With all the wishy-washy absurd arguments going on about the internet, Id like to ask all you NBN - proponents exatly what you plan on doing with your 100Mbs connections that you currently cannot do. So go ahead. make a legitimate case for using this bandwidth that you claim we all need. dialup people obviously have a case for broadband. Im talking about people who currently have it and seem to feel there is a desperate need for 100Mbs.  Forget business. it is a separate case. Im talking about RESIDENTIAL internet. convince me you need it. My tip is you cant. I expect nothing more than futuristic maybes and video-conferencing (which we can already do. anyone use a webcam?) And remember this is RESIDENTIAL - not business. Find me a site that can even service 100Mbs as well.

Porn, hang on, I can already do that.

Music, hang on, thats fine.

Surf, nah I can do that.

Download documents, sorry thats nothing new.

Gee, skype, hang on thats do-able now.

Ummm, looks like I'll be doing the same.

I will be excited by the speed of it at first.

Then I will take it for granted for a while.

Then I will start to complain that it isn't fast enough, and I download too much and need to pay for a plan with greater download limits.

I will recommend to my emloyers that they use Gmail on the web for free, instead of having an outlook server at our considerable expense.

I will recommend using cloud based backup services instead of in-house backups.

And if/when our software provider offers hosted solutions, I will recommend that, so that the company avoids the cost and complexity of a server.

I'll send emails with much larger attachments, and stop going to the video store EVER, because it's cheaper, quicker and a broader choice to purchase the movie online.

And there'll be other options that I don't even know about yet.

online gaming , cloud services , internet TV , music , download large files but more important is the ability to do this all at once without compromising other users... it isn't just the internet it will be new phone system eventually video phones instead of current ones things like the telstra T hub will be normal ..

Future services like remote medical diagnosis , remote schooling for regional areas ... you forgot to turn the iron off so just log into home and check if the power point is on and switch it off from your i-phone or work pc .....also the ability for our devices like dishwashers , washing machines , fridges , pc's to connect to the web at night and choose which electricity provider is the cheapest and switch to save money this is happening in Holland right now

Dont need it, my connection can do what i need to do with it.

Can you all afford the monthly charge for it, I know businesses are a different, I'm talking about the average user?

Tony Abbott is going to check his  emails, thats all he thinks the net is for. ::)

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 7:53am:

online gaming , cloud services , internet TV , music , download large files but more important is the ability to do this all at once without compromising other users... it isn't just the internet it will be new phone system eventually video phones instead of current ones things like the telstra T hub will be normal .. Future services like remote medical diagnosis , remote schooling for regional areas ... you forgot to turn the iron off so just log into home and check if the power point is on and switch it off from your i-phone or work pc .....also the ability for our devices like dishwashers , washing machines , fridges , pc's to connect to the web at night and choose which electricity provider is the cheapest and switch to save money this is happening in Holland right now

What a complete load of.........


http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y240/pjo1011/bullshit.jpg

The potential of the internet ... is on par with the human brain ... massive potential.

Opposing evolution of human society, just for political reasons has, and will in the near future, backfire on the Coalition.

I would suggest Abbott and his party should go back to the drawing board and choose his fights more carefully. Start selecting battles he has a chance of willing.

Opposing the roll out of broadband is on par with opposing the roll out of education.

del any proof to back up your claims ..no as you have no legitimate reason for the opposition of the NBN  .. as said before all these coalition supporters who have no idea yet open their mouths with out being able to back up what they say because they cant think for them selves and see the benefit .. They can only repeat the liberal party views ..

Turnbull will realise this and it will be bye bye Abbott

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 8:45am:

del any proof to back up your claims ..no as you have no legitimate reason for the opposition of the NBN  .. as said before all these coalition supporters who have no idea yet open their mouths with out being able to back up what they say because they cant think for them selves and see the benefit .. They can only repeat the liberal party views .. Turnbull will realise this and it will be bye bye Abbott

The COST to the taxpayer for a faster internet which the average user will NOT be able to afford is proof enough!

You on the other hand are an infantile cretin who"thinks" the greater population with computers are going to take advantage of something they CANNOT afford to play online games with.........you're a smacking idiot!

sorry del i forgot my proof on claims for the power switching .. it is called Smart Grid , Belgium , Netherlands , UK and soon to be the US have all implemented it  and European brand appliances have it in them now


Quote:

Peak curtailment/levelling and time of use pricing To reduce demand during the high cost peak usage periods, communications and metering technologies inform smart devices in the home and business when energy demand is high and track how much electricity is used and when it is used. To motivate them to cut back use and perform what is called peak curtailment or peak levelling, prices of electricity are increased during high demand periods, and decreased during low demand periods. It is thought that consumers and businesses will tend to consume less during high demand periods if it is possible for consumers and consumer devices to be aware of the high price premium for using electricity at peak periods, this could mean cooking dinner at 9pm instead of 5pm. When businesses and consumers see a direct economic benefit of not having to pay double for the same energy use to become more energy efficient, the theory is that they will include energy cost of operation into their consumer device and building construction decisions. See Time of day metering and demand response.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_grid

