NBN clear winner over wireless
LuR
Read and learn all you wireless converts.
Eddy
>http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/wireless-camp-uninformed-about-cable-says-nbn-boss-20110222-1b43f.html
>
>Read and learn all you wireless converts.
>
Clearly not heard of wireless lte which is twice as fast as the NBN
and getting rolled out by Telstra in many cities of Australia.
Australia at present is the 5th fastest in the world.
Wireless lte is ready now. The nbn going to take 10 years to roll out
at a huge cost of 43b in todays money but likely to be over 80b by the
time its finished.
Another white elephant to stupidity.
Meanwhile Qld living in tents and the gov is slugging us all with a
levy to pay for a part of it.
Also worth mentioning is that the fibre obtic cabling in the nbn
rolled out in Qld has been washed away so will hav eto be re rolledout
costing many more billions.
By the time the nbn is finished technology will have advanced so far
with wireless that there will end up being royal commisions into this
white elephant that no one wants.
I'm with telstra and on 20mbps which is bloody fast. Web sites pop up
in a few seconds. 100Mbps an dthey'll be a split second. Can't say I'd
want to pay so much more for something that won't make any difference
at all.
Meanwhile other more urgent things need to be done like fixing the
hospitals, roads, more ports need to be made(currently miners building
all the ports and rail infrastructure cos the government can't due to
lack of money),
B J Foster
> http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/wireless-camp-uninformed-about-cable-says-nbn-boss-20110222-1b43f.html
>
>
> Read and learn all you wireless converts.
"Mr Quigley yesterday dismissed claims that wireless could meet
burgeoning demand from iPads and smart phones.
''Far from proof that fibre will be redundant, the 4G announcement is
very good news for the NBN roll-out,'' Mr Quigley told a Senate
estimates hearing in Canberra. ''While people like the convenience of
their wireless devices, fixed networks are and will continue to be the
workhorse of data download.''
He also attacked the level of public debate on the issue, saying much of
it was ''uninformed'' and ''ignored the physics and economics of how
networks actually work''".
Lovely. Let's ignore the economics, the cost being between 10 and 24
times what it *should* be and deal with *physics*:
How will I be able to plug into the fibre on every street corner?
Labor morons
Rod Speed
> Read and learn all you wireless converts.
Corse his claims wouldnt be even the slightest bit biased, eh ?
Rod Speed
> LuR <w...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> Read and learn all you wireless converts.
> Clearly not heard of wireless lte which is twice as fast as the NBN
Pigs arse it is.
> and getting rolled out by Telstra in many cities of Australia.
Fuck all, actually.
> Australia at present is the 5th fastest in the world.
That number is straight from someone's arse. We can tell from the smell.
> Wireless lte is ready now.
The NBN is ready now for even more.
> The nbn going to take 10 years to roll out
Nope, Labor wont last anything like that long.
> at a huge cost of 43b in todays money but likely to be over 80b by the time its finished.
> Another white elephant to stupidity.
You cant have a white elephant to stupidity, stupid.
> Meanwhile Qld living in tents
Fuck all of Qld is.
> and the gov is slugging us all with a levy to pay for a part of it.
Another lie. Those that pay no income tax and those that pay little income tax dont get slugged at all.
> Also worth mentioning is that the fibre obtic cabling
> in the nbn rolled out in Qld has been washed away
There is no NBN in Qld, and never was.
> so will hav eto be re rolledout costing many more billions.
Another pig ignorant lie.
> By the time the nbn is finished technology will have advanced
> so far with wireless that there will end up being royal commisions
> into this white elephant that no one wants.
Another pig ignorant lie.
And plenty of fools want it too.
> I'm with telstra and on 20mbps which is bloody fast.
And fuck all can get that.
> Web sites pop up in a few seconds. 100Mbps an dthey'll be a split second. Can't say
> I'd want to pay so much more for something that won't make any difference at all.
The NBN will make a big difference when downloading blue ray and better movies.
> Meanwhile other more urgent things need to be done like fixing the hospitals,
> roads, more ports need to be made(currently miners building all the ports and
> rail infrastructure cos the government can't due to lack of money),
Thats a lie. And the govt is spending fuck all on the NBN right now anyway.
Brad
> On 23/02/2011 3:08 AM, LuR wrote:
>
>
> > Read and learn all you wireless converts.
>
> "Mr Quigley yesterday dismissed claims that wireless could meet
> burgeoning demand from iPads and smart phones.
>
> ''Far from proof that fibre will be redundant, the 4G announcement is
> very good news for the NBN roll-out,'' Mr Quigley told a Senate
> estimates hearing in Canberra. ''While people like the convenience of
> their wireless devices, fixed networks are and will continue to be the
> workhorse of data download.''
>
> He also attacked the level of public debate on the issue, saying much of
> it was ''uninformed'' and ''ignored the physics and economics of how
> networks actually work''".
>
> Lovely. Let's ignore the economics, the cost being between 10 and 24
> times what it *should* be and deal with *physics*:
>
> How will I be able to plug into the fibre on every street corner?
>
> Labor morons
How will I be able to use 4G from deep within a steel clad building?
There is absolutley a need for fibre. How else are they going to get
broadband to the 4G transmitters in the first place?
B J Foster
Why on earth would you use wireless inside a building? That *is* an
appropriate use of fibre.
And BTW, all the buildings are *already* fibred.
Labor idiots.
Brad
That was the point I was making.
>
> And BTW, all the buildings are *already* fibred.
No they aren't. Barely any are. I can't wait for fibre to arrive.
>
> Labor idiots.
Rod Speed
Because that is where you are, stupid.
> That *is* an appropriate use of fibre.
> And BTW, all the buildings are *already* fibred.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
LuR
"Rod Speed" wrote in message news:8sig22...@mid.individual.net...
LuR wrote
Sure he is, but he also has to state facts to support his case, which I
accept as truth. Fibre will be the backbone of all wireless anyway!!
If my life saving operation was to be performed remotely using fibre or
wireless, I know which one Id choose first...
Also, IView and such will be seen in a decent resolution rather than the
crap it is now. Why buy a HD TV if the rest of technology doesnt play ball??
Eddy
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Eddy wrote
>> LuR <w...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>>> http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/wireless-camp-uninformed-about-cable-says-nbn-boss-20110222-1b43f.html
>
>>> Read and learn all you wireless converts.
>
>> Clearly not heard of wireless lte which is twice as fast as the NBN
>
>Pigs arse it is.
>
>> and getting rolled out by Telstra in many cities of Australia.
>
>Fuck all, actually.
Fact its been tested in Sydney and Melbourne and the lowest speeds of
172Mbps to the fastest speeds of well over 200Mbps have been
documented.
>
>> Australia at present is the 5th fastest in the world.
>
>That number is straight from someone's arse. We can tell from the smell.
>
>> Wireless lte is ready now.
>
>The NBN is ready now for even more.
>
>> The nbn going to take 10 years to roll out
>
>Nope, Labor wont last anything like that long.
They'll be there for severalmore years despite the polls now.
Look at that Qld premier on the nose with voters and then those
natural disasters hit and she comes out looking good.Gillard tried to
cash it on it but looked out of place.
Events can chane a government if they handle ir right. Qld ALP likely
to win another term due to these events. If Fed ALP can do the same
with the next big disaster event then they too will shoot ahead in the
polls.
Currently fed libs lead in every poll by more than 10% despite Tony
Abbott being in charge. Surely some with more self control can be made
leader.
>
>> at a huge cost of 43b in todays money but likely to be over 80b by the time its finished.
>
>> Another white elephant to stupidity.
>
>You cant have a white elephant to stupidity, stupid.
>
>> Meanwhile Qld living in tents
>
>Fuck all of Qld is.
>
>> and the gov is slugging us all with a levy to pay for a part of it.
>
>Another lie. Those that pay no income tax and those that pay little income tax dont get slugged at all.
>
>> Also worth mentioning is that the fibre obtic cabling
>> in the nbn rolled out in Qld has been washed away
>
>There is no NBN in Qld, and never was.
>
>> so will hav eto be re rolledout costing many more billions.
>
>Another pig ignorant lie.
>
>> By the time the nbn is finished technology will have advanced
>> so far with wireless that there will end up being royal commisions
>> into this white elephant that no one wants.
>
>Another pig ignorant lie.
Its already happening fool.
>
>And plenty of fools want it too.
Blah blah blah.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!
Eddy
wrote:
With ease. I can use a mobile in a steel building now. Not difficult
you know. You must be with the wrong carrier. I am with telstra and
can use my mobile anywhere in the city.
The world is moving to wireless faster than moving to cable. Facts
speak for themselves really.
Not heard of mobilephones,ipads, notebooks which use wireless.
Eddy
wrote:
>On Feb 23, 7:47=A0am, B J Foster <bjfos...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>> On 23/02/2011 7:42 AM, Brad wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 23, 5:09 am, B J Foster<bjfos...@yahoo.com.invalid> =A0wrote:
>> >> On 23/02/2011 3:08 AM, LuR wrote:
>>
>> >>>http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/wireless-camp-uninfo.=
>..
>>
>> >>> Read and learn all you wireless converts.
>>
>> >> "Mr Quigley yesterday dismissed claims that wireless could meet
>> >> burgeoning demand from iPads and smart phones.
>>
>> >> ''Far from proof that fibre will be redundant, the 4G announcement is
>> >> very good news for the NBN roll-out,'' Mr Quigley told a Senate
>> >> estimates hearing in Canberra. ''While people like the convenience of
>> >> their wireless devices, fixed networks are and will continue to be the
>> >> workhorse of data download.''
>>
>> >> He also attacked the level of public debate on the issue, saying much =
>of
>> >> it was ''uninformed'' and ''ignored the physics and economics of how
>> >> networks actually work''".
>>
>> >> Lovely. Let's ignore the economics, the cost being between 10 and 24
>> >> times what it *should* be and deal with *physics*:
>>
>> >> How will I be able to plug into the fibre on every street corner?
>>
>> >> Labor morons
>>
>> > How will I be able to use 4G from deep within a steel clad building?
>> > There is absolutley a need for fibre. How else are they going to get
>> > broadband to the 4G transmitters in the first place?
>>
>> Why on earth would you use wireless inside a building? That *is* an
>> appropriate use of fibre.
>
>That was the point I was making.
>>
>> And BTW, all the buildings are *already* fibred.
>
>No they aren't. Barely any are. I can't wait for fibre to arrive.
You obviosly have no idea what it will mean and at what cost to the
tax payers. The charge they are looking at is $600+ a month. Only big
business will be able to afford it.
Wireless lte is at $39.95 a month for much faster speeds.
A fool and his money are soon parted.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote LuR wrote
>> Read and learn all you wireless converts.
> Corse his claims wouldnt be even the slightest bit biased, eh ?
> Sure he is, but he also has to state facts to support his case,
Fuck all facts were actually visible in that completely mindless steaming turd.
> which I accept as truth.
More fool you.
> Fibre will be the backbone of all wireless anyway!!
Irrelevant to the NBN which is actually about fibre to the premisis, stupid.
> If my life saving operation was to be performed remotely using fibre
Not a chance.
> or wireless, I know which one Id choose first...
You dont get to choose, stupid.
> Also, IView and such will be seen in a decent resolution rather than the crap it is now. Why buy a HD TV if the rest
> of technology doesnt play ball??
Because most of what you watch on it is in HD format on FTATV, cretin.
Eddy
Is that your only comeback,calling them stupid.
Stupid is as stupid does. Fits you perfectly.
>
>> That *is* an appropriate use of fibre.
>
>> And BTW, all the buildings are *already* fibred.
>
>Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
>never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
Fact. Aust is already the 5th fastest country for the internet.
In Aust the top wired speeds are 20Mbps. In the US its 33Mbps.
If we had 100Mbps on the nbn us sites and all countries outside
Australia the fastest you'll get is about 33Mbps. All that money for a
30% speed increase.
Most speeds won't be faster than what they are now due to most
countries being at 20Mbps or slower.
