cake to to the CBA. It should be done. No business embarks on such a project without one. No government goes on without one normally. this should not be the exception.

If done properly it will show all the benefits as outlines gaining further support from the country.

[Jovial Monk]

A CBA really isn’t appropriate.

If it comes out full of praise the Opposition will just say “the assumptions underlying the CBA were wrong” and they would just be assumptions. The very existence of the NBN will change the conditions in which the NBN will operate.

Let the NBN Co present their business case and use that.

FO has a life of 60 years. So in 2070-78 they will have to decide to replace or rip up or keep using the FO cables—they may be good for more than 60 years. So we don’t even know the full lifecycle costs of the NBN!

In 2070 society may have been radically changed, with populations on other planets or it may be a society struggling in a post peak oil, energy deprived, poor and half barbarian. WTF can we guess now about the 2070s?

We know the copper network needs replacing, that wireless and copper are neither symmetric nor capable of high bandwidth, that copper and wireless both suffer attenuation with distance from tower/exchange etc. So we rewire with cheaper, faster, symmetric FO that suffers negligible attenuation with distance (it is used in undersea cables to the US etc) and can carry immense bandwidth. It will cost about $26Bn, has a roughly 90% takeup rate and is supported by Telstra.

Even in Tassie there is a 50% acceptance rate and takeup of NBN internet will increase as contracts with copper based ISPs expire and FO contracts with RSPs can be taken up.)

WTF else do you want to know SN?