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 8:51am:

sorry del i forgot my proof on claims for the power switching .. it is called Smart Grid , Belgium , Netherlands , UK and soon to be the US have all implemented it  and European brand appliances have it in them now Quote: Peak curtailment/levelling and time of use pricing To reduce demand during the high cost peak usage periods, communications and metering technologies inform smart devices in the home and business when energy demand is high and track how much electricity is used and when it is used. To motivate them to cut back use and perform what is called peak curtailment or peak levelling, prices of electricity are increased during high demand periods, and decreased during low demand periods. It is thought that consumers and businesses will tend to consume less during high demand periods if it is possible for consumers and consumer devices to be aware of the high price premium for using electricity at peak periods, this could mean cooking dinner at 9pm instead of 5pm. When businesses and consumers see a direct economic benefit of not having to pay double for the same energy use to become more energy efficient, the theory is that they will include energy cost of operation into their consumer device and building construction decisions. See Time of day metering and demand response. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_grid

Australia has a hard enough time keeping the bloody lights on, let alone fannying around with futuristic bollox which MOST will NOT be able to afford........as I said, you're an idiot!

I`ve got wireless, I use it to sub contract heaps of work overseas. The work gets done properly, on time, every time, with no whining or issues.

I`m over employing Australians.

so... nothing you cant already do? how surprising!

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 9:21am:

so... nothing you cant already do? how surprising!

Anyone can have broadband right now.

So you would advocate that the coalition announce that their proposal for broadband is to do nothing, since you can't see any benefit to faster internet speeds, mr weekend?

del you still have no facts on how it will cost the taxpayer more .. so the  assumption only on that it can only be lies , mistruths or other proganda by the liberal party machine...

The costs for the NBN are out now for the areas who have it installed and can easily be found ..
http://www.internode.on.net/residential/broadband/fibre_to_the_home/nbn_plans

Optus and Telstra have released their new cable plans which are to compete directly with the NBN and are cheaper then original plans for more speed..

so as far as the Cretin comment is concerned here is the real meaning of the word... and it would appear that based on your lack of information , lack of appreciation ,   social ineptitude that you are the cretin ...

Quote:

Cretin: A word associated to people who lack of intelligence, manners , etiquette, appreciation, moral fibre and glaring social ineptitude

 

Please delete wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 9:49am:

So you would advocate that the coalition announce that their proposal for broadband is to do nothing, since you can't see any benefit to faster internet speeds, mr weekend?

No, their policy could be exatcly what it was 5 years ago when contracts were signed to give adsl 2 to almost all of australia. then rudd canceleed it and replaced it with... nothing. total cost $4B

Then we can start the process of fibre to the node so that people who NEED faster internet can get (ie pay) for fibre from the node to their premises. total cost: about $4B.

This way we all get what we need at a price we can actually afford to pay! nice idea?

Please delete wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 9:49am:

So you would advocate that the coalition announce that their proposal for broadband is to do nothing, since you can't see any benefit to faster internet speeds, mr weekend?

that is what the coalition did for 12 years absolutely nothing on any infrastructure , projects ... hence why our schools , hospitals , telecommunications are all in need for replacement / upgrading  

long ADSL 2 cant go to most of Australia .. their are no substation or lines to do it .. so if that was the coalitions plan they obviously didn't have a clue on whether it would work .. did they do a CBA

So now you agree that there ARE reasons to have faster internet, weekend?

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 9:55am:

Please delete wrote on Sep 20th, 2010 at 9:49am: So you would advocate that the coalition announce that their proposal for broadband is to do nothing, since you can't see any benefit to faster internet speeds, mr weekend? that is what the coalition did for 12 years absolutely nothing on any infrastructure , projects ... hence why our schools , hospitals , telecommunications are all in need for replacement / upgrading   long ADSL 2 cant go to most of Australia .. their are no substation or lines to do it .. so if that was the coalitions plan they obviously didn't have a clue on whether it would work .. did they do a CBA

There were contracts already in place to give ADSL 2 standard internet to 93% of australia. it was to cover the gaps in the existing coverage and best of all would ALREADY BE COMPLETED if Rudd had not canned it.

so what do you need faster internet for?

Where did this $4B come in, mr weekend? Are you saying that $4b had been spent, and Rudd cancelled it?

How?

Please delete wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 10:08am:

So now you agree that there ARE reasons to have faster internet, weekend?

primarily for SOME businesses and residences that are happy to pay the extra cost - regardless of need.

Please delete wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 10:11am:

Where did this $4B come in, mr weekend? Are you saying that $4b had been spent, and Rudd cancelled it? How?

The $4B was signed for but not spent because Rudd cancelled the contract and replaced with... nothing. due date for completion of the project to give 93% of australia proper broadband was end 2009. and what do we have instead? NOTHING.

I seriously cannot get that worked up about this whole broadband thing.

It seems to me a load of hot air.

I do have an issue with people in the countryside, who are the minority and choose to live out in the middle of nowhere, getting it before the rest of us in the cities.
That makes no economic sense whatsoever.

Why should they get it first?

So the $4B is a furphy.

When you said "then rudd canceleed it and replaced it with... nothing. total cost $4B" you were ... wrong? Lying?

Rudd replaced Howards limp proposal with the NBN.

this because our copper lines are at the end of their lifespan .. we have no technical future proofing left ..