Other countries including the US are looking at satellite and wireless
lte because its hundreds of times cheaper than fibre optic cabling.
Eddy
You people are trolls. Not even understanding what wireless is and the
new advances in lte which is twice as fast as fibre optic cabling.
Singapore moving to satelitte lte which is faster than rolling out
cables everywhere.
Just shows how dumb Aussies really are.
Rod Speed
>>>> Read and learn all you wireless converts.
>>> Clearly not heard of wireless lte which is twice as fast as the NBN
>> Pigs arse it is.
>>> and getting rolled out by Telstra in many cities of Australia.
>> Fuck all, actually.
> Fact its been tested in Sydney and Melbourne and the lowest speeds of
> 172Mbps to the fastest speeds of well over 200Mbps have been documented.
Thats not twice as fast as the NBN can do, fool.
And it wont do 200Mbps when everyone is using it either.
>>> Australia at present is the 5th fastest in the world.
>> That number is straight from someone's arse. We can tell from the smell.
>>> Wireless lte is ready now.
>> The NBN is ready now for even more.
>>> The nbn going to take 10 years to roll out
>> Nope, Labor wont last anything like that long.
> They'll be there for severalmore years despite the polls now.
They might last till they have to have the next election, but thats nothing like 10 years.
> Look at that Qld premier on the nose with voters and then
> those natural disasters hit and she comes out looking good.
And we'll see what happens in their next election.
> Gillard tried to cash it on it but looked out of place.
And wont last in govt when the next election is held, you watch.
> Events can chane a government if they handle ir right.
Not for federal labor, you watch.
> Qld ALP likely to win another term due to these events.
And the federal ALP wont, you watch.
> If Fed ALP can do the same with the next big disaster event
Not a chance. There wont be another anything like that between
now and the next election, they dont happen anything like that often.
> then they too will shoot ahead in the polls.
Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasys.
You cant list even a single example of that EVER happening federally at a real election.
Even a world war didnt do that.
> Currently fed libs lead in every poll by more than 10%
So Labor is fucked.
> despite Tony Abbott being in charge.
And he did damned well in the previous election considering
the magnitude of the landslide that the dud got.
> Surely some with more self control can be made leader.
He will regardless of what he does as long as he doesnt do
something completely stupid like raping small children etc.
>>> at a huge cost of 43b in todays money but
>>> likely to be over 80b by the time its finished.
>>> Another white elephant to stupidity.
>> You cant have a white elephant to stupidity, stupid.
>>> Meanwhile Qld living in tents
>> Fuck all of Qld is.
>>> and the gov is slugging us all with a levy to pay for a part of it.
>> Another lie. Those that pay no income tax and those
>> that pay little income tax dont get slugged at all.
>>> Also worth mentioning is that the fibre obtic cabling
>>> in the nbn rolled out in Qld has been washed away
>> There is no NBN in Qld, and never was.
>>> so will hav eto be re rolledout costing many more billions.
>> Another pig ignorant lie.
>>> By the time the nbn is finished technology will have advanced
>>> so far with wireless that there will end up being royal commisions
>>> into this white elephant that no one wants.
>> Another pig ignorant lie.
> Its already happening fool.
There are plenty that want the NBN, fuckwit.
>> And plenty of fools want it too.
> Blah blah blah.
> LOL!!!!!!!!!!
Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there, child.
Wolfgang Wildeblood
Brad, given your previous assertion that I would be able to get the
NBN in my car with the use of overhead, tram-style cabling, I'd stay
out of this debate if I were you.
terryc
> Clearly not heard of wireless lte which is twice as fast as the NBN
> and getting rolled out by Telstra in many cities of Australia.
Yes, bit it is still SHARED bandwidth that has to be divided by the
number of current users.
Also subject to interference by human and natural activities.
and cost an arm, leg and left testitcle.
terryc
> How will I be able to plug into the fibre on every street corner?
Unless there is a WAP, you wont. Street corner "plug in" is the right
job for wireless. But fibre will mean once you do plug in, then you will
get max speed that your wireless link can give you.
terryc
> And BTW, all the buildings are *already* fibred.
Not here.
Brad
> You people are trolls. Not even understanding what wireless is and the
> new advances in lte which is twice as fast as fibre optic cabling.
>
> Singapore moving to satelitte lte which is faster than rolling out
> cables everywhere.
>
> Just shows how dumb Aussies really are.
Nobody has mentioned the fact that 4G Wireless wipes out GPS receivers
for a 5 mile radius. Tests recently carried out in the USA
demonstrated that 4G caused complete loss of signal and navigation in
airborne GPS navigation systems for distances of up to 5 miles, and
partial signal loss for several miles more. This is because the 4G
frequency allocation is directly adjacent to the Civilian GPS
frequency. While this problem can be remedied (according to the 4G
operator) by the installation of filters, there is no cure for all the
vehicle mounted, cellphone fitted, camera equipped etc systems that
use inbuilt antennas.
Brad
> >How will I be able to use 4G from deep within a steel clad building?
> >There is absolutley a need for fibre. How else are they going to get
> >broadband to the 4G transmitters in the first place?
>
> With ease. I can use a mobile in a steel building now. Not difficult
> you know. You must be with the wrong carrier. I am with telstra and
> can use my mobile anywhere in the city.
>
> The world is moving to wireless faster than moving to cable. Facts
> speak for themselves really.
>
> Not heard of mobilephones,ipads, notebooks which use wireless.
I am surrounded by colourbond steel buildings. The various carriers
towers are all within a 2km radius. Signals are strong and so are the
multipath reflections and the shielding within the buildings. 3G phone
calls are frequently distorted and drop out. The only solution is to
drop back to 900MHz GSM for reliability. It is less of an issue with
data services as the receiver is more likely to be stationary
(desktop, handheld etc) or the data packets can be resent until
received correctly. With voice calls this just causes distortion. With
streaming video it causes frame freeze a lot, VoIP is hopeless.
Wireless is not the be all and end all solution. You still need the
fibre to distribute the signal to the wireless towers in many cases.
Rod Speed
> Brad <goo...@vk2qq.com> wrote
>> B J Foster <bjfos...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote
>>>> http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/wireless-camp-uninfo...
>>>> Read and learn all you wireless converts.
>>> "Mr Quigley yesterday dismissed claims that wireless could
>>> meet burgeoning demand from iPads and smart phones.
>>> ''Far from proof that fibre will be redundant, the 4G announcement
>>> is very good news for the NBN roll-out,'' Mr Quigley told a Senate
>>> estimates hearing in Canberra. ''While people like the convenience
>>> of their wireless devices, fixed networks are and will continue to
>>> be the workhorse of data download.''
>>> He also attacked the level of public debate on the issue,
>>> saying much of it was ''uninformed'' and ''ignored the
>>> physics and economics of how networks actually work''".
>>> Lovely. Let's ignore the economics, the cost being between
>>> 10 and 24 times what it *should* be and deal with *physics*:
>>> How will I be able to plug into the fibre on every street corner?
>> How will I be able to use 4G from deep within a steel clad building?
>> There is absolutley a need for fibre. How else are they going to get
>> broadband to the 4G transmitters in the first place?
> With ease. I can use a mobile in a steel building now.
> Not difficult you know. You must be with the wrong carrier.
Yes.
> I am with telstra and can use my mobile anywhere in the city.
Thats a lie with some locations.
> The world is moving to wireless faster than moving to cable.
Yes, but thats just because viable wireless is much more recent than viable landline broadband.
In other words, those that wanted broadband mostly got it using a landline
and then we saw viable wireless broadband show up later and quite a few
ADDED wireless broadband for the flexibility of being able to use it anywhere.
Very few are giving up on their landline broadband and just have only wireless
broadband, just the lightest broadband users who dont use broadband much.
> Facts speak for themselves really.
You wouldnt know what a fact was if it bit you on your lard arse in this area.
> Not heard of mobilephones,ipads, notebooks which use wireless.
Heard of plenty that choose to have both, including me.
Rod Speed
>>>> B J Foster<bjfos...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote
>>>>>> http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/wireless-camp-uninfo.=
>>>>>> Read and learn all you wireless converts.
>>>>> "Mr Quigley yesterday dismissed claims that wireless could meet
>>>>> burgeoning demand from iPads and smart phones.
>>>>> ''Far from proof that fibre will be redundant, the 4G
>>>>> announcement is very good news for the NBN roll-out,'' Mr Quigley
>>>>> told a Senate estimates hearing in Canberra. ''While people like
>>>>> the convenience of their wireless devices, fixed networks are and
>>>>> will continue to be the workhorse of data download.''
>>>>> He also attacked the level of public debate on the issue, saying
>>>>> much = of it was ''uninformed'' and ''ignored the physics and
>>>>> economics of how networks actually work''".
>>>>> Lovely. Let's ignore the economics, the cost being between
>>>>> 10 and 24 times what it *should* be and deal with *physics*:
>>>>> How will I be able to plug into the fibre on every street corner?
>>>> How will I be able to use 4G from deep within a steel clad
>>>> building? There is absolutley a need for fibre. How else are they
>>>> going to get broadband to the 4G transmitters in the first place?
>>> Why on earth would you use wireless inside a building?
>>> That *is* an appropriate use of fibre.
>> That was the point I was making.
>>> And BTW, all the buildings are *already* fibred.
>> No they aren't. Barely any are. I can't wait for fibre to arrive.
> You obviosly have no idea what it will mean and at what cost to the tax payers.
You in spades.
> The charge they are looking at is $600+ a month.
That number is straight from your arse, we can tell from the smell.
Thats nothing like what those currently on the NBN are paying.
> Only big business will be able to afford it.
That is a bare faced lie.
And it wont necessarily cost the taxpayers anything once it gets sold off either.
> Wireless lte is at $39.95 a month
You have absolutely no idea what Telstra will charge for 4G, that hasnt been announced.
> for much faster speeds.
That is a bare faced lie.
> A fool and his money are soon parted.
> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there, child.
Rod Speed
>>>> B J Foster<bjfos...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote
>>>>>> http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/wireless-camp-uninfo...
>>>>>> Read and learn all you wireless converts.
>>>>> "Mr Quigley yesterday dismissed claims that wireless could meet
>>>>> burgeoning demand from iPads and smart phones.
>>>>> ''Far from proof that fibre will be redundant, the 4G announcement
>>>>> is very good news for the NBN roll-out,'' Mr Quigley told a Senate
>>>>> estimates hearing in Canberra. ''While people like the convenience
>>>>> of their wireless devices, fixed networks are and will continue to
>>>>> be the workhorse of data download.''
>>>>> He also attacked the level of public debate on the issue, saying
>>>>> much of it was ''uninformed'' and ''ignored the physics and
>>>>> economics of how networks actually work''".
>>>>> Lovely. Let's ignore the economics, the cost being between 10 and
>>>>> 24 times what it *should* be and deal with *physics*:
>>>>> How will I be able to plug into the fibre on every street corner?
>>>> How will I be able to use 4G from deep within a steel clad
>>>> building? There is absolutley a need for fibre. How else are they
>>>> going to get broadband to the 4G transmitters in the first place?
>>> Why on earth would you use wireless inside a building?
>> Because that is where you are, stupid.
> Is that your only comeback,calling them stupid.
> Stupid is as stupid does. Fits you perfectly.
Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there, child.
>>> That *is* an appropriate use of fibre.
>>> And BTW, all the buildings are *already* fibred.
>> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
>> never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
> Fact.
Lie. The absolute vast bulk of small business buildings are NOT already fibered.
> Aust is already the 5th fastest country for the internet.
That number is straight from someone's arse, we can tell from the smell.
> In Aust the top wired speeds are 20Mbps.
And fuck all get that. And thats a lie anyway, the top
wired speeds are MUCH higher than that, on fiber.
> In the US its 33Mbps.
That number is straight from someone's arse, we can tell from the smell.
> If we had 100Mbps on the nbn us sites and all countries
> outside Australia the fastest you'll get is about 33Mbps.
That number is straight from your arse, we can tell from the smell.
Those on fiber ALREADY get better than that.
