Fraudband

[mellie]

Read the linked blog, lunatic.

Not a fan of reading less than credible blogs.

Anyone can create a blog, even you Monk.

[Jovial_Monk]

Lunatic!

I don’t link valueless blogs like roach, the guy who wrote the blog is doing telecoms stuff for a living. He knows what he is talking about.

[IQS.RLOW]

Lunatic!

I don’t link valueless blogs like roach, the guy who wrote the blog is doing telecoms stuff for a living. He knows what he is talking about.

He's a fucking idiot whose conspirinut theory on time stamps resulted in him making a disk of himself. He is a guaranteed fucking numpty who doesn't seem to know shit from clay.

[Rorschach]

I only quoted a blogger because you did Monk.
I quoted one with 20 years experience in ICT.

[Jovial_Monk]

http://sortius-is-a-geek.com/?p=3237#more-3237" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

More Than 3m Premises Miss Out On FTTN

the hfc question

From the moment the ALP announced the NBN Turnbull has been critical of every aspect of the rollout, none more so than the overbuild of Optus & Telstra’s Hybrid Fibre-Coaxial (HFC) networks. Turnbull has argued that these services are “90Mbps services” & don’t need to be upgraded. At one point, Mal was suggesting HFC be rolled out nationally.

The reality is, HFC isn’t 90Mbps, it isn’t even close. Sure, if the network is completely empty you may get close to 90Mbps, providing you’re not too far from a booster or optical node. This is almost never the case (why roll out HFC to a single person?), with users being forced to share the optical node’s bandwidth among anything from 500 to 2000 other users.

In Australia, the share ratios are close to the 1:2000 mark, leaving people in high uptake areas with “90Mbps services” that never get past 512Kbps (0.5Mbps). Not exactly stellar performance for something Turnbull has argued is a sound investment. Even by Mal’s own standards this is far from good enough, being 1/50th the minimum speed that’s claimed to be “good enough”.

And this shemozzle, this shambles of a “superfast” broadband network won’t even be rolled out at all—austerity will be the order of the day if Piss&Moan becomes PM.

[Neferti]

You will never get it at your house, Monk. Suck it up!

[mellie]

Labors own minister’s didn’t call their Conroy passion-fingers for nothing.

[Jovial_Monk]

Sortius—Dedicated bandwidth has a story to tell:

http://sortius-is-a-geek.com/?p=3245" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Neferti]

You will never get it at your house, Monk. Suck it up!

bump!

[Jovial_Monk]

But could the wide-reaching changes associated with many new technologies have been imagined from the onset? Not at all. The nature of infrastructure makes it impossible to predict the future. Simply projecting current ways of living onto the new infrastructure is likely to fundamentally miss the point, as history has shown.

Take electricity. Having had a modest impact on manufacturing initially, it was only after power generation was centralised and physically separated from the factory floor that we saw a flurry of innovation that gave us mass production.

What does this mean for the broadband network? First, we need to recognise that only FTTH is a truly game-changing infrastructure. The key to understanding its novelty is not download but upload speed, which is much higher than with FTTN.

Naturally, this does not feature prominently in the debate since we are accustomed to seeing broadband in terms of download speeds. And what are we going to do with this massive upload speed anyway? We do not know yet. It might allow better teleworking initially. This might have an effect on road congestion, work-life balance and maybe the make up of our suburbs.

In one way, critics are right. Few people need the broadband network today. Then again, no one needed the telephone, cars or personal computers at the time. But could we live without them today?

We have no way of knowing what a world where the network is a normal part of life will be like. Hence, no one can put together a business case for it in all seriousness. Indeed, infrastructure of this kind should not be required to make its own money. It is the benefits that will flow from the innovation it unlocks that matters to government.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/with-hind ... z2bqC0brUU" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;