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/files/2010/09/nbn1.PNG

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 9:50am:

del you still have no facts on how it will cost the taxpayer more .. so the  assumption only on that it can only be lies , mistruths or other proganda by the liberal party machine... The costs for the NBN are out now for the areas who have it installed and can easily be found .. http://www.internode.on.net/residential/broadband/fibre_to_the_home/nbn_plans Optus and Telstra have released their new cable plans which are to compete directly with the NBN and are cheaper then original plans for more speed.. so as far as the Cretin comment is concerned here is the real meaning of the word... and it would appear that based on your lack of information , lack of appreciation ,   social ineptitude that you are the cretin ... Quote: Cretin: A word associated to people who lack of intelligence, manners , etiquette, appreciation, moral fibre and glaring social ineptitude

Yeah that sounds like Telstra and Optus........no EXTRA charge for super fast internet.... ;D



CRETIN....and you had to look that up........ ;D


I bet you think you can make shyte shine as well.... ;D

My description of you is very accurate......

Please delete wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 10:21am:

So the $4B is a furphy. When you said "then rudd canceleed it and replaced it with... nothing. total cost $4B" you were ... wrong? Lying? Rudd replaced Howards limp proposal with the NBN.

You seem to have trouble understanding the facts. If rudd hadnt cancelled the contract, 93% of australians woudl nbow have adsl2+ broadband. it is really THAT simple.

I understand that you said that the cost of Rudd cancelling Howard's limp proposal was $4B.

You said the cost was $4B, now you admit that you knew that this was not the case.

Is that lying, mr weekend?

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 10:22am:

this because our copper lines are at the end of their lifespan .. we have no technical future proofing left .. http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/files/2010/09/nbn1.PNG

No one is saying that isnt true. What we are syaing is that the FIRST step is to get everyone ADSL2 standard (not very expensive) and then upgrade the backbone to fibre and THEN to offer fiber to the home or business based on need. most small business wnt need very fast internet nor do most residences. So this plan is based on paying for what we need, not what we want while at the same time providing cutting edge internet whree needed.

Please delete wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 10:31am:

I understand that you said that the cost of Rudd cancelling Howard's limp proposal was $4B. You said the cost was $4B, now you admit that you knew that this was not the case. Is that lying, mr weekend?

You misinterpreted me. the $4B was allocated in the budget and the contract was then cancelled. the point is that this woudl already be done now if not for Rudd cancelling it and replacing it with... NOTHING.

Pyne flags broadband change
September 19, 2010

Opposition frontbencher Christopher Pyne has flagged that the coalition may change its broadband policy.

The coalition took a $6 billion patchwork broadband plan to the federal election, while Labor presented voters with its $43 billion national broadband network (NBN).

Mr Pyne said the opposition's new communications spokesman Malcolm Turnbull would be charged with ...   promoting the coalition's policy and I'm sure there will be refinements to all coalition policies over the coming months, and if necessary years," he told ABC TV on Sunday.

Mr Pyne said the coalition would be irresponsible not to adapt its policies as "circumstances" changed.

"You wouldn't expect our policies in 2010 to be precisely the same as 2013," he said.


http://www.theage.com.au/national/pyne-flags-broadband-change-20100919-15hol.htm...





Obviously the baked bean can and string model didn't go down too well with the electorate - at the Federal Election
It seems to be the issue with rural Australia that swayed the independents into supporting a Labor minority government

Good idea to give it rural Australia first though isn't it Buzz?

You know when 70%+ Australians live in the cities, it's obvious they should get it second......

Have to agree with Mr Hicks in this matter.

It doesn't make sense to spend the bulk of the money and do the bulk of the work, in the sector least likely to take it up.

Implement FIRST in the cities, get the income happening, and then do the country areas.

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 10:49am:

Pyne flags broadband change September 19, 2010 Opposition frontbencher Christopher Pyne has flagged that the coalition may change its broadband policy. The coalition took a $6 billion patchwork broadband plan to the federal election, while Labor presented voters with its $43 billion national broadband network (NBN). Mr Pyne said the opposition's new communications spokesman Malcolm Turnbull would be charged with ...   promoting the coalition's policy and I'm sure there will be refinements to all coalition policies over the coming months, and if necessary years," he told ABC TV on Sunday. Mr Pyne said the coalition would be irresponsible not to adapt its policies as "circumstances" changed. "You wouldn't expect our policies in 2010 to be precisely the same as 2013," he said. http://www.theage.com.au/national/pyne-flags-broadband-change-20100919-15hol.htm... Obviously the baked bean can and string model didn't go down too well with the electorate - at the Federal Election It seems to be the issue with rural Australia that swayed the independents into supporting a Labor minority government

pretty simplistic thinking. Given that labor got an electoral smacking and the Libs nearly won govt Id say the internet proposal by labor has quite thin support among the electorate.

But What about the OP buzz? what would YOU use faster internet for that you currentl cant use?

Please delete wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 10:54am:

Have to agree with Mr Hicks in this matter. It doesn't make sense to spend the bulk of the money and do the bulk of the work, in the sector least likely to take it up. Implement FIRST in the cities, get the income happening, and then do the country areas.

But isnt your arguement that ADSL2 isnt good enough because it isnt country wide.

What income are you talking about?

They have to put it in the country anyway, why not start there first?

What makes more economic sense - roll out fibre 5 kms from an exchange, and pick up 2000 customers, or roll out fibre 250 kms to another town, and pick up 100 customers?

I have not yet heard a compelling argument for faster internet. No one has yet come up with a need for it.

Please delete wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 11:01am:

What makes more economic sense - roll out fibre 5 kms from an exchange, and pick up 2000 customers, or roll out fibre 250 kms to another town, and pick up 100 customers?

and suddenyl the economic argument starts to take hold...

