Election 2010 August 21

[Hvr]

Mr Abbott was conspicuously absent when his colleagues, communications spokesman Tony Smith and finance spokesman Andrew Robb, unveiled the coalition's $6 billion broadband plan in Canberra today.


It guarantees minimum broadband speeds of 12 Mega bits per second (Mbps) for 97 per cent of homes, whereas Labor's national broadband network promises 100Mbps to 99 per cent of households.

Why on earth does Abbott think a slower internet is better?

Mr Abbott also drew blanks on what his broadband network's peak speed of 12Mbps actually meant.

He doesn't know what he is denigrating but thinks his inferior offering is better?

 

[straitman]

Well you would think that if that is the service you currently get. Meanwhile the other 85% of us can't get a decent broadband service for anything like that cheap and I don't wanted to be forced onto a wireless service that can only achieve peak speeds at 3am.

Agreed. I stayed with my relatives last week who only have access via Satellite and it was slow and expensive and had very little quota included for the price! That's with it being subsidised, too.

Until recently I would have agreed but not any longer.

My daughter recently had WIMAX Broadband from Aussie Broadband installed and I have to say it beats the pants off my ADSL2+ at any time of day. Thus far it appears to be a cheap and reliable service. In her case it is part of the Gov't Broadband Guarantee so installation and equipment was free and the first 6 months is at half price.

With regard to the debate in question.
I'm not sure what speeds we really need with all this and I find the Liberal plan a little disappointing but at the same time I really struggle to get my head around spending the $43 Billion when so many other part of our basic infrastructure are crumbling.

 

[Flashback]

Until recently I would have agreed but not any longer.

My daughter recently had WIMAX Broadband from Aussie Broadband installed and I have to say it beats the pants off my ADSL2+ at any time of day. Thus far it appears to be a cheap and reliable service. In her case it is part of the Gov't Broadband Guarantee so installation and equipment was free and the first 6 months is at half price.

Unfortunately that doesn't have coverage where they are:!: :shock:

 

[serfty]

Why on earth does Abbott think a slower internet is better?
...

I believe it's more the case that a $37B cost differential will do wonders on getting the guvmint budget back towards surplus.

i.e. A government sourced NBN is a 'nice to have'; but not necessary.

 

[Flashback]

I believe it's more the case that a $37B cost differential will do wonders on getting the guvmint budget back towards surplus.

Hit the nail on the head! There are still discrepancies in the figures, though.

 

[straitman]

Unfortunately that doesn't have coverage where they are:!: :shock:

I'm planning to get the techs out and compare my speed and swap to the Wimax if it is better here. For me the price is about the same.

 

[Flashback]

I'm planning to get the techs out and compare my speed and swap to the Wimax if it is better here. For me the price is about the same.

Just to point out in regards to the earlier comment re: it not being the case of wireless being slow now ; my uncle & aunty are on satellite, which is different to wifi/wimax and it is verrrrrrrrry slow (lag and latency). The pings on it were worse than I ever got on dialup back in the day! :shock:

 

[odysseus]

Of course this will need spending and the media has made both parties too scared to run a deficit budget to invest in our future.

Unfortunately that's a legacy of the previous government. It brought about a mindset that spending on infrastructure was bad, and any available funds should be directed to tax cuts (though only marginally offset by bracket creep).

It continues now with the Liberal's major thrust that spending during the GFC was bad (with a secondary argument if pushed that they would have spent too, but just "better", so in reality indicate there would have been just as much deficit, but give the impression that any spending is bad).

Such messages make the budget deficit you refer to politically unfeasible.

 

[nlagalle]

personally I think they would have better spent the money with the CSIRO and develop a new wireless technology which would ultimately be cheaper to setup.

I was talking to our Telstra rep as we've had Next G issues at Etihad stadium, and he is sending me a couple of 42mbps Next G cards to test out. Imagine what they could develop with some R&D money. Heck the CSIRO invented (or the concept - they have the patent) 802.11b/g Wi-Fi 15 odd years ago. and they are meant to be working on something now.

 

[markis10]

Unfortunately that's a legacy of the previous government. It brought about a mindset that spending on infrastructure was bad, and any available funds should be directed to tax cuts (though only marginally offset by bracket creep)..

What a load of rubbish, the previous government commissioned the OPEL project, put in place HiBIS and the Broadband Guarantee, funded the metropolitan broadband blackspots program and made telstra open its infrastructure up to ADSL2 DSLAMs from other companies, and thats just in relation to comms infrastructure. Do you really think the comms sector appreciate all the work they put in on the NBN being thrown out and not even paid for because the government decided they wanted to do it their way and then they get lobbed with a mandatory internet filter that is not even technically sound?