And pity about the speed inside the country anyway.
> All that money for a 30% speed increase.
That is a bare faced lie.
> Most speeds won't be faster than what they are
> now due to most countries being at 20Mbps or slower.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
Have fun explaining how those already on fiber can do much better than that.
> Other countries including the US are looking at satellite and wireless
> lte because its hundreds of times cheaper than fibre optic cabling.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
Have fun explaining what google itself is looking at.
Rod Speed
>>>> Read and learn all you wireless converts.
>>> Corse his claims wouldnt be even the slightest bit biased, eh ?
>> Sure he is, but he also has to state facts to support his case, which
>> I accept as truth. Fibre will be the backbone of all wireless anyway!!
>> If my life saving operation was to be performed remotely using fibre
>> or wireless, I know which one Id choose first...
>> Also, IView and such will be seen in a decent resolution rather than
>> the crap it is now. Why buy a HD TV if the rest of technology doesnt
>> play ball??
> You people are trolls.
You wouldnt know what a real troll was if one bit you on your lard arse, child.
> Not even understanding what wireless is
You in spades child.
> and the new advances in lte which is twice as fast as fibre optic cabling.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
It is NOT twice as fast as fiber can do you pig ignorant clown.
In spades when lots of people are using a particular wireless base.
> Singapore moving to satelitte lte
Pigs arse it is.
> which is faster than rolling out cables everywhere.
Yes, but it performs a hell of a lot worse too.
> Just shows how dumb Aussies really are.
Nope, shows how pig ignorant you are, actually.
Rod Speed
> E...@123.com (Eddy) wrote
>> You people are trolls. Not even understanding what wireless is and
>> the new advances in lte which is twice as fast as fibre optic cabling.
>> Singapore moving to satelitte lte which is faster than rolling out cables everywhere.
>> Just shows how dumb Aussies really are.
> Nobody has mentioned the fact that 4G Wireless wipes out GPS receivers for a 5 mile radius.
Because its a lie.
> Tests recently carried out in the USA demonstrated that 4G
> caused complete loss of signal and navigation in airborne
> GPS navigation systems for distances of up to 5 miles,
Thats nothing like the previous lie.
> and partial signal loss for several miles more. This is because the 4G
> frequency allocation is directly adjacent to the Civilian GPS frequency.
That is a bare faced lie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS#Satellite_frequencies
> While this problem can be remedied (according to the 4G operator)
> by the installation of filters, there is no cure for all the vehicle mounted,
> cellphone fitted, camera equipped etc systems that use inbuilt antennas.
Another pig ignorant lie.
Brad
wrote:
That was Coach's assertion, not mine. I was telling her why it would
Not work.
SG1
"Eddy" <Ed...@123.com> wrote in message
news:4d64746f...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>Snipped>
> Fact. Aust is already the 5th fastest country for the internet.
> In Aust the top wired speeds are 20Mbps. In the US its 33Mbps.
> If we had 100Mbps on the nbn us sites and all countries outside
> Australia the fastest you'll get is about 33Mbps. All that money for a
> 30% speed increase.
>
numerate unlike Twiggy who has no idea.
SG1
"terryc" <newsnine...@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:ik213e$8tj$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Which is why Lance Armstrong will stick with fibre......
Brad
> Brad wrote
>
> > E...@123.com (Eddy) wrote
> >> You people are trolls. Not even understanding what wireless is and
> >> the new advances in lte which is twice as fast as fibre optic cabling.
> >> Singapore moving to satelitte lte which is faster than rolling out cables everywhere.
> >> Just shows how dumb Aussies really are.
> > Nobody has mentioned the fact that 4G Wireless wipes out GPS receivers for a 5 mile radius.
>
> Because its a lie.
>
> > Tests recently carried out in the USA demonstrated that 4G
> > caused complete loss of signal and navigation in airborne
> > GPS navigation systems for distances of up to 5 miles,
>
> Thats nothing like the previous lie.
>
> > and partial signal loss for several miles more. This is because the 4G
> > frequency allocation is directly adjacent to the Civilian GPS frequency.
>
>
> > While this problem can be remedied (according to the 4G operator)
> > by the installation of filters, there is no cure for all the vehicle mounted,
> > cellphone fitted, camera equipped etc systems that use inbuilt antennas.
>
> Another pig ignorant lie.
Before you go around libeling people and calling them liars, you
really ought to do a little reading first. Then shut the fuck up.
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/4G_Broadband_May_Jam_GPS_204069-1.html
Before you
Thomas K
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 03:08:15 +1100, "LuR" <w...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/wireless-camp-uninformed-about-cable-says-nbn-boss-20110222-1b43f.html
>>
>>
>
> and getting rolled out by Telstra in many cities of Australia.
All right I'm getting tired of reading that wireless is going to solve
our problems. There has been the odd comment about there being
insufficient bandwidth to handle it, but that's a little bit
hand-wavey. We like numbers, don't we? Let's try some damn
numbers. Rough numbers, but numbers.
Suppose that our government decided to throw 1 GHz of bandwidth at
wireless internet. That's a _huge_ amount, but internet is important,
right?
==== MATHS BEGINS ====
There's this thing called the Shannon-Hartley theorem[1] which
dictates how much information can be communicated over a medium. It's
proportional to the amount of bandwidth (obviously), and proportional
to the log of the signal-to-noise ratio. We'll never get quite this
much because of limitations in our transmitting/receiving equipment
and depending upon the modulation in use but it's an ideal we try to
approach.
Let's get an idea of the noise floor in a city. Somebody took some
measurements in Auckland[2] which show that it's about
-180 dB[W/m^2/Hz] of noise power, ignoring the parts which are
smothered in the ISM bands by microwaves, wifi, etc.
That is:
10 log10(N/(A*B)) = -180
N = noise power received by your antenna [Watts]
A = aperture of the antenna [m^2]
B = receiver bandwidth [Hz]
So we'll need to know the antenna aperture. We can estimate it from:
G = 4*pi*eta*A/lambda^2
where
G = Gain (assume this to be 1 for omnidirectional antenna)
eta = efficiency (assume this to be 1)
A = aperture
lambda = operating wavelength (assume 1 GHz as a centre point)
A = 1*(3e8/1e9)^2 / (4*pi*1) = 7.162e-3 m^2
Using that along with a receiver bandwidth of B = 1 GHz we can solve
for N, giving a received noise power:
N = 7.162e-12 W
Now we need to know how much signal power we get. I know from my own
work with 3G devices that this is normally about -80 dBm indoors in an
urban area (recalculate this for your own signal strength if you
like).
Multiply this by 200 to account for the fact that 3G channels are
5 MHz wide and our fictional internet channel is 1 GHz wide -- thus
there is more radio power out there being transmitted.
Signal power S = 1e-8 * 200 / 1000 [mW/W] = 2e-9 W
So our signal to noise ratio S/N = 279 (or 24.4 dB)
Let's pop that into the Shannon-Hartley formula:
C = B log2(1 + S/N)
= 1e9 log2(1 + 279)
= 8.13e9 bit/s
==== MATHS ENDS ====
So we get a capacity of 8.13 Gbit/s for our 1 GHz bandwidth
allocation.
If you have a cell with 10000 people in it they will get a juicy total
of 852 kbit/s each.
I've made a lot of assumptions along the way, but I've also assumed
ideal use of bandwidth, no protocol overheads and a mega 1 GHz
allocation. Frequencies above a few GHz become seriously line-of-sight
so you can't use them for mobile internet.
Hopefully this makes it clear that it is simply not viable to expect
wireless internet to fix all our problems. It is truly a COMPLEMENTARY
technology to high speed wired/fibred networks such as the NBN.
Cheers,
Tom
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon%E2%80%93Hartley_theorem
[2]
http://www.rsm.govt.nz/cms/pdf-library/policy-and-planning/events/presentations-at-seminar-on-future-wireless-technologies/aut-presentation-3-28-mb-pdf
--
tho...@sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
keithr
That is a particular implementation of LTE by a company called
Lightspeed on L band adjacent to GPS frequencies. LTE on other
frequencies should not cause problems.
keithr
ether communications? Mr Einstein would love to hear how the speed of
light has been exceeded.
B J Foster
> On Feb 23, 7:47 am, B J Foster<bjfos...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>> On 23/02/2011 7:42 AM, Brad wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 23, 5:09 am, B J Foster<bjfos...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 23/02/2011 3:08 AM, LuR wrote:
>>
>>>>> http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/wireless-camp-uninfo...
>>
>>
>>>> burgeoning demand from iPads and smart phones.
>>
>>>> ''Far from proof that fibre will be redundant, the 4G announcement is
>>>> very good news for the NBN roll-out,'' Mr Quigley told a Senate
>>>> estimates hearing in Canberra. ''While people like the convenience of
>>>> their wireless devices, fixed networks are and will continue to be the
>>>> workhorse of data download.''
>>
>>>> He also attacked the level of public debate on the issue, saying much of
>>>> it was ''uninformed'' and ''ignored the physics and economics of how
>>>> networks actually work''".
>>
>>>> Lovely. Let's ignore the economics, the cost being between 10 and 24
>>>> times what it *should* be and deal with *physics*:
>>
>>>> How will I be able to plug into the fibre on every street corner?
>>
>>>> Labor morons
>>
>>> How will I be able to use 4G from deep within a steel clad building?
>>> There is absolutley a need for fibre. How else are they going to get
>>> broadband to the 4G transmitters in the first place?
>>
>> appropriate use of fibre.
>
> That was the point I was making.
The NBN is fibring every house in Australia - which is a total waste of
money and resources.
>>
>> And BTW, all the buildings are *already* fibred.
>
> No they aren't. Barely any are. I can't wait for fibre to arrive.
Please cite a building that isn't fibred.
>>
>> Labor idiots.
>
Brad
Mine.
Brad
> On 23/02/2011 7:55 PM, Brad wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 23, 5:01 pm, "Rod Speed"<rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Brad wrote
>
> >>> E...@123.com (Eddy) wrote
> >>>> You people are trolls. Not even understanding what wireless is and
> >>>> the new advances in lte which is twice as fast as fibre optic cabling.
> >>>> Singapore moving to satelitte lte which is faster than rolling out cables everywhere.
> >>>> Just shows how dumb Aussies really are.
> >>> Nobody has mentioned the fact that 4G Wireless wipes out GPS receivers for a 5 mile radius.
>
> >> Because its a lie.
>
> >>> Tests recently carried out in the USA demonstrated that 4G
> >>> caused complete loss of signal and navigation in airborne
> >>> GPS navigation systems for distances of up to 5 miles,
>
> >> Thats nothing like the previous lie.
>
> >>> and partial signal loss for several miles more. This is because the 4G
> >>> frequency allocation is directly adjacent to the Civilian GPS frequency.
>
> >> That is a bare faced lie.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS#Satellite_frequencies
>
> >>> While this problem can be remedied (according to the 4G operator)
> >>> by the installation of filters, there is no cure for all the vehicle mounted,
> >>> cellphone fitted, camera equipped etc systems that use inbuilt antennas.
>
> >> Another pig ignorant lie.
>
> > Before you go around libeling people and calling them liars, you
> > really ought to do a little reading first. Then shut the fuck up.
>
>
> That is a particular implementation of LTE by a company called
> Lightspeed on L band adjacent to GPS frequencies. LTE on other
> frequencies should not cause problems.
Agreed. Telstra deviated from international standards with its NextG
system that is not compatible anywhere else. However, they have made
the claim that their new 4G system will be internationally compatible.
I do not know if that also includes the USA, famous for being
different, but it is a concern to me at least that Telstra may have
adopted a system that causes such interference.
keithr
you can
With full market liberalisation resulting in greater competition,
Singaporeans have experienced higher broadband speeds and more
competitively priced services, resulting in greater uptake. Household
broadband penetration is well in excess of 100 per cent in mid 2010.
Apart from the high household penetration, public access is especially
good. Singapore’s Wireless@SG initiative has put in place more than
5,000 public hotspots around the island. Also, over 50 per cent of
mobile users are 3G subscribers and mobile operators are already
trialling LTE.