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 10:56am:

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 20th, 2010 at 10:49am: Pyne flags broadband change September 19, 2010 Opposition frontbencher Christopher Pyne has flagged that the coalition may change its broadband policy. The coalition took a $6 billion patchwork broadband plan to the federal election, while Labor presented voters with its $43 billion national broadband network (NBN). Mr Pyne said the opposition's new communications spokesman Malcolm Turnbull would be charged with ...   promoting the coalition's policy and I'm sure there will be refinements to all coalition policies over the coming months, and if necessary years," he told ABC TV on Sunday. Mr Pyne said the coalition would be irresponsible not to adapt its policies as "circumstances" changed. "You wouldn't expect our policies in 2010 to be precisely the same as 2013," he said. http://www.theage.com.au/national/pyne-flags-broadband-change-20100919-15hol.htm... Obviously the baked bean can and string model didn't go down too well with the electorate - at the Federal Election It seems to be the issue with rural Australia that swayed the independents into supporting a Labor minority government pretty simplistic thinking. Given that labor got an electoral smacking and the Libs nearly won govt Id say the internet proposal by labor has quite thin support among the electorate. But What about the OP buzz? what would YOU use faster internet for that you currentl cant use?

I hadn't given the speed a lot of thought
I'd just be greatful of a service that provide access 60 minutes in the hour - 24/7
No 2 hour dropouts on cloudy days

All a part of satellite and wireless DNA - but all that is available to VAST tracts of the country

In MY case, satellite ONLY...
At DOUBLE the price, HALF the speed (on a good day) and half the download of ADSL2

The NBN is to replace the entire telecommunications infrastructure across Australia ... the country areas had very poor service when compared to the city ..

Telstra had been told several times before and during when they got sold off to fix certain things which they still hadn't .. Howards bandaid fix to this was to try to get ADSL to these regions but seeing as the whole infrastructure was not going to last more then 5 or so years lifespan wise it was decided to replace it all ..

They decided to do the country areas first because they had always been lacking these services and with the view to keep these areas still going ..

It has nothing to do with who gets what first or how much do you roll out .. It has to do with services provided . They will roll out cable and not see a customer but that is the same now with copper ... It is all areas need a modern service that is future proofed...  

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 11:05am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 20th, 2010 at 10:56am: buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 20th, 2010 at 10:49am: Pyne flags broadband change September 19, 2010 Opposition frontbencher Christopher Pyne has flagged that the coalition may change its broadband policy. The coalition took a $6 billion patchwork broadband plan to the federal election, while Labor presented voters with its $43 billion national broadband network (NBN). Mr Pyne said the opposition's new communications spokesman Malcolm Turnbull would be charged with ...   promoting the coalition's policy and I'm sure there will be refinements to all coalition policies over the coming months, and if necessary years," he told ABC TV on Sunday. Mr Pyne said the coalition would be irresponsible not to adapt its policies as "circumstances" changed. "You wouldn't expect our policies in 2010 to be precisely the same as 2013," he said. http://www.theage.com.au/national/pyne-flags-broadband-change-20100919-15hol.htm... Obviously the baked bean can and string model didn't go down too well with the electorate - at the Federal Election It seems to be the issue with rural Australia that swayed the independents into supporting a Labor minority government pretty simplistic thinking. Given that labor got an electoral smacking and the Libs nearly won govt Id say the internet proposal by labor has quite thin support among the electorate. But What about the OP buzz? what would YOU use faster internet for that you currentl cant use? I hadn't given the speed a lot of thought I'd just be greatful of a service that provide access 60 minutes in the hour - 24/7 No 2 hour dropouts on cloudy days All a part of satellite and wireless DNA - but all that is available to VAST tracts of the country In MY case, satellite ONLY... At DOUBLE the price, HALF the speed (on a good day) and half the download of ADSL2

so fully wired up ADLS 2+ standard internet would be awesome for you? the same service you woudl now have if Howard had been elected instead of Rudd?

Interesting...

Please delete wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 11:01am:

What makes more economic sense - roll out fibre 5 kms from an exchange, and pick up 2000 customers, or roll out fibre 250 kms to another town, and pick up 100 customers?

But the promise was it was to be australia wide, and access was foreveryone.

So it has to go to the country anyway.

At least this way we know in the country we will definatley get something for a change, not get the usual "sorry, money ran out" line we have got from a NSW labor state government for 15 years.

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 11:07am:

The NBN is to replace the entire telecommunications infrastructure across Australia ... the country areas had very poor service when compared to the city .. Telstra had been told several times before and during when they got sold off to fix certain things which they still hadn't .. Howards bandaid fix to this was to try to get ADSL to these regions but seeing as the whole infrastructure was not going to last more then 5 or so years lifespan wise it was decided to replace it all .. They decided to do the country areas first because they had always been lacking these services and with the view to keep these areas still going .. It has nothing to do with who gets what first or how much do you roll out .. It has to do with services provided . They will roll out cable and not see a customer but that is the same now with copper ... It is all areas need a modern service that is future proofed...

total nonsense on almost every point.

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 11:07am:

They decided to do the country areas first because they had always been lacking these services and with the view to keep these areas still going ..

Yep that is EXACTLY why they plan to do the country/rural areas first.
It has absolutely nothing whatsoever with the fact the two MPs who they need the vote of to govern come from rural areas at all.

That is mere coincidence.