Labours record in terms of infrastructure especially in my own backyard of SE Queensland is terrible, we have motorways that are death traps because of their poor design with negative camber, and a desal plant thats not needed, basically a pile of pink bats sitting in the ocean.

If Labour gets back in then get used to the term "co-payment", just like toll roads we will be paying for the new infrastructure whether we like it or need it.

 

[medhead]

What a load of rubbish, the previous government commissioned the OPEL project, put in place HiBIS and the Broadband Guarantee, funded the metropolitan broadband blackspots program and made telstra open its infrastructure up to ADSL2 DSLAMs from other companies, and thats just in relation to comms infrastructure. Do you really think the comms sector appreciate all the work they put in on the NBN being thrown out and not even paid for because the government decided they wanted to do it their way and then they get lobbed with a mandatory internet filter that is not even technically sound?

Labours record in terms of infrastructure especially in my own backyard of SE Queensland is terrible, we have motorways that are death traps because of their poor design with negative camber, and a desal plant thats not needed, basically a pile of pink bats sitting in the ocean.

If Labour gets back in then get used to the term "co-payment", just like toll roads we will be paying for the new infrastructure whether we like it or need it.

Interesting thoughts. Yet I live 8pm from a capital city CBD and I can not access the adsl2 from other providers that is in my telephone exchange. I'm stuck on Telstra equipment at adsl1 speeds, paying excessive monthly fees. I would also mention the recent $18 million fine for Telstra for not allowing access to it's exchanges. If the last government "forced" Telstra to open it's exchanges I'm not seeing it and the juridical record doesn't reflect it either.

As for the road thing. I have no time for bring state politics into the federal sphere. I'd suggest that you look to your transport department for answers about road engineering. Is negative camber Rudds fault? Did he only provide the money on the proviso that the road be engineered incorrectly? What motorway are you talking about anyway? Because I'm struggling to think of a single SEQld motorway that wasn't the work of the National party or a combination of governments. The desal plant is a waste of money now that it is raining, but I clearly remember people baying for Labor blood to do something about the lack of water when it wasn't raining.

As for copayments the Liberals have committed to the Henry review including the recommendation for user pays roads.

 

[medhead]

The NBN in Tasmania is not new, its been there for a while as part of TasGovNet, the additional backhaul fibre was laid when the electricty cables were run from Loy Yang in the Latrobe Valley, all they have done is turn the light on and connect some customers up to a trial that was running for over two years (TASColt), and suck you in with propaganda.

The first core supplier contract for the NBN was signed three weeks ago, its very early days when it comes to cancelling the contract, just like the government did to OPEL which would have seen a lot less subsidised Sat services deployed at $4000 per service.

So Abbott has even less to sell than I thought to pay the redundancies of the NBN employees. He is then going to provide us what the cable network can provide sometime after 2016. Of course the cable comparison is theoretical since it is not available to the vast majority of Australians.

What you can get now and what technology can provide over the same infrastructure are two different things, there is no reason why VDSL2 with 150/50mb speeds could be delivered to you the same way you get ADSL1!

You can also get ADSL2+ speeds with Telstra Next G wireless, but you are probably dont want to pay for it, will you want to pay for the NBN?

What I can get now is due to Liberal government failure on the sale of Telstra and inaction. I would be happy with adsl2. But a private company has decided instead that they wish to gouge profits out of me by locking me onto their service. No matter how good adsl is now for some people twisted pair copper is on it's death bed. Moving to new technology is only a question of timing.

I would be happy to pay next g prices for NBN, if only to have that option. But I'm not going to pay that for a wireless service that is subject to atmospheric interference, doesn't give the upload speed that I want and is only the same speed as adsl2 (if your lucky)

 

[simongr]

I do think the Lib plan for National Broadband is woeful but I also can't countenance $43BN on Labour's plan. I wish there was a happy medium.

One of the key problems for australian broadband is the political need to give access to "everyone". Thus money is being spent for a small fraction of the population.

Frankly the election is starting to depress me - overly complex voting forms and the opportunity for small parties to have influence on topics in excess of their voting base.

Bring back a proper monarchy...

 

[markis10]

Interesting thoughts. Yet I live 8pm from a capital city CBD and I can not access the adsl2 from other providers that is in my telephone exchange. I'm stuck on Telstra equipment at adsl1 speeds, paying excessive monthly fees. I would also mention the recent $18 million fine for Telstra for not allowing access to it's exchanges. If the last government "forced" Telstra to open it's exchanges I'm not seeing it and the juridical record doesn't reflect it either.