Despite these successes, Singapore has not allowed itself to become
complacent. The island state remains keen to build on its excellent
technology base. The industry regulator’s vision of unlimited bandwidth
and “supercomputing-on-demand”, accessible anywhere and anytime is
quickly becoming a reality. The government and operators have continued
to maintain a strong commitment to making broadband Internet access
widely available to the population while at the same time raising the
quality of access. Initiatives such as the Next generation National
Infocomm Infrastructure (Next Gen NII) are extremely successful. Moving
forward, the Next Generation National Broadband Network (NGNBN)
initiative is well under way.
The fibre roll-out reached 30 per cent coverage by May 2010, and is on
track to reach 60 per cent of households by end 2010; giving Singapore
an open access fibre network with potential speeds of 1 Gbps and above
per user. It is evident from the level of intense activity that the
iN2015 master plan is on track to be fully implemented, further
consolidating Singapore’s position as one of the outstanding
telecommunications markets in Asia.
terryc
> The NBN is fibring every house in Australia - which is a total waste of
> money and resources.
Nope, it is only fibreing those that sign up, which means replacing old
copper with a newer medium.
>
>>>
>>> And BTW, all the buildings are *already* fibred.
>>
>> No they aren't. Barely any are. I can't wait for fibre to arrive.
>
> Please cite a building that isn't fibred.
My house, my two back sheds, a mates business in fact just about every
business in the suburbs of Sydney. A few office towers in the sydney CBD
is not every building.
Peter Webb
"keithr" <ke...@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
news:4d64...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
There is no competition, despite what the introductory paragraph says;
SingTel is a defacto monopoly with strong connections to Lee Kwan Yew's
family. They can charge whatever they like.
Furthermore, Singapore has a population density of 2,469 times that of
Australia, which does somewhat distort the market economics of fibre vs
mobile.
Does this explain it sufficiently well for you?
Peter Webb
Explain to me how wiring your two back sheds with fibre isn't a "waste of
money and resources" ?
What exactly do you do in there?
Rod Speed
>>>> You people are trolls. Not even understanding what wireless is and
>>>> the new advances in lte which is twice as fast as fibre optic cabling.
>>>> Singapore moving to satelitte lte which is faster than rolling out
>>>> cables everywhere. Just shows how dumb Aussies really are.
>>> Nobody has mentioned the fact that 4G Wireless wipes out GPS
>>> receivers for a 5 mile radius.
>> Because its a lie.
>>> Tests recently carried out in the USA demonstrated that 4G
>>> caused complete loss of signal and navigation in airborne
>>> GPS navigation systems for distances of up to 5 miles,
>> Thats nothing like the previous lie.
>>> and partial signal loss for several miles more. This is because the 4G
>>> frequency allocation is directly adjacent to the Civilian GPS frequency.
>> That is a bare faced lie.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS#Satellite_frequencies
>>> While this problem can be remedied (according to the 4G operator)
>>> by the installation of filters, there is no cure for all the vehicle mounted,
>>> cellphone fitted, camera equipped etc systems that use inbuilt antennas.
>> Another pig ignorant lie.
> Before you go around libeling people and calling them liars,
I call a spade a spade and a liar a liar. Thats not libel, thats accurate characterisation.
> you really ought to do a little reading first.
Did that, and rubbed your stupid pig ignorant nose in the FACT
of the GPS frequencys being nowhere near those used by 4G.
> Then shut the fuck up.
Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there, child.
> http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/4G_Broadband_May_Jam_GPS_204069-1.html
That says MAY, liar.
And the FCC clearly doesnt buy the claims in that steaming turd anyway.
And we aint gunna use the L band for 4G ANYWAY, fool.
> Before you
Another of your permature ejaculations eh child ?
Rod Speed
> keithr <ke...@nowhere.com.au> wrote
>> Brad wrote
>>>> Because its a lie.
>>>> Another pig ignorant lie.
> Agreed.
So your original was a lie, as I said.
> Telstra deviated from international standards with its
> NextG system that is not compatible anywhere else.
Thats another lie. They were the first major to use that, but they aint alone anymore.
> However, they have made the claim that their new 4G system will be internationally compatible.
But they have NEVER said that it will be done in the L band.
They dont even own any bandwidth there.
> I do not know if that also includes the USA, famous for being
> different, but it is a concern to me at least that Telstra may
> have adopted a system that causes such interference.
They havent, they dont even own any L band bandwidth that could be used for LTE.
Rod Speed
> Brad wrote
>>>> B J Fosterbjfos...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote
>>>>> LuR wrote
>>>>>> http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/wireless-camp-uninfo...
>>>>>> Read and learn all you wireless converts.
>>>>> "Mr Quigley yesterday dismissed claims that wireless could meet burgeoning demand from iPads and smart phones.
>>>>> ''Far from proof that fibre will be redundant, the 4G
>>>>> announcement is very good news for the NBN roll-out,'' Mr Quigley
>>>>> told a Senate estimates hearing in Canberra. ''While people like
>>>>> the convenience of their wireless devices, fixed networks are and
>>>>> will continue to be the workhorse of data download.''
>>>>> He also attacked the level of public debate on the issue, saying much of it was ''uninformed'' and ''ignored the
>>>>> physics and economics of how networks actually work''".
>>>>> Lovely. Let's ignore the economics, the cost being between 10 and 24 times what it *should* be and deal with
>>>>> *physics*:
>>>>> How will I be able to plug into the fibre on every street corner?
>>>> How will I be able to use 4G from deep within a steel clad
>>>> building? There is absolutley a need for fibre. How else are they
>>>> going to get broadband to the 4G transmitters in the first place?
>
>>> Why on earth would you use wireless inside a building? That *is* an
>>> appropriate use of fibre.
>> That was the point I was making.
> The NBN is fibring every house in Australia -
Another lie. They dont even propose to do that, only 93%, and
since federal Labor wont be in govt for anything like the 10 years
they claim it will take, it wont get anywhere near 93% either.
> which is a total waste of money and resources.
Not if they flog it off for more than it costs.
>>> And BTW, all the buildings are *already* fibred.
>> No they aren't. Barely any are. I can't wait for fibre to arrive.
> Please cite a building that isn't fibred.
Most small business buildings, fool.
will_s
>
>
> Read and learn all you wireless converts.
Part of the argument could be that you dont need cable to the houses but
just from the exchanges/mobile towers
Personally I dont trust Telstra, they restricted our ADSL 1 speeds for
years and have not really looked interest in promoting anything but
their own ADSL copper system. Now they are reacting because they are on
the outer.
Rod Speed
> LuR wrote
>> http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/wireless-camp-uninformed-about-cable-says-nbn-boss-20110222-1b43f.html
Nope, they have been improving their wireless system for as long as they have had one.
terryc
> Explain to me how wiring your two back sheds with fibre isn't a "waste
> of money and resources" ?
I'm happy to wire it myself.
>
> What exactly do you do in there?
{:-).
Okay, it isn't what is done in there, but where it is and the view.
Wotawonderfulworld
@news.eternal-september.org:
This is all great but the net is only as fast as the device on the other
end supplying the info.
And pray by chance, are they upgrading the connection accross the pond ? If
not its only going to help accessing places in Aus,
At least i could read the papers quicker i suppose.
I live a couple of k off the Princes Hwy in NSW, and were not even on the
NBN's horizon. And Wireless don't work in hills.
Oh goody for me.
Rod Speed
> terryc <newsnine...@woa.com.au> wrote
>> Peter Webb wrote
>>> Explain to me how wiring your two back sheds
>>> with fibre isn't a "waste of money and resources" ?
>> I'm happy to wire it myself.
>>> What exactly do you do in there?
>> {:-).
>> Okay, it isn't what is done in there, but where it is and the view.
> This is all great but the net is only as fast as the device on the
> other end supplying the info.
Its often about the speed of what is between them.
> And pray by chance, are they upgrading the connection accross the pond ?
There isnt just one connection and they are always being upgraded.
> If not its only going to help accessing places in Aus,
And that is what much of the need for the higher speed is with.
> At least i could read the papers quicker i suppose.
And get blue ray and better quality video quicker too.
> I live a couple of k off the Princes Hwy in
> NSW, and were not even on the NBN's horizon.
You could always hang yourself.
> And Wireless don't work in hills.
Pigs arse it doesnt.
> Oh goody for me.
Do the decent thing and set fire to yourself or sumfin.
Peter Webb
> Peter Webb wrote:
>
>> Explain to me how wiring your two back sheds with fibre isn't a "waste of
>> money and resources" ?
>
> I'm happy to wire it myself.
So you aren't going to ask the government to do it?
What about wiring up the house of a pensioner who only uses the phone?
The NBN will spend (on average) $4,000 to wire up a house with a fibre optic
connection. If they only use the telephone, how is this not a waste of time
and resources?
>>
>> What exactly do you do in there?
>
> {:-).
>
> Okay, it isn't what is done in there, but where it is and the view.
What speed have you got to your back sheds now?
Eunometic
Cheaper to rollout, much faster to rollout.
Rod Speed
> terryc <newsnine...@woa.com.au> wrote
>> Peter Webb wrote
>>> Explain to me how wiring your two back sheds with fibre isn't a "waste of money and resources" ?
>> I'm happy to wire it myself.
> So you aren't going to ask the government to do it?
> What about wiring up the house of a pensioner who only uses the phone?
> The NBN will spend (on average) $4,000 to wire up a house with a fibre optic connection.
The average is irrelevant, what matters is the marginal cost for that particular house.
> If they only use the telephone, how is this not a waste of time and resources?
No one is holding a gun to their head and forcing them to have the NBN in that situation.
Rod Speed
> LuR <w...@hotmail.com> wrote
> Cheaper to rollout, much faster to rollout.
And nowhere near the capability.
Sfinx
>
> >Read and learn all you wireless converts.
>
> and getting rolled out by Telstra in many cities of Australia.
>
>
> Wireless lte is ready now. The nbn going to take 10 years to roll out
> at a huge cost of 43b in todays money but likely to be over 80b by the
> time its finished.
>
By the time is completed (providing that will be completed) new and
cheaper alternatives will be on the market.
SG1
"Peter Webb" <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4d65da5f$0$22472$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
As long as it is not Roddles we are OK.....
>
>
Peter Webb
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8sm825...@mid.individual.net...
> Peter Webb wrote
>> terryc <newsnine...@woa.com.au> wrote
>>> Peter Webb wrote
>
>>>> Explain to me how wiring your two back sheds with fibre isn't a "waste
>>>> of money and resources" ?
>
>>> I'm happy to wire it myself.
>
>> So you aren't going to ask the government to do it?
>
>> What about wiring up the house of a pensioner who only uses the phone?
>
>> The NBN will spend (on average) $4,000 to wire up a house with a fibre
>> optic connection.
>
> The average is irrelevant, what matters is the marginal cost for that
> particular house.
>
No, the total cost matters.
>> If they only use the telephone, how is this not a waste of time and
>> resources?
>
> No one is holding a gun to their head and forcing them to have the NBN in
> that situation.
>
Yes they are. They are destroying billions of dollars worth of
infrastructure by ripping up existing copper pairs and coax. How is the
pensioner supposed to have a landline except by paying the NBN? How is
ripping up their existing phone lines and telling them they have to buy a
fibre connection if they want a landline *not* holding a gun to their heads?
And how is this not a waste of money? You rip up existing infrastructure
(purely for the purposes of eliminating competition), lay more expensive
infrastructure, and then use it to provide exactly te same service?
>>>> What exactly do you do in there?
>
>>> {:-).
>
>>> Okay, it isn't what is done in there, but where it is and the view.
>
>> What speed have you got to your back sheds now?
>
What speeds have you got to your back sheds now?
Eunometic
Baloney
1000Mbits peak, 70Mbit to real consumers download about half that
upload. Fixed antena commerical users can in theory get close to the
full rate.