;D

Yes, you'll get it first, and the cities will get the new improved bug free iterations.

we will all end up with none of it. eventually someone somewhere in the decision making process wil ask where the money is coming from. and then it will all stop. and then the process starts all over again to get ADLS out to regional areas and other dead spots. and it will be 2015 and stil no broadband internet in these areas because no one can ever make up their mind and stick to it!

Which is exactly what would have happened under the coalition, had Howard been elected - we'd have had another "non-core promise" experience.

Costello would have rolled Howard, and all the priorities would have changed.

so you are saying the NBN isn't going to replace our entire phone network the NBN is going to give us high speed broadband and advanced digital services eg.. video / voip phones  

you are saying the country areas have better service then us for phones / internet that is utter shite..

you are saying the lifespan isn't reached for our copper lines  here is our copper lines charted and all on lifespan we reached them last year
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/files/2010/09/nbn1.PNG

I spoke to a colleague who attended an Institute of Australian Directors forum in Canberra last week.
He said a couple of queries about this network came up.

A few public servants who were there didn't give much of an answer and the general mood (replicated all around Canberra so he tells me) is that this Government isn't going to be around in its current form anyway so there is little being done.

The public servants threw up their hands at every question and answered 'we don't know'.

Don't expect too much to get done on the network, of even anything judging by the sounds of what I heard.

Andrei the NBN was arranged  a year before the election and set to go to these areas Tasmania was first ...

the problem that will stop the NBN now is the lib / nats but instead of blaming them they will blame labor

And Andrei i speak to quiet a few people who are involved with the NBN rollout and what you are saying is a lie they are not linked to government for the technical aspects it is clearly stated on their site ..


Quote:

On 7 April 2009 the Australian Government announced the establishment of NBN Co Limited (NBN Co) to design, build and operate the wholesale-only National Broadband Network (NBN).

http://www.thepoliticalsword.com/post/2010/08/04/Would-Tony-Abbott-really-be-stupid-enough-to-trash-the-NBN.aspx

It was Nick Minchin who said that his broadband was fast enough for him. He could not see why the country should embark on an expensive very fast fibre-to-the-home/business/institution National Broadband Network. So if today’s broadband is good enough for Nick, what on earth are the NBN advocates carrying on about?

As has been the case with other worthy initiatives it has introduced, the Government has not clearly explained to the people just what an NBN would do for this country. This piece is an attempt to fill that gap.

What will the NBN do that current broadband won’t?

Well, it will connect 93 percent of all Australian homes, schools and workplaces with broadband services with speeds up to 100 megabits per second – a 100 times faster than those currently used by many households and businesses, and connect all other premises with next generation wireless (4%) and satellite technologies (3%) that will deliver broadband speeds of 12 megabits per second with average data rates more than 20 times higher than most users of these technologies experience today.

For more details of the NBN, click here.  To see the map of where the NBN and the other technologies will be connected, click here.  



What will the NBN do for us?

For those who download music and video, films and the like, download times will be vastly decreased, minutes instead of hours. Now if that was all the NBN achieved, it could be argued that the value of spending $43 billion on it would be questionable. But, good though these faster speeds are for music lovers and film buffs, it is all the other things that will be achieved that make the expense not just worthwhile, but essential.

The most significant hindrance to the NBN is the paucity of imagination of those who offer an opinion. There are applications of this super-fast technology that have not even been thought of. Time and again inventions have been discounted by the unimaginative, such as the US army general who, early last century, said he couldn’t see a place for the new-fangled airplane in warfare. While watching the first episode of Return to Cranford on ABC TV, it was fascinating to see the resistance of the folk in that small village to the advent of the steam train and a rail line coming to their village. They were not only fearful about its effect, but skeptical about its value too. It reminded me of the comments of Nick Minchin and Tony Abbott, who says he will offer a ‘no frills’ version of broadband, not this flash expensive thing called an NBN.

So let’s leave the unimaginative to their narrow thinking and expand our minds to imagine what the NBN can do, might do.


cont,  with More topics follow link

Health care?
What about education?
Would it help business?
What about local business?
The personal benefits
Where is the NBN at?
Etc....

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 11:18am:

so you are saying the NBN isn't going to replace our entire phone network the NBN is going to give us high speed broadband and advanced digital services eg.. video / voip phones   you are saying the country areas have better service then us for phones / internet that is utter shite.. you are saying the lifespan isn't reached for our copper lines  here is our copper lines charted and all on lifespan we reached them last year http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/files/2010/09/nbn1.PNG

you stil havent come up with a need for faster internet yet. nor have you come up with a need to replace the phone network which frankly works and works well. and since most people are using mobiles rather than land lines the argument gets even thinner.

longweekend- there are numerous articles out there telling why and what a faster internet service will do. Its called research.

wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 11:22am:

http://www.thepoliticalsword.com/post/2010/08/04/Would-Tony-Abbott-really-be-stupid-enough-to-trash-the-NBN.aspx It was Nick Minchin who said that his broadband was fast enough for him. He could not see why the country should embark on an expensive very fast fibre-to-the-home/business/institution National Broadband Network. So if today’s broadband is good enough for Nick, what on earth are the NBN advocates carrying on about? As has been the case with other worthy initiatives it has introduced, the Government has not clearly explained to the people just what an NBN would do for this country. This piece is an attempt to fill that gap. What will the NBN do that current broadband won’t? Well, it will connect 93 percent of all Australian homes, schools and workplaces with broadband services with speeds up to 100 megabits per second – a 100 times faster than those currently used by many households and businesses, and connect all other premises with next generation wireless (4%) and satellite technologies (3%) that will deliver broadband speeds of 12 megabits per second with average data rates more than 20 times higher than most users of these technologies experience today. For more details of the NBN, click here.  To see the map of where the NBN and the other technologies will be connected, click here.   What will the NBN do for us? For those who download music and video, films and the like, download times will be vastly decreased, minutes instead of hours. Now if that was all the NBN achieved, it could be argued that the value of spending $43 billion on it would be questionable. But, good though these faster speeds are for music lovers and film buffs, it is all the other things that will be achieved that make the expense not just worthwhile, but essential. The most significant hindrance to the NBN is the paucity of imagination of those who offer an opinion. There are applications of this super-fast technology that have not even been thought of. Time and again inventions have been discounted by the unimaginative, such as the US army general who, early last century, said he couldn’t see a place for the new-fangled airplane in warfare. While watching the first episode of Return to Cranford on ABC TV, it was fascinating to see the resistance of the folk in that small village to the advent of the steam train and a rail line coming to their village. They were not only fearful about its effect, but skeptical about its value too. It reminded me of the comments of Nick Minchin and Tony Abbott, who says he will offer a ‘no frills’ version of broadband, not this flash expensive thing called an NBN. So let’s leave the unimaginative to their narrow thinking and expand our minds to imagine what the NBN can do, might do. cont,  with More topics follow link Health care? What about education? Would it help business? What about local business? The personal benefits Where is the NBN at? Etc....

and there is the admission that the NBN is for applications 'we havent yet imagined'. the implicit admission is that what we have now is good enough.

so I repeat... why are we upgrading this network at a truly horrendous cost for a need that doesnt exist?

we have all told you why ... remote hospitals , remote schooling , internet Tv , gaming , smart appliances , video phones / voip service

and if you look at the chart above you will see it isn't good enough .. technology moves forward .. we cant so we stay behind and lose the benefits of a technological economy ..

but hang on that is the coalition mantra

wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 11:25am:

longweekend- there are numerous articles out there telling why and what a faster internet service will do. Its called research.

then list them for us. and in particular list what reasons the average householder will ahve need for it!

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 11:26am:

we have all told you why ... remote hospitals , remote schooling , internet Tv , gaming , smart appliances , video phones / voip service and if you look at the chart above you will see it isn't good enough .. technology moves forward .. we cant so we stay behind and lose the benefits of a technological economy .. but hang on that is the coalition mantra

we can do all that now. internet TV is probably the only application that wouldnt really work very well. but that is hardly the killer application that justifies a $43B spend.  

Yes, I think we should ditch the F35B purchase ($35B) and the submarine projects too.

After all, the F-111 can still fly can't it? And what do we need subs for? Most of us never go under water in the bath!

NBN cost could rise on ACCC ruling: report

The construction cost of the national broadband network could rise by as much as $2 billion dollars under proposed new prices for telcos that use Telstra Corporation Ltd's fixed-line assets, according to The Australian Financial Review.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) released draft access and line rental prices for rival telcos that provide voice, fax and broadband products over Telstra's copper network.

Companies will be charged $20 per month to supply telephone services, down from the current $25.57 in monthly wholesale line rental for homes, and $26.93 for businesses under the new pricing regime.

The ruling means that the NBN Co may be forced to raise the price of its broadband or charge lower wholesale prices than previously forecast, the AFR reports.

"The $11 billion deal (with the NBN Co) was looking good for Telstra," RBS analyst Ian Martin told the AFR. "Maybe the NBN Co will try to negotiate it down now."

The proposed new price for line-sharing services, allowing companies to supply ADSL services, is the same as the current $2.50 per month.

The price to access Telstra's copper wire running from the telephone exchange to the home in non-CBD metropolitan areas would fall from $6.60 to $6.50.

The proposed changes are intended to apply for four years from January 1, 2011, and are now open to industry feedback.

The telco industry broadly supports the new method adopted by the competition watchdog to determine these new prices, ACCC chairman Graeme Samuel said.

"The ACCC recognises that a four-year pricing guidance period will provide a level of certainty which is essential to support commercial negotiations in the industry and to continue to support the competitive supply and rollout of telecommunications services to consumers," he said in a statement.

Optus welcomed the change in pricing methods, saying it reflects the costs Telstra actually incurs supplying services on its copper network.

However, general manager of regulatory affairs Andrew Sheridan said the change did not appear to have resulted in reductions to access charges.

"Optus will examine the detailed application of the ACCC's new methodology to understand why these price changes have not eventuated," he said.

Telstra managing director of public policy and communications David Quilty said he disagreed with the changes to monthly line rental prices.

"Telstra is committed to regulatory certainty but the draft prices would mean a 24 per cent reduction in wholesale line rental prices, which undermines price stability both now and over the long-term," he said.


http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/ACCC-calls-for-fixed-line-price-reform-pd20100917-9D7CH?opendocument&src=rss

Please delete wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 11:31am:

Yes, I think we should ditch the F35B purchase ($35B) and the submarine projects too. After all, the F-111 can still fly can't it? And what do we need subs for? Most of us never go under water in the bath!

ridiculous argument.

just make a REAL case for the NBN. in case you havent noticed no one can make a genuine case for this massive project. that's why labor supporters dont want a Cost Benefit Analysis - because the benefits are so few!