Your lack of access to ADSL2 has a very simple answer, put simply there is no room for additional DSLAMs from other providers. As a part time Adelaide resident you would have been exposed to the very vocal protests by the ISPs the most, the more vocal one was Internode when this matter reared its head 18 months ago!

Go back and read the case again, its on the record that Telstra admitted that they misled ISPs in saying their exchange was full when its not, perhaps they are still doing it:

Telstra admitted in a defence filing dated July 31 that it had "engaged in conduct that was misleading or deceptive, or was likely to mislead or deceive, contrary to section 52(1) of the TPA (Trade Practices Act)."


The carrier also admitted that it had "contravened section 152AR(5)(c) of the TPA and thereby contravened a condition of its carrier license and subsection 68(1) of the Telecommunications Act."

Section 152AR(5)(c) of the Trade Practice Act compels access providers, if requested by access seekers, to "permit interconnection of those facilities with the facilities of the service provider for the purpose of enabling the service provider to be supplied with active declared services in order that the service provider can provide carriage services and/or content services."

You might want to have a look at which government bought in the amendment to Section 152AR(5)(c)

As for the road thing. I have no time for bring state politics into the federal sphere. I'd suggest that you look to your transport department for answers about road engineering. Is negative camber Rudds fault? Did he only provide the money on the proviso that the road be engineered incorrectly? What motorway are you talking about anyway? Because I'm struggling to think of a single SEQld motorway that wasn't the work of the National party or a combination of governments.

You make me laugh saying roads are part of bringing the state issues into a federal sphere, what rock are you living under that hides the reality that most of our roads are federally funded in terms of arterials etc, sure they are managed by the state government but are you saying its OK for the feds to hand over a cheque and run away from responsibility for the effective value they are getting for that money, sounds a bit like the BER to me, or the pink bats program, of the safer suburbs program etc etc

Bruce Highway’s Cooroy to Curra secures vital federal funding
http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/p...grade-cooroy-to-curra/mediareleasefunding.pdf

The Federal government’s $361.3 million upgrade of the Bruce Highway from the Gateway Motorway to Caboolture.
Bruce Highway Upgrade, Boundary Road to Caboolture (Department of Transport and Main Roads)

Ipswich Motorway between Wacol and Darra - $824 million (Australian Government funded)
Ipswich Motorway upgrade: Wacol to Darra (Department of Transport and Main Roads)

Ipswich Motorway between Dinmore to Goodna $1.95 billion (Australian Government funded)
Ipswich Motorway upgrade: Dinmore to Goodna (Department of Transport and Main Roads)

The desal plant is a waste of money now that it is raining, but I clearly remember people baying for Labor blood to do something about the lack of water when it wasn't raining.

And when it stops raining it will still be a waste of money, just like the desal plants in other labour government territories. At least this current federal government canned the mary river dam!

 

[straitman]

I would be happy to pay next g prices for NBN, if only to have that option. But I'm not going to pay that for a wireless service that is subject to atmospheric interference, doesn't give the upload speed that I want and is only the same speed as adsl2 (if your lucky)

See my posts #102 & 106 above :!:

 

[medhead]

Your lack of access to ADSL2 has a very simple answer, put simply there is no room for additional DSLAMs from other providers. As a part time Adelaide resident you would have been exposed to the very vocal protests by the ISPs the most, the more vocal one was Internode when this matter reared its head 18 months ago!

actually there are competing dslams in my exchange. The lack is due to that box at re end of the street.

Go back and read the case again, its on the record that Telstra admitted that they misled ISPs in saying their exchange was full when its not, perhaps they are still doing it:

I don't need to read it again. Your claim is that the Liberals forced Telstra to allow access. This case highlights that the forcing wasn't very forceful. In fact the company just lied, as per the admissions, and those "strong" Liberals just said "oh ok then".

I would also go back to you original statement that my lack of dslams is due to lack of room. Were that the case, would it be due to lack of room or deceptive and misleading conduct?

You make me laugh saying roads are part of bringing the state issues into a federal sphere, what rock are you living under that hides the reality that most of our roads are federally funded in terms of arterials etc, sure they are managed by the state government but are you saying its OK for the feds to hand over a cheque and run away from responsibility for the effective value they are getting for that money, sounds a bit like the BER to me, or the pink bats program, of the safer suburbs program etc etc

The state government is responsible for managing the roads. That means designing, building and operating the roads. To suggest that the federal government has any role in that, beside funding them, is to ignore the reality of our federal system of government. If the federal government started interfering in state government processes then we would hear the screaming about breaching the constitution. If your not happy about the roads that you should elect an effective state government instead of falsely blaming someone else.