Factor in that a hell of a lot of domestic users have got excellent
coverage from Bigpond/Foxtell and OptusVision Cable Modems at 30Mbits,
that ADSL2+ often does work to full speed and that many businesses
already have professional grade lines then it is obvious that the new
wireless systems can fill in the gaps fast and efficient. Ultimatly
of course it is mobile devices that are proving to be more important
than fibre.. Fibre to the home can be introduced slowly and
progressively.
Rod Speed
>>> http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/wireless-camp-uninfo...
Not a chance.
> new and cheaper alternatives will be on the market.
Not ones with anything like the capability.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Explain to me how wiring your two back sheds with fibre isn't a "waste of money and resources" ?
>>>> I'm happy to wire it myself.
>>> So you aren't going to ask the government to do it?
>>> What about wiring up the house of a pensioner who only uses the phone?
>>> The NBN will spend (on average) $4,000 to wire up a house with a
>>> fibre optic connection.
>> The average is irrelevant, what matters is the marginal cost for that particular house.
> No,
Yep.
> the total cost matters.
The total cost doesnt vary that much if you include those houses.
>>> If they only use the telephone, how is this not a waste of time and resources?
>> No one is holding a gun to their head and forcing them to have the NBN in that situation.
> Yes they are.
No they arent.
> They are destroying billions of dollars worth of infrastructure by ripping up existing copper pairs and coax.
They wont be allowed to do that.
> How is the pensioner supposed to have a landline except by paying the NBN?
By continuing to the use the copper network they wont be allowed to rip out.
> How is ripping up their existing phone lines and telling them they have to buy a fibre connection if they want a
> landline
That isnt happening.
> *not* holding a gun to their heads?
When its not happening.
> And how is this not a waste of money?
Because you get much more capability and it wont necessarily
cost anything either when its sold off when completed or terminated.
> You rip up existing infrastructure (purely for the purposes of eliminating competition),
They wont be allowed to do that, because thats illegal.
> lay more expensive infrastructure, and then use it to provide exactly te same service?
It doesnt provide exactly the same service.
>>>>> What exactly do you do in there?
>>>> {:-).
>>>> Okay, it isn't what is done in there, but where it is and the view.
>>> What speed have you got to your back sheds now?
> What speeds have you got to your back sheds now?
I dont have any sheds, back or otherwise.
debri
I do not really understand how this works but I have changed
the groups line as I am not going outside of aus.computers
with my two cents worth./slash
>> No one is holding a gun to their head and forcing them to have the NBN in
>> that situation.
>>
>
>Yes they are. They are destroying billions of dollars worth of
>infrastructure by ripping up existing copper pairs and coax. How is the
>pensioner supposed to have a landline except by paying the NBN? How is
>ripping up their existing phone lines and telling them they have to buy a
>fibre connection if they want a landline *not* holding a gun to their heads?
>
than 40 years old in many many cases in rural areas?
The lines and boxes fall over at the slightest sniff of moisture.
A huge factor for the tropics in interrupting communication.
TC Yasi has just cleaned up maybe one third of Queensland.
Once the mobile phones died there was no communication.
The land line was not working.
Same for TC Larry.
Same for TC Winifred.
We get rain and the phone drops out.
We get lightning and the phone drops out.
We get a high tide and the phone drops out.
>And how is this not a waste of money? You rip up existing infrastructure
>(purely for the purposes of eliminating competition), lay more expensive
>infrastructure, and then use it to provide exactly te same service?
>
The same service in an improved carrier?
I will have some of that thank you.
I just want a reliable telephone service.
Not too much to ask in 2011??
I have been paying $30/month line rental for more than 38
years, do you reckon I have paid for the new fangled fibre
thingy a few times over - given the compounding dollar
value??
Why isn't Telstra installing fibre for _no cost_?
Tell you something?
If the guys turned up tomorrow with their trencher and roll
of cable I would be out there on the shovel. Yes, that keen to
finally possess a reliable telephone service!
The world moves on fella.. do not leave us "pensioner types"
behind simply because you want to chat to your love pillow
on Skype whilst filling the seat at my bus-stop!
Rod Speed
>>> Cheaper to rollout, much faster to rollout.
>> And nowhere near the capability.
> Baloney
Fact.
> 1000Mbits peak,
Not when anyone else is using it too.
> 70Mbit to real consumers download about half that upload.
And the NBN leaves that for dead.
> Fixed antena commerical users can in theory get close to the full rate.
Like hell they can if anyone else is using it a the same time.
> Factor in that a hell of a lot of domestic users have got excellent coverage
> from Bigpond/Foxtell and OptusVision Cable Modems at 30Mbits,
Fuck all continue to use cable.
Fuck all get that simultaneously on the same cable segment.
> that ADSL2+ often does work to full speed
Fact remains that it is fast enough for most.
> and that many businesses already have professional grade lines
Fuck all do in fact.
> then it is obvious that the new wireless systems can fill in the gaps fast and efficient.
Pigs arse it can with downloading blue ray or better quality video.
> Ultimatly of course it is mobile devices that are proving to be more important than fibre..
Another pig ignorant lie. Only light net uses have just wireles.
> Fibre to the home can be introduced slowly and progressively.
Thats whats happening. 10 years is just that.
SG1
"Eunometic" <euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:58b4388d-1de8-46d6...@o21g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Baloney
You started off on wireless then jumped to cable. Would you like to redo
your arguement so you stick to what the masses have or will get.
Peter Webb
They are doing that. If they didn't rip up the copper, very few people would
pay te additional for fibre.
>
>> How is the pensioner supposed to have a landline except by paying the
>> NBN?
>
> By continuing to the use the copper network they wont be allowed to rip
> out.
>
They are ripping it out.
If you want a landline, then you have to use fibre and the NBN.
Who would bother going to fibre if they could get what they wanted (eg a
phone line) cheaper with existing copper?
>> How is ripping up their existing phone lines and telling them they have
>> to buy a fibre connection if they want a landline
>
> That isnt happening.
It is happening. The copper network will be removed. You have no choice if
you want any form of landline - even just a telephone - other than to pay
for and use NBN's fibre.
>
>> *not* holding a gun to their heads?
>
> When its not happening.
>
>> And how is this not a waste of money?
>
> Because you get much more capability and it wont necessarily
> cost anything either when its sold off when completed or terminated.
>
What more functionality will the pensioner who has no interest in the
internet get?
>> You rip up existing infrastructure (purely for the purposes of
>> eliminating competition),
>
> They wont be allowed to do that, because thats illegal.
No, its not.
"The Business Case is based on the assumption that a deal is finalised and
approved between NBN Co and Telstra Corp following the signing of a
Financial Heads of Agreement in June 2010.
Key benefits of a binding agreement include:
* Progressive disconnection of copper and HFC services and decommissioning
and deactivation of Telstra's copper and HFC networks as the FTTP network is
rolled out"
From
http://www.nbnco.com.au/wps/wcm/connect/f51ca700451bd3d48ec8ef15331e6bbb/NBN+Corporate+Plan+press+release+FINAL.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=f51ca700451bd3d48ec8ef15331e6bbb
but it has been very widely reported.
>
>> lay more expensive infrastructure, and then use it to provide exactly te
>> same service?
>
> It doesnt provide exactly the same service.
How is the Pensioner's phone on fibre going to be different to a Pensioners
phone on copper?
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Peter Webb wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Peter Webb wrote
>>>>> terryc <newsnine...@woa.com.au> wrote
>>>>>> Peter Webb wrote
>>>>>>> Explain to me how wiring your two back sheds with fibre isn't a "waste of money and resources" ?
>>>>>> I'm happy to wire it myself.
>>>>> So you aren't going to ask the government to do it?
>>>>> What about wiring up the house of a pensioner who only uses the phone?
>>>>> The NBN will spend (on average) $4,000 to wire up a house with a fibre optic connection.
>>>> The average is irrelevant, what matters is the marginal cost for that particular house.
>>> No,
>> Yep.
>>> the total cost matters.
>> The total cost doesnt vary that much if you include those houses.
>>>>> If they only use the telephone, how is this not a waste of time and resources?
>>>> No one is holding a gun to their head and forcing them to have the NBN in that situation.
>>> Yes they are.
>> No they arent.
>>> They are destroying billions of dollars worth of infrastructure by ripping up existing copper pairs and coax.
>> They wont be allowed to do that.
> They are doing that.
Like hell they are. Name one place in which the copper has been
ripped out and replaced by the NBN. You cant, it doesnt exist.
> If they didn't rip up the copper, very few people would pay te additional for fibre.
They connect it to the houses that want it for free.
>>> How is the pensioner supposed to have a landline except by paying the NBN?
>> By continuing to the use the copper network they wont be allowed to rip out.
> They are ripping it out.
Like hell they are. Name one place in which the copper has been
ripped out and replaced by the NBN. You cant, it doesnt exist.
> If you want a landline, then you have to use fibre and the NBN.
Another bare faced pig ignorant lie.
Telsta aint allowed to rip out the copper network, their shareholders
aint signed off on that and even if they do, the ACCC wont allow it.
> Who would bother going to fibre if they could get what they wanted (eg a phone line) cheaper with existing copper?
It doesnt cost them any more for a phone service on the NBN.
>>> How is ripping up their existing phone lines and telling them they have to buy a fibre connection if they want a
>>> landline
>> That isnt happening.
> It is happening.
Like hell they are. Name one place in which the copper has been
ripped out and replaced by the NBN. You cant, it doesnt exist.
Telsta aint allowed to rip out the copper network, their shareholders
aint signed off on that and even if they do, the ACCC wont allow it.
> The copper network will be removed.
No it wont, the ACCC wont allow it.
> You have no choice if you want any form of landline - even just a telephone - other than to pay for and use NBN's
> fibre.
Wrong, as always.
>>> *not* holding a gun to their heads?
>> When its not happening.
>>> And how is this not a waste of money?
>> Because you get much more capability and it wont necessarily
>> cost anything either when its sold off when completed or terminated.
> What more functionality will the pensioner who has no interest in the internet get?
That pensioner is completely irrelevant.
>>> You rip up existing infrastructure (purely for the purposes of eliminating competition),
>> They wont be allowed to do that, because thats illegal.
> No, its not.
Yes it is. It flouts the TPA on competition.
> "The Business Case is based on the assumption that a deal is
> finalised and approved between NBN Co and Telstra Corp following the signing of a Financial Heads of Agreement in June
> 2010.
Irrelevant to whether its illegal.
> Key benefits of a binding agreement include:
> * Progressive disconnection of copper and HFC services and decommissioning and deactivation of Telstra's copper and
> HFC networks as the FTTP network is rolled out"
Irrelevant to whether its illegal.
> From
http://www.nbnco.com.au/wps/wcm/connect/f51ca700451bd3d48ec8ef15331e6bbb/NBN+Corporate+Plan+press+release+FINAL.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=f51ca700451bd3d48ec8ef15331e6bbb> but it has been very widely reported.By fuckwits who cant grasp that its illegal.>>> lay more expensive infrastructure, and then use it to provide exactly te same service?>> It doesnt provide exactly the same service.> How is the Pensioner's phone on fibre going to be different to a Pensioners phone on copper?The pensioner is completely irrelevant.>>>>>>> What exactly do you do in there?>>>>>> {:-).>>>>>> Okay, it isn't what is done in there, but where it is and the view.>>>>> What speed have you got to your back sheds now?>>> What speeds have you got to your back sheds now?>> I dont have any sheds, back or otherwise.
keithr
The character calling himself "Eddy" proclaimed that Singapore was using
satellite not fibre when, in fact, they are rolling out fibre like there
is no tomorrow. The comparative economics of fibre there and here, and
Singapore politics are of no relevance to what was being discussed
Peter Webb
The NBN doesn't exist, except in a street in Tasmania.
I gave you a link to where the NBN said itself that they were ripping up the
copper.
>> If they didn't rip up the copper, very few people would pay te additional
>> for fibre.
>
> They connect it to the houses that want it for free.
Which means its costing all of us.
>
>>>> How is the pensioner supposed to have a landline except by paying the
>>>> NBN?
>
>>> By continuing to the use the copper network they wont be allowed to rip
>>> out.