In case you hadn't noticed, I HAVE made my argument for the NBN.

Both personal and business.

Please delete wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 11:36am:

In case you hadn't noticed, I HAVE made my argument for the NBN. Both personal and business.

ok then let me qualify it as a COMPELLING argument.

And you're the judge for its' "compellingness"? Sure.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 11:31am:

we can do all that now. internet TV is probably the only application that wouldnt really work very well. but that is hardly the killer application that justifies a $43B spend.

We cant do Smart Appliance as we don't have fibre , internet tv no , VOIP service now are rubbish due to bandwidth / speed sounds like talking inside  washing machine so voip no.. remote diagnostic or remote surgery for hospitals no as it also relies on fibre optic..

gaming is the only one

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 11:10am:

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 20th, 2010 at 11:05am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 20th, 2010 at 10:56am: buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 20th, 2010 at 10:49am: Pyne flags broadband change September 19, 2010 Opposition frontbencher Christopher Pyne has flagged that the coalition may change its broadband policy. The coalition took a $6 billion patchwork broadband plan to the federal election, while Labor presented voters with its $43 billion national broadband network (NBN). Mr Pyne said the opposition's new communications spokesman Malcolm Turnbull would be charged with ...   promoting the coalition's policy and I'm sure there will be refinements to all coalition policies over the coming months, and if necessary years," he told ABC TV on Sunday. Mr Pyne said the coalition would be irresponsible not to adapt its policies as "circumstances" changed. "You wouldn't expect our policies in 2010 to be precisely the same as 2013," he said. http://www.theage.com.au/national/pyne-flags-broadband-change-20100919-15hol.htm... Obviously the baked bean can and string model didn't go down too well with the electorate - at the Federal Election It seems to be the issue with rural Australia that swayed the independents into supporting a Labor minority government pretty simplistic thinking. Given that labor got an electoral smacking and the Libs nearly won govt Id say the internet proposal by labor has quite thin support among the electorate. But What about the OP buzz? what would YOU use faster internet for that you currentl cant use? I hadn't given the speed a lot of thought I'd just be greatful of a service that provide access 60 minutes in the hour - 24/7 No 2 hour dropouts on cloudy days All a part of satellite and wireless DNA - but all that is available to VAST tracts of the country In MY case, satellite ONLY... At DOUBLE the price, HALF the speed (on a good day) and half the download of ADSL2 so fully wired up ADLS 2+ standard internet would be awesome for you? the same service you woudl now have if Howard had been elected instead of Rudd? Interesting...

It's got nothing to DO with Howard
More to do with the PRIVATISED Telstra who have ZERO interst in servicing no-profit viability regions

This is the MAJOR case against leaving vital infrastructure in the care of private enterprise

What was Howard's plan ?
To build an entire new network of telephone exchanges across the country, with a maximum of 6km from one to the next ?

(3km from an exchange, the outer impedence range from an exchange to access ADSL)

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 11:42am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 20th, 2010 at 11:31am: we can do all that now. internet TV is probably the only application that wouldnt really work very well. but that is hardly the killer application that justifies a $43B spend.   We cant do Smart Appliance as we don't have fibre , internet tv no , VOIP service now are rubbish due to bandwidth / speed sounds like talking inside  washing machine so voip no.. remote diagnostic or remote surgery for hospitals no as it also relies on fibre optic.. gaming is the only one

smart appliances are a LOW bandwidth application. VOIP is already around in many, many areas and works fine. remote diagnostic etc work - if needed - could be done by putting in high speed links specifically for the task - just as hospitals and business does now. You dont take fiber to 10million homes because 1000 might need it. that shoudl be a no-brainer.

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 11:45am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 20th, 2010 at 11:10am: buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 20th, 2010 at 11:05am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 20th, 2010 at 10:56am: buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 20th, 2010 at 10:49am: Pyne flags broadband change September 19, 2010 Opposition frontbencher Christopher Pyne has flagged that the coalition may change its broadband policy. The coalition took a $6 billion patchwork broadband plan to the federal election, while Labor presented voters with its $43 billion national broadband network (NBN). Mr Pyne said the opposition's new communications spokesman Malcolm Turnbull would be charged with ...   promoting the coalition's policy and I'm sure there will be refinements to all coalition policies over the coming months, and if necessary years," he told ABC TV on Sunday. Mr Pyne said the coalition would be irresponsible not to adapt its policies as "circumstances" changed. "You wouldn't expect our policies in 2010 to be precisely the same as 2013," he said. http://www.theage.com.au/national/pyne-flags-broadband-change-20100919-15hol.htm... Obviously the baked bean can and string model didn't go down too well with the electorate - at the Federal Election It seems to be the issue with rural Australia that swayed the independents into supporting a Labor minority government pretty simplistic thinking. Given that labor got an electoral smacking and the Libs nearly won govt Id say the internet proposal by labor has quite thin support among the electorate. But What about the OP buzz? what would YOU use faster internet for that you currentl cant use? I hadn't given the speed a lot of thought I'd just be greatful of a service that provide access 60 minutes in the hour - 24/7 No 2 hour dropouts on cloudy days All a part of satellite and wireless DNA - but all that is available to VAST tracts of the country In MY case, satellite ONLY... At DOUBLE the price, HALF the speed (on a good day) and half the download of ADSL2 so fully wired up ADLS 2+ standard internet would be awesome for you? the same service you woudl now have if Howard had been elected instead of Rudd? Interesting... It's got nothing to DO with Howard More to do with the PRIVATISED Telstra who have ZERO interst in servicing no-profit viability regions This is the MAJOR case against leaving vital infrastructure in the care of private enterprise What was Howard's plan ? To build an entire new network of telephone exchanges across the country, with a maximum of 6km from one to the next ? (3km from an exchange, the outer impedence range from an exchange to access ADSL)