As for the roads you've mentioned at least 2 of those are national party roads.

As for the BER they got excellent value for money for that with independent schools. The poor value only seems to have occurred when state governments have become involved. I imagine that the state governments followed their usual process of only accepting the BER money if they got to control it. (as required by our constitution).

Pink bats? ( ignoring that they weren't pink bats) Don't state government enforce building regulations anymore?

And when it stops raining it will still be a waste of money, just like the desal plants in other labour government territories. At least this current federal government canned the mary river dam!

oh right, so it is a waste of money to provide a secure water supply for people. You also oppose building water infrastructure in places where it is required. The national party government were the last ones to build dams in Queensland. Perhaps if they had built them in the right places then desal plants and new dams might not have been needed. What is laughable is selectively blaming one government that is only trying to work with what it has been given by successive previous governments.

 

[medhead]

See my posts #102 & 106 above :!:

Yep, thanks for that. unfortunately no coverage for me. I did earlier look into a wireless service in Adelaide. Not sure if it was Wimax based. But it was line of sight and one of the main flight paths to the airport was between me and the signal source. So I decided against it, on potential interference grounds.

I'll have another look for other providers.

 

[straitman]

Yep, thanks for that. unfortunately no coverage for me. I did earlier look into a wireless service in Adelaide. Not sure if it was Wimax based. But it was line of sight and one of the main flight paths to the airport was between me and the signal source. So I decided against it, on potential interference grounds.

I'll have another look for other providers.

Look at National Broadband Guarantee. Even if it does not apply to you, there is a form to fill in that leads you through to which ISP's and services are available in your area.

See Broadband Locator Service.

 

[markis10]

I don't need to read it again. Your claim is that the Liberals forced Telstra to allow access. This case highlights that the forcing wasn't very forceful. In fact the company just lied, as per the admissions, and those "strong" Liberals just said "oh ok then".

When the admissions were made it was the labour government in power?? The libs gave the ACCC the powers to act and they did, labour has not bothered to follow up with tougher actions and your supporting them - laughable. Policiticans and Puppets have a lot in common, far more than just starting with the letter P!

BTW dont believe everything people tell you, ADSL2 can be delivered across RIMS and Pair Gain as can VDSL2, you just need a box in your box , that means NBN quoted speeds for everyone with either HFC or copper in metro areas, just like they have in Canberra today on the non Telstra network.

For the money being spent we should be getting gigabit connectivity for our fixed broadband needs and more robust mobile networks, instead we are duplicating infrastructure to deliver what the existing infrastructure can deliver already in terms of minimum speeds for 80% of the population, bargain - not!


Edit - I just noticed that Michael Porter shares my views on this, it certainly makes for an interesting read from an economics point of view which is my weakness, broadband technology being my line of employment

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...a-healthy-option/story-e6frgd0x-1225903677925

 

[medhead]

When the admissions were made it was the labour government in power?? The libs gave the ACCC the powers to act and they did, labour has not bothered to follow up with tougher actions and your supporting them - laughable. Policiticans and Puppets have a lot in common, far more than just starting with the letter P!

BTW dont believe everything people tell you, ADSL2 can be delivered across RIMS and Pair Gain as can VDSL2, you just need a box in your box , that means NBN quoted speeds for everyone with either HFC or copper in metro areas, just like they have in Canberra today on the non Telstra network.

For the money being spent we should be getting gigabit connectivity for our fixed broadband needs and more robust mobile networks, instead we are duplicating infrastructure to deliver what the existing infrastructure can deliver already in terms of minimum speeds for 80% of the population, bargain - not!


Edit - I just noticed that Michael Porter shares my views on this, it certainly makes for an interesting read

Basically the libs stuffed up the sale of telstra and then put in powers that have taken how long to actually achieve anything concrete. Meanwhile most of the population is getting price gouged due to deceptive and misleading conduct. The liberals current policy is to go back to their failed model.
I'm well aware that a box is need it a box. How else am I currently getting adsl1 except because of a box in a box.

Sorry but 80% of the population is not good enough. I'd also dispute that current infrastructure can deliver to 80% of the current population. I live 8 km from a capital city CBD and the current infrastructure is not delivering. Sure it might be technically capable but under the free market model no one is spending the money required to deliver. Or they are being blocked by deception and misleading conduct. IMO the liberals free market model is a failure. This is just the opinion of someone who has to work within the system presented.

Thanks for the story link I'll have a read, later