>
>> They are ripping it out.
>
> Like hell they are. Name one place in which the copper has been
> ripped out and replaced by the NBN. You cant, it doesnt exist.
The NBN doesn't exist, except in a street in Tasmania.
I gave you a link to where the NBN said itself that they were ripping up the
copper.
>
>> If you want a landline, then you have to use fibre and the NBN.
>
> Another bare faced pig ignorant lie.
>
> Telsta aint allowed to rip out the copper network, their shareholders
> aint signed off on that and even if they do, the ACCC wont allow it.
Telstra is selling the copper network to NBN; that is what the legislation
last year was about. Assuming that Telstra shareholders agree, NBN takes
over the copper network (including Telstra's Foxtel coaxial distribution
network), which gets ripped up be the NBN as soon as fibre is bedded down at
that location.
>
>> Who would bother going to fibre if they could get what they wanted (eg a
>> phone line) cheaper with existing copper?
>
> It doesnt cost them any more for a phone service on the NBN.
>
Because it is costing you and me.
It costs $4,000 to connect each house; if all they are doing is using the
phone it is completely wasted.
>>>> How is ripping up their existing phone lines and telling them they have
>>>> to buy a fibre connection if they want a landline
>
>>> That isnt happening.
>
>> It is happening.
>
> Like hell they are. Name one place in which the copper has been
> ripped out and replaced by the NBN. You cant, it doesnt exist.
>
> Telsta aint allowed to rip out the copper network, their shareholders
> aint signed off on that and even if they do, the ACCC wont allow it.
>
>> The copper network will be removed.
>
> No it wont, the ACCC wont allow it.
Ohh, and BTW, the enabling legislation for the NBN excludes its monopoly as
being subject to the Trade Practices Act and it hence falls outside the
jurisdiction of the ACCC.
Of course, it *is* a monopoly, they describe themselves as such, and private
monopolies are illegal. They are above this part of the law.
>
>> You have no choice if you want any form of landline - even just a
>> telephone - other than to pay for and use NBN's fibre.
>
> Wrong, as always.
I gave you the link to NBN's own website which said differently.
>
>>>> *not* holding a gun to their heads?
>
>>> When its not happening.
>
>>>> And how is this not a waste of money?
>
>>> Because you get much more capability and it wont necessarily
>>> cost anything either when its sold off when completed or terminated.
>
>> What more functionality will the pensioner who has no interest in the
>> internet get?
>
> That pensioner is completely irrelevant.
>
>>>> You rip up existing infrastructure (purely for the purposes of
>>>> eliminating competition),
>
>>> They wont be allowed to do that, because thats illegal.
>
>> No, its not.
>
> Yes it is. It flouts the TPA on competition.
Which is why it is exempt.
>
>> "The Business Case is based on the assumption that a deal is
>> finalised and approved between NBN Co and Telstra Corp following the
>> signing of a Financial Heads of Agreement in June 2010.
>
> Irrelevant to whether its illegal.
>
>> Key benefits of a binding agreement include:
>> * Progressive disconnection of copper and HFC services and
>> decommissioning and deactivation of Telstra's copper and HFC networks as
>> the FTTP network is rolled out"
>
> Irrelevant to whether its illegal.
>
I never said it was illegal.
I said they were ripping up the copper network, which was a huge waste of
public infrastructure.
The NBN seems to agree with me.
>> From
>
> http://www.nbnco.com.au/wps/wcm/connect/f51ca700451bd3d48ec8ef15331e6bbb/NBN+Corporate+Plan+press+release+FINAL.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=f51ca700451bd3d48ec8ef15331e6bbb>
> but it has been very widely reported.By fuckwits who cant grasp that its
> illegal.>>> lay more expensive infrastructure, and then use it to provide
> exactly te same service?>> It doesnt provide exactly the same service.>
> How is the Pensioner's phone on fibre going to be different to a
> Pensioners phone on copper?The pensioner is completely irrelevant.>>>>>>>
> What exactly do you do in there?>>>>>> {:-).>>>>>> Okay, it isn't what is
> done in there, but where it is and the view.>>>>> What speed have you got
> to your back sheds now?>>> What speeds have you got to your back sheds
> now?>> I dont have any sheds, back or otherwise.
>
Dunno what happened there.
In practice, you need at least a 300 baud modem to access text newsgroups.
Are you sure your internet connection is up to it?
Jacko
>snip
> What more functionality will the pensioner who has no interest in the
> internet get?
>
demand fast broadband because they have been using the internet etc for most
of their lives.
Regards,
Jacko.
B J Foster
> You started off on wireless then jumped to cable. Would you like to redo
> your arguement so you stick to what the masses have or will get.
Some of us already have *both* wireless and cable (30%). Ripping out the
cable - or at least making us pay for fibre which we don't is stupid.
Forcing us to adopt a fixed network solution is also stupid.
B J Foster
>> Wireless lte is ready now. The nbn going to take 10 years to roll out
>> > at a huge cost of 43b in todays money but likely to be over 80b by the
>> > time its finished.
>> >
> By the time is completed (providing that will be completed) new and
> cheaper alternatives will be on the market.
The progression of communication technology is toward broader reach and
access. The ideal is wireless-everywhere supported by a fixed network
backbone, i.e. a mix of technologies (please see Coalition policy!).
Fixed network everywhere is just a stupid waste of money.
The technology advances will come in terms of compression technology and
information theory,
e.g. you don't have to refresh the whole screen, only the bits that change.
e.g. you don't need ACK packets for video. If a frame gets lost, no
point in retrying.
A technical debate is being held by a bunch of chattering monkeys with
not an Engineer in sight.
NBNCo is hiring unqualified people - starting at the top!
Peter Webb
"Jacko" <r_ja...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:f5p9p.11143$gM3....@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com...
What will they use is it for?
Teleconferencing with their grandchildren?
They could do that now if they wanted. Some do.
I have had 6 Mbps or greater broadband for over 10 years, and can't say I
have ever seen a need for higher speed. And I am a heavy internet user.
bringyagrogalong
> Sfinx wrote:
>
> >> Wireless lte is ready now. The nbn going to take 10 years to roll out
> >> >
> >> > at a huge cost of 43b in todays money but likely to be over 80b by the
> >> > time its finished.
>
> > By the time is completed (providing that will be completed) new and
> > cheaper alternatives will be on the market.
>
> The progression of communication technology is toward broader reach and
> access. The ideal is wireless-everywhere supported by a fixed network
> backbone, i.e. a mix of technologies (please see Coalition policy!).
“Wireless can never deliver equivalent services to fibre,” according
to network engineering consultant Narelle Clark. But what the
Coalition’s “affordable broadband” policy could deliver is a wireless
base station at the end of every street in the outer suburbs and
country towns.
Unlike most of Labor’s National Broadband Network (NBN), which uses
optical fibre to deliver data, the Coalition’s Plan for Real Action on
Broadband and Telecommunications would see carriers roll out fixed
wireless networks where existing fixed-wire networks could not be
upgraded. “We will commit up to an additional $1 billion in investment
funding for new fixed wireless networks in metropolitan Australia,
with an emphasis on outer metropolitan areas,” the policy says.
Opposition leader Tony Abbott continued to talk up the merits of
wireless broadband on ABC-TV’s Insiders yesterday. “Let’s not assume
that we should put all our eggs in [Labor’s] high fibre basket
either,” he said.
In an interview recorded for this week’s Patch Monday podcast, Clark
said that because fibre is a contained medium, you can use 100% of the
available electromagnetic spectrum.
“In wireless, you’ve got to do a spectrum plan, where you carve up
slices of the available spectrum, and only broadcast on the bits
you’re allowed to broadcast on,” she said. The limited spectrum is
shared by every customer who’s connected via the same cell tower. If
fixed wireless becomes the main internet connection for every
household, each customer ends up with only a small share of the total
— unless you add more towers spaced more closely.”
What would that mean? “In order to get those 100 megabit speeds and
beyond you’d need to be installing a base station around about on
every suburban block,” she said. “At the end of every street there’d
need to be a base station.”
There! You and Stink have learnt something, now don't come back until
you've digested the information.
Fucking Cowboys!
Peter Webb
"B J Foster" <bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:4d662db8$0$13391$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> On 24/02/2011 4:25 PM, Sfinx wrote:
>>> Wireless lte is ready now. The nbn going to take 10 years to roll out
>>> > at a huge cost of 43b in todays money but likely to be over 80b by
>>> > the
>>> > time its finished.
>>> >
>> By the time is completed (providing that will be completed) new and
>> cheaper alternatives will be on the market.
>
> The progression of communication technology is toward broader reach and
> access. The ideal is wireless-everywhere supported by a fixed network
> backbone, i.e. a mix of technologies (please see Coalition policy!).
>
> Fixed network everywhere is just a stupid waste of money.
>
> The technology advances will come in terms of compression technology and
> information theory,
And higher frequencies, smaller cell sizes, electronically steerable (phase
array) antennas and other areas.
> e.g. you don't have to refresh the whole screen, only the bits that
> change.
> e.g. you don't need ACK packets for video. If a frame gets lost, no point
> in retrying.
>
Ex-fucking-actly. If you are running a forms style app, all you need is
Citrix speed. No application of any type that runs a full HD TV flat out can
need more than an HDTV channel equivalent, as you just run the application
centrally and connect the video with HDTV.
> A technical debate is being held by a bunch of chattering monkeys with not
> an Engineer in sight.
>
They do seem to know a lot more about "future applications as yet unknown"
than I do.
> NBNCo is hiring unqualified people - starting at the top!
I would assume that is true. However, even if they were competent they would
still go on about what a great idea it is; after all, its their job.
Peter Webb
"bringyagrogalong" <sof...@aapt.net.au> wrote in message
news:7cdb6853-34b0-4f6f...@8g2000prt.googlegroups.com...
Fucking Cowboys!
_________________________________
Fortunately, a wireless data base station is about the size of a packet of
cigarettes so nobody would even know they were there without a map of where
to find it.
Fucking Idiot!
B J Foster
Same here - and it is capable of 30Mbps or more. Ask Optus how many
people have taken up the offer of superfast cable. Hardly any - no-one
really needs it. The stupidity of it all is astounding.
Conroy's 'expert group' needs to be named and shamed.
B J Foster
> B J Foster<bjfos...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>> > Sfinx wrote:
>> >
>>>> > >> Wireless lte is ready now. The nbn going to take 10 years to roll out
>>>>> > >> >
>>>>> > >> > at a huge cost of 43b in todays money but likely to be over 80b by the
>>>>> > >> > time its finished.
>> >
>>> > > By the time is completed (providing that will be completed) new and
>>> > > cheaper alternatives will be on the market.
>> >
>> > The progression of communication technology is toward broader reach and
>> > access. The ideal is wireless-everywhere supported by a fixed network
>> > backbone, i.e. a mix of technologies (please see Coalition policy!).
> “Wireless can never deliver equivalent services to fibre,” according
> to network engineering consultant Narelle Clark. But what the
> Coalition’s “affordable broadband” policy could deliver is a wireless
> base station at the end of every street in the outer suburbs and
> country towns.
A wireless base station at the end of every street (assuming 100Mbps is
required) is much cheaper, much less disruptive and a lot quicker to
implement that DIGGING UP EVERY FUCKING STREET. Labor morons!
Eunometic
> Eunometic wrote
>
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >> Eunometic wrote:
> >>> LuR <w...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >>> Cheaper to rollout, much faster to rollout.
> >> And nowhere near the capability.
> > Baloney
>
> Fact.
>
> > 1000Mbits peak,
>
> Not when anyone else is using it too.
Each user has their own searchlight like electronically formed beam
which directs the radiowave to the user and the user only. It will be
focused enough to tend to pick up upload signal only from the users.
It uses a type of antena called a phased array. The narrowness of the
beam means that interferance between users is limited and that
frequencies can be reused across beams. Advanced antena concepts such
as MIMO will further increase realisable bandwidth.