Liek it or not, the reason YOU dont have reliable ADSL2+ is because Rudd cancelled Howards contract which would have been completed by now. it is a common problem in business that by trying to attempt TOO MUCH at one time, you end up with nothing at all. this is what wil happen with this. 93% of the country could have ADLS NOW but doesnt because Rudd wanted a new all-singing project that we cant afford and will take ten years to build.

"which would have been completed by now"

Yeah right.

mellie wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 11:32am:

NBN cost could rise on ACCC ruling: report The construction cost of the national broadband network could rise by as much as $2 billion dollars under proposed new prices for telcos that use Telstra Corporation Ltd's fixed-line assets, according to The Australian Financial Review. http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/ACCC-calls-for-fixed-line-price-reform-pd20100917-9D7CH?opendocument&src=rss

Tassie NBN running under budget
August 19th, 2010

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said last night on Lateline that the Tasmanian portion of the National Broadband Network (NBN) had come in 10 per cent under budget.

Conroy made the statement in answer to a question on whether it was likely that the $43 billion price tag was likely to balloon. This had been preceded by Shadow Communications Minister Tony Smith presenting his party's policy as being "responsible, affordable and deliverable" and claiming that the NBN could cost even more than the $43 billion total (around $27 billion of which is set to be provided by government coffers).

"That is the minimum cost if everything goes right over an eight-year period," Smith had said.

Conroy answered that so far everything was running to plan.

"We have delivered the Tasmanian project on time and 10 per cent under budget," he said, adding that the 6000km backhaul backbone being rolled out by Nextgen Networks was also on time and sitting on budget.
When asked if he could guarantee that the budget would not blow out, he said that the NBN was a project that replicated itself over and over, each time with improvements in efficiency.

"We are under budget on the build so far, we've got some of the world's leading experts in technology in rolling out this network," he said.

According to Conroy, the $11 billion Telstra deal would cut the cost, quoting experts who had said it would lower the overall figure of the network by $4 to $6 billion.


http://www.zdnet.com.au/tassie-nbn-running-under-budget-conroy-339305348.htm

I presume, too, that the NBN will be symmetrical, unlike ADSL, so upload will be as quick as download.

Am I right?

Please delete wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 12:02pm:

I presume, too, that the NBN will be symmetrical, unlike ADSL, so upload will be as quick as download. Am I right?

no idea. do you? you can get symettrical ADLS for business now.

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 11:59am:

mellie wrote on Sep 20th, 2010 at 11:32am: NBN cost could rise on ACCC ruling: report The construction cost of the national broadband network could rise by as much as $2 billion dollars under proposed new prices for telcos that use Telstra Corporation Ltd's fixed-line assets, according to The Australian Financial Review. http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/ACCC-calls-for-fixed-line-price-reform-pd20100917-9D7CH?opendocument&src=rss Tassie NBN running under budget August 19th, 2010 Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said last night on Lateline that the Tasmanian portion of the National Broadband Network (NBN) had come in 10 per cent under budget. Conroy made the statement in answer to a question on whether it was likely that the $43 billion price tag was likely to balloon. This had been preceded by Shadow Communications Minister Tony Smith presenting his party's policy as being "responsible, affordable and deliverable" and claiming that the NBN could cost even more than the $43 billion total (around $27 billion of which is set to be provided by government coffers). "That is the minimum cost if everything goes right over an eight-year period," Smith had said. Conroy answered that so far everything was running to plan. "We have delivered the Tasmanian project on time and 10 per cent under budget," he said, adding that the 6000km backhaul backbone being rolled out by Nextgen Networks was also on time and sitting on budget. When asked if he could guarantee that the budget would not blow out, he said that the NBN was a project that replicated itself over and over, each time with improvements in efficiency. "We are under budget on the build so far, we've got some of the world's leading experts in technology in rolling out this network," he said. According to Conroy, the $11 billion Telstra deal would cut the cost, quoting experts who had said it would lower the overall figure of the network by $4 to $6 billion. http://www.zdnet.com.au/tassie-nbn-running-under-budget-conroy-339305348.htm

being 10% under budget is only impressive if the budget was a proper figure in the first place. Given that the NBN was begun without a cost-benefit analysis, business plan or viability assessment, any 'budget' that was created would be no more than guess work. coming in 10% under your 'best guess' is not that impressive.

"no idea. do you? you can get symettrical ADLS for business now"

Need some string to join those tin cans, weekend?

I was asking a question. Unlike you, I don't pretend to have all the answers.

Just by the way, what does the "A" stand for in ADLS (sic)?

Please delete wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 12:36pm:

"no idea. do you? you can get symettrical ADLS for business now" Need some string to join those tin cans, weekend? I was asking a question. Unlike you, I don't pretend to have all the answers. Just by the way, what does the "A" stand for in ADLS (sic)?

to be strictly pedantic you get symettrical DSL. the point is that