B J Foster
> slices of the available spectrum, and only broadcast on the bits
> you’re allowed to broadcast on,” she said. The limited spectrum is
> shared by every customer who’s connected via the same cell tower. If
> fixed wireless becomes the main internet connection for every
> household, each customer ends up with only a small share of the total
> — unless you add more towers spaced more closely.”
In the real world, resources are shared. In the Labor fantasy world,
capital is unlimited and no-one cares if projects slip & slide over
budget - and when it finally dawns on the morons that someone has to pay
for the grand designs, then tax is unlimited. Unbelievable that you and
other morons are defending spending $10,000 per home when 30% of us
ALREADY HAVE broadband, 30% more ALREADY HAVE ADSL2 and another 30% are
ALREADY REACHABLE BY 3/4G.
The money is better spent on other things - mental health, for example.
You should be a big supporter.
Eunometic
> "Eunometic" <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
Cable should be installed in all new suburbs and high-rise. That
makes sense.
There are a few out of date exchanges around, its silly that they
haven't been upgraded to current copperline standards. It migh make
sense in some cases to upgrade these. In general however VHDSL2+ can
provide up to 250Mbits over existing copperlines.
bringyagrogalong
David Maslen
> Same here - and it is capable of 30Mbps or more. Ask Optus how many
> people have taken up the offer of superfast cable. Hardly any - no-one
> really needs it. The stupidity of it all is astounding.
Back in the 90's I remember thinking that if I could afford a 14400 bd
modem I'd have more speed than I knew what to do with, and given I was
using text based unix systems and bulletin boards, I probably wasn't far
off. I couldn't imagine skyping my children's grand parents, which is
quite common these days.
It wasn't that long ago that I was using 10mb lan cabling, and now I'm
probably a lagard for using 100mb, when 1000mb is commonly available.
I suspect applications will develop around whatever infrastructure is
built, but it has to be affordable, and your point that people don't
value 30mbs at todays pricing seems very reasonable.
Jacko
Why do I hear an echo of an IBM Exec stating the world would only have use
for 4 computers! You cannot possibly know the needs of people in 2025. By
your reckoning the Sydney Harbour Bridge,
Snowy Mountain Scheme or the Opera House would never have been built. I'm
glad you have had 6 Mbps broadband for over 10 years, I was finally able to
get ADSL1 some months ago, I have no mobile coverage at all, so why can I
not enjoy the same service as you AT THE SAME PRICE.
Regards,
Jacko.
Gordon Levi
There is no point in having a consumer broadband connection that is
significantly faster than everyone else. No one is going to provide
the content to match it. The only reason I bought Telstra's 30 Mbs
connection is because I wanted their (pathetic) 1 Mbs upload.
It is not surprising that the few hundred Tasmanians that have very
high speed broadband don't have content to make use of it. It _is_
surprising that some opponents of the NBN use that as an argument
against the NBN.
>
>Conroy's 'expert group' needs to be named and shamed.
It was named when it was formed <http://tinyurl.com/2s82ey>. I'll
leave you to try to shame them.
Peter Webb
> Peter Webb wrote:
>> "Jacko" <r_ja...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>> news:f5p9p.11143$gM3....@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com...
>>> Peter Webb wrote:
>>>> snip
>>>> What more functionality will the pensioner who has no interest in
>>>> the internet get?
>>>>
>>> You are talking about the pensioner of 2011, the pensioner of 2025
>>> will demand fast broadband because they have been using the internet
>>> etc for most of their lives.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Jacko.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> What will they use is it for?
>>
>> Teleconferencing with their grandchildren?
>>
>> They could do that now if they wanted. Some do.
>>
>> I have had 6 Mbps or greater broadband for over 10 years, and can't
>> say I have ever seen a need for higher speed. And I am a heavy
>> internet user.
>
> Why do I hear an echo of an IBM Exec stating the world would only have use
> for 4 computers! You cannot possibly know the needs of people in 2025. By
> your reckoning the Sydney Harbour Bridge,
> Snowy Mountain Scheme or the Opera House would never have been built.
Just because some public infrastructure ideas are good doesn't mean they all
are.
> I'm glad you have had 6 Mbps broadband for over 10 years, I was finally
> able to get ADSL1 some months ago, I have no mobile coverage at all, so
> why can I not enjoy the same service as you AT THE SAME PRICE.
>
Why should you? I bet you pay rents appropriate to where you live; why can't
enjoy the same house as you AT THE SAME PRICE?
> Regards,
> Jacko.
Whacko more like it.
Peter Webb
"Gordon Levi" <gor...@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:d5ocm61sarfup77a8...@4ax.com...
What content is that?
TV?
> It is not surprising that the few hundred Tasmanians that have very
> high speed broadband don't have content to make use of it. It _is_
> surprising that some opponents of the NBN use that as an argument
> against the NBN.
Of course it is the main reason against the NBN. There is no need for it; no
content which requires it other than multiple simultaneous real time TV
channels.
Rod Speed
>>>>> No,
>>>> Yep.
>>>>> the total cost matters.
>>>>> Yes they are.
>>>> No they arent.
>>> They are doing that.
Another lie.
> except in a street in Tasmania.
Its more than just one street.
They didnt rip out any copper pairs or coax, so your original is a lie.
> I gave you a link to where the NBN said itself that they were ripping up the copper.
Pity you cant list even a single example of where they have actually done that.
Not only does that have to be approved by Telstra shareholders,
that hasnt happened and is unlikely to happen, it flouts the TPA
and so the ACCC wont allow that, you watch.
>>> If they didn't rip up the copper, very few people would pay te additional for fibre.
>> They connect it to the houses that want it for free.
> Which means its costing all of us.
Wrong again. It clearly doesnt cost those who dont pay income tax.
And it doesnt necessarily even cost the taxpayers
if the NBN is sold off when completed or terminated.
You dont even know that it wont be paid for by those who choose to use the NBN either.
>>>>> How is the pensioner supposed to have a landline except by paying the NBN?
>>>> By continuing to the use the copper network they wont be allowed to rip out.
>>> They are ripping it out.
>> Like hell they are. Name one place in which the copper has been
>> ripped out and replaced by the NBN. You cant, it doesnt exist.
> The NBN doesn't exist,
Another lie.
> except in a street in Tasmania.
Its more than just one street.
They didnt rip out any copper pairs or coax, so your original is a lie.
> I gave you a link to where the NBN said itself that they were ripping up the copper.
Pity you cant list even a single example of where they have actually done that.
Not only does that have to be approved by Telstra shareholders,
that hasnt happened and is unlikely to happen, it flouts the TPA
and so the ACCC wont allow that, you watch.
>>> If you want a landline, then you have to use fibre and the NBN.
>> Another bare faced pig ignorant lie.
>> Telsta aint allowed to rip out the copper network, their shareholders
>> aint signed off on that and even if they do, the ACCC wont allow it.
> Telstra is selling the copper network to NBN;
ONLY if that gets shareholder approval, and that aint happened yet.
> that is what the legislation last year was about.
Another pig ignorant lie. That was actually about the separation of
the wholesale and retail sides of Telstra, a separate matter entirely.
> Assuming that Telstra shareholders agree,
You cant assume that. And clearly until they do, the NBN CANT
be ripping out the copper network. They dont even propose to
rip out the coax network, and any agreement with Telstra clearly
doesnt affect the Optarse HFC network.
> NBN takes over the copper network (including Telstra's Foxtel coaxial distribution network),
Wrong, as always.
> which gets ripped up be the NBN as soon as fibre is bedded down at that location.
The ACCC wont allow that. Bet they dont even allow the sale of
the copper network to the NBN either, because that flouts the
TPA because its clearly about dramatically crippling competition.
>>> Who would bother going to fibre if they could get what they wanted (eg a phone line) cheaper with existing copper?
>> It doesnt cost them any more for a phone service on the NBN.
> Because it is costing you and me.
Wrong, as always. You aint established that the EXTRA for that subsidy
wont be coming from the money the NBN is borrowing in the market.
> It costs $4,000 to connect each house;
The average is completely irrelevant. Its the marginal cost that matters with those.
> if all they are doing is using the phone it is completely wasted.
You get to like that or lump it.
>>>>> How is ripping up their existing phone lines and telling them
>>>>> they have to buy a fibre connection if they want a landline
>>>> That isnt happening.
>>> It is happening.
>> Like hell they are. Name one place in which the copper has been
>> ripped out and replaced by the NBN. You cant, it doesnt exist.
>> Telsta aint allowed to rip out the copper network, their shareholders
>> aint signed off on that and even if they do, the ACCC wont allow it.
>>> The copper network will be removed.
>> No it wont, the ACCC wont allow it.
> Ohh, and BTW, the enabling legislation for the NBN excludes its monopoly as being subject to the Trade Practices Act
Pigs arse it does when it deliberately fuckes over existing competition like that.
> and it hence falls outside the jurisdiction of the ACCC.
Wrong, as always.
> Of course, it *is* a monopoly,
Corse it aint. You can still use wireless and mobiles if you prefer.
> they describe themselves as such,
Its a lie anyway.
> and private monopolies are illegal. They are above this part of the law.
Wrong, as always.
>>> You have no choice if you want any form of landline - even just a telephone - other than to pay for and use NBN's
>>> fibre.
>> Wrong, as always.
> I gave you the link to NBN's own website which said differently.
Just because they claim something doesnt make it gospel.
Even you realise that that has to have Telstra shareholder
approval, and it wont get that, you watch.
>>>>> *not* holding a gun to their heads?
>>>> When its not happening.
>>>>> And how is this not a waste of money?
>>>> Because you get much more capability and it wont necessarily
>>>> cost anything either when its sold off when completed or terminated.
>>> What more functionality will the pensioner who has no interest in the internet get?
>> That pensioner is completely irrelevant.
>>>>> You rip up existing infrastructure (purely for the purposes of eliminating competition),
>>>> They wont be allowed to do that, because thats illegal.
>>> No, its not.
>> Yes it is. It flouts the TPA on competition.
> Which is why it is exempt.
Like hell it is.
>>> "The Business Case is based on the assumption that a deal is
>>> finalised and approved between NBN Co and Telstra Corp following the signing of a Financial Heads of Agreement in
>>> June 2010.
>> Irrelevant to whether its illegal.
>>> Key benefits of a binding agreement include:
>>> * Progressive disconnection of copper and HFC services and
>>> decommissioning and deactivation of Telstra's copper and HFC
>>> networks as the FTTP network is rolled out"
>> Irrelevant to whether its illegal.
> I never said it was illegal.
I never said you did.
> I said they were ripping up the copper network,
And you cant list even a single example of them actually doing that.
> which was a huge waste of public infrastructure.
> The NBN seems to agree with me.
They clearly dont on that particular point.
>>> From
http://www.nbnco.com.au/wps/wcm/connect/f51ca700451bd3d48ec8ef15331e6bbb/NBN+Corporate+Plan+press+release+FINAL.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=f51ca700451bd3d48ec8ef15331e6bbb>
>>> but it has been very widely reported.
>> By fuckwits who cant grasp that its illegal.
>>> lay more expensive infrastructure, and then use it to provide exactly te same service?
>> It doesnt provide exactly the same service.
>>> How is the Pensioner's phone on fibre going to be different to a Pensioners phone on copper?
>> The pensioner is completely irrelevant.
>>>>>>> What exactly do you do in there?
>>>>>> {:-).
>>>>>> Okay, it isn't what is done in there, but where it is and the view.
>>>>> What speed have you got to your back sheds now?
>>> What speeds have you got to your back sheds now?
>> I dont have any sheds, back or otherwise.
> Dunno what happened there.
What I use to tidy up the quoting had a brain fart.
> In practice, you need at least a 300 baud modem to access text
> newsgroups. Are you sure your internet connection is up to it?
I know it is.
Even someone as stupid as you should be able to manage wifi to a back shed.
Rod Speed
> Peter Webb wrote:
>> What more functionality will the pensioner who has no interest in the internet get?
> You are talking about the pensioner of 2011, the pensioner of 2025 will demand fast broadband because they have been
> using the internet
> etc for most of their lives.
Fantasy. And all the pensioners I know have broadband right now.
Every single one.
Rod Speed
>>> What more functionality will the pensioner who has no interest in the internet get?
>> You are talking about the pensioner of 2011, the pensioner of 2025
>> will demand fast broadband because they have been using the internet
>> etc for most of their lives.
> What will they use is it for?
What everyone else uses it for.
> Teleconferencing with their grandchildren?
> They could do that now if they wanted. Some do.
Every single pensioner I know has broadband right now.
> I have had 6 Mbps or greater broadband for over 10 years, and can't say I have ever seen a need for higher speed. And
> I am a heavy internet user.
Irrelevant to whether many pensioners will want some form of internet.
Rod Speed
This clown hasnt got a fucking clue. Even the NBN is more than just fiber.
> In an interview recorded for this week's Patch Monday podcast, Clark
> said that because fibre is a contained medium, you can use 100% of the
> available electromagnetic spectrum.
> "In wireless, you've got to do a spectrum plan, where you carve
> up slices of the available spectrum, and only broadcast on the bits
> you're allowed to broadcast on," she said. The limited spectrum is
> shared by every customer who's connected via the same cell tower.
> If fixed wireless becomes the main internet connection for every
> household, each customer ends up with only a small share of the
> total -?unless you add more towers spaced more closely."
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> Eunometic wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Eunometic wrote:
>>>>> LuR <w...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Cheaper to rollout, much faster to rollout.
>>>> And nowhere near the capability.
>>> Baloney
>> Fact.
>>> 1000Mbits peak,
>> Not when anyone else is using it too.
> Each user has their own searchlight like electronically formed
> beam which directs the radiowave to the user and the user only.
Not when everyone else is using it.
> It will be focused enough to tend to pick up upload signal only
> from the users. It uses a type of antena called a phased array.
Been using those since before you were even born thanks.
> The narrowness of the beam means that interferance between
> users is limited and that frequencies can be reused across beams.
Still doesnt get within a bulls roar of what fiber can do.
> Advanced antena concepts such as MIMO will further increase realisable bandwidth.
Still doesnt get within a bulls roar of what fiber can do.
Which might just be why the wireless bases will have fiber connections.
Rod Speed
Another lie with our copper runs.
Rod Speed
You can.
Rod Speed
> Gordon Levi <gor...@address.invalid> wrote
>> B J Foster <bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote
>>>>>> What more functionality will the pensioner who has no interest in the internet get?
>>>>> You are talking about the pensioner of 2011, the pensioner of 2025
>>>>> will demand fast broadband because they have been using the
>>>>> internet etc for most of their lives.
>>>> What will they use is it for?
>>>> Teleconferencing with their grandchildren?
>>>> They could do that now if they wanted. Some do.
>>>> I have had 6 Mbps or greater broadband for over 10 years, and
>>>> can't say I have ever seen a need for higher speed. And I am a
>>>> heavy internet user.
>>> Same here - and it is capable of 30Mbps or more. Ask Optus how many
>>> people have taken up the offer of superfast cable. Hardly any -
>>> no-one really needs it. The stupidity of it all is astounding.
>> There is no point in having a consumer broadband connection that is
>> significantly faster than everyone else. No one is going to provide
>> the content to match it. The only reason I bought Telstra's 30 Mbs
>> connection is because I wanted their (pathetic) 1 Mbs upload.
> What content is that?
> TV?
>> It is not surprising that the few hundred Tasmanians that have very
>> high speed broadband don't have content to make use of it. It _is_
>> surprising that some opponents of the NBN use that as an argument
>> against the NBN.
> Of course it is the main reason against the NBN. There is no need for
> it; no content which requires it other than multiple simultaneous
> real time TV channels.
Which just happens to be what most of us use.
B J Foster
That is precisely the "build it and they will come" argument put forward
by the so-called expert group.
The same sort of argument was used to ramp up the stock market up to
2000. People were quoting hit rates and charts of internet hosts going
off the scale. Conventional measures of growth and performance and ROI
were thrown out the window. That sort of logic resulted in a lot of pain.
The problem with the NBN is that it's all or nothing. Conroy is bound
and determined to waste our money *anyway*. A commercial organisation
would be more prudent, and only invest if research showed that demand
and takeup were certain.
Conroy is pushing a solution which replaces POTS for the 30% of people
who don't want the internet, overbuilds existing broadband for another
30% and replaces ADSL for the remainder. So why chuck away perfectly
good solutions and build 100%?
In the absence of any high bandwidth applications, universally adopted,
it is stupid to spend that sort of money. But we have seen plenty of
stupid ideas from Labor - and even some good ones, with the execution
stuffed up - like ceiling insulation (190 homes burnt down so far).
Personally, I have been using cable for 10 years already and the
bandwidth is still very adequate. I have no intention of taking up
superfast cable unless the price is the same - there is no need for it.
If/when there is a need for it (and none of the so-called 'experts' have
shown any need), then the 30Mbps capability is ALREADY THERE. So why
shou;d 30% of use have to PAY FOR IT AGAIN.
No-one disagrees with the need to modernise our national networks - but
it should be done by competent Engineers rather than headless chooks,
with proper financial controls, starting with a business case - and it
should be done in private enterprise - far away from passion-fingered
ex-union officials.
B J Foster
> It is not surprising that the few hundred Tasmanians that have very
> high speed broadband don't have content to make use of it. It_is_
> surprising that some opponents of the NBN use that as an argument
> against the NBN.
Who is developing this 'content'? Where are all the film studios? Why
are actors, writers and producers not on the skilled occupation list?
Where is the evidence of *any* application needing such bandwidth. Anything.
keithr
Given the public reaction every time a new cellular tower is proposed,
what do you think is likely to happen if they try to erect one in every
street?
BTW wouldn't connecting to all these towers involve DIGGING UP EVERY
FUCKING STREET?
Rod Speed
> David Maslen wrote
>> B J Foster<bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote
>>> Same here - and it is capable of 30Mbps or more. Ask Optus how many people have taken up the offer of superfast
>>> cable. Hardly any - no-one really needs it. The stupidity of it all is astounding.
>> Back in the 90's I remember thinking that if I could afford a 14400
>> bd modem I'd have more speed than I knew what to do with, and given
>> I was using text based unix systems and bulletin boards, I probably
>> wasn't far off. I couldn't imagine skyping my children's grand
>> parents, which is quite common these days.
>> It wasn't that long ago that I was using 10mb lan cabling, and now I'm probably a lagard for using 100mb, when 1000mb
>> is commonly available.
>> I suspect applications will develop around whatever infrastructure is built, but it has to be affordable, and your
>> point that people don't
>> value 30mbs at todays pricing seems very reasonable.
> That is precisely the "build it and they will come" argument put
> forward by the so-called expert group.
And its what we have seen with almost all technology.
> The same sort of argument was used to ramp up the stock market up to 2000.
Irrelevant to what is inevitable with almost all technology.
> People were quoting hit rates and charts of internet hosts going off the scale. Conventional measures of growth and
> performance and ROI were thrown out the window.
And it worked out fine with google, facebook, twitter, ebay, paypal etc etc etc.
> That sort of logic resulted in a lot of pain.
Only for the fools.
> The problem with the NBN is that it's all or nothing.
Like hell it is. It will coexist with wireless fine.
And with the copper network too when they arent allowed to rip it out.
> Conroy is bound and determined to waste our money *anyway*.
That govt wont be around long enough to waste too much of it on the NBN, you watch.
> A commercial organisation would be more prudent, and only invest if research showed that demand and takeup were
> certain.
If google, facebook, twitter, ebay, paypal, microsoft, IBM, DEC, Apple
etc etc etc had operated like that we wouldnt have any of them.
Fortunately they werent that stupid.
> Conroy is pushing a solution which replaces POTS for the 30% of people who don't want the internet,
And wont get that, you watch. He hasnt got a hope in hell of
remaining in govt for 10 years.
> overbuilds existing broadband for another 30% and replaces ADSL for the remainder.
He wont get that either, you watch. The ACCC wont allow it.
> So why chuck away perfectly good solutions and build 100%?
Taint gunna happen. In spades with wireless.
> In the absence of any high bandwidth applications, universally adopted,
Doesnt have to be universally adopted, just adopted by enough to be viable.
None of google, facebook, twitter, ebay, paypal, microsoft, IBM, DEC,
Apple etc etc etc were ever universally adopted.
> it is stupid to spend that sort of money.
Yes.
> But we have seen plenty of stupid ideas from Labor
Yes.
Corse we have never ever seen even a single one from the coalition, eh ?
> - and even some good ones, with the execution stuffed up - like ceiling insulation (190 homes burnt down so far).
Corse thats never ever happened with any non labor govt, eh ?
> Personally, I have been using cable for 10 years already and the
> bandwidth is still very adequate. I have no intention of taking up
> superfast cable unless the price is the same - there is no need for it.
There is for those who want HD or better video that isnt available on the FTA system.
It remains to be seen if there are enough of those to be economically viable.
Bet there will be eventually as people move away from
watching stuff when the FTA system chooses to broadcast
it and they watch it when they decide to watch it instead.
> If/when there is a need for it (and none of the so-called 'experts' have shown any need),
Thats a bare faced lie.
> then the 30Mbps capability is ALREADY THERE.
For fuck all.
> So why shou;d 30% of use have to PAY FOR IT AGAIN.
They dont.
> No-one disagrees with the need to modernise our national networks -
> but it should be done by competent Engineers rather than headless
> chooks, with proper financial controls, starting with a business case
If google, facebook, twitter, ebay, paypal, microsoft, IBM, DEC
etc etc etc had operated like that we wouldnt have any of them.
> - and it should be done in private enterprise - far away from
> passion-fingered ex-union officials.
It will be when the federal labor govt is flushed where it belongs.
Rod Speed
> Gordon Levi wrote
>> It is not surprising that the few hundred Tasmanians that have very
>> high speed broadband don't have content to make use of it. It_is_
>> surprising that some opponents of the NBN use that as an argument
>> against the NBN.
> Who is developing this 'content'?
Everyone involved in video production.
> Where are all the film studios?
All over the world.
> Why are actors, writers and producers not on the skilled occupation list?
Because even little kids can do the acting.
Anyone can write and even stupid kids can do the producing too.
> Where is the evidence of *any* application needing such bandwidth.
Video on demand, stupid.
Whether its worth spending $50B on is another matter entirely.
> Anything.
Rod Speed
> B J Foster wrote
>> bringyagrogalong wrote
>>> B J Foster<bjfos...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote
>>>>> Sfinx wrote
>>>>>>>>> Wireless lte is ready now. The nbn going to take 10 years to roll out
>>>>>>>>>>> at a huge cost of 43b in todays money but likely to be over
>>>>>>>>>>> 80b by the time its finished.
>>>>>>> By the time is completed (providing that will be completed) new and cheaper alternatives will be on the market.
>>>>> The progression of communication technology is toward broader
>>>>> reach and access. The ideal is wireless-everywhere supported by a
>>>>> fixed network backbone, i.e. a mix of technologies (please see
>>>>> Coalition policy!).
>>> "Wireless can never deliver equivalent services to fibre," according
>>> to network engineering consultant Narelle Clark. But what the
>>> Coalition's "affordable broadband" policy could deliver is a
>>> wireless base station at the end of every street in the outer
>>> suburbs and country towns.
>> A wireless base station at the end of every street (assuming 100Mbps is required) is much cheaper, much less
>> disruptive and a lot quicker to implement that DIGGING UP EVERY FUCKING STREET. Labor morons!
> Given the public reaction every time a new cellular tower is proposed,
> what do you think is likely to happen if they try to erect one in every street?
They'll be told to like it or lump it, just like they were with the PayTV cables.
> BTW wouldn't connecting to all these towers
You aint established that they will be towers.
> involve DIGGING UP EVERY FUCKING STREET?
Nope.
SG1
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8snfmh...@mid.individual.net...
My pensioner neighbor does not own a computer or a mobile phone. Mind you
the pensioners in this house make up for it.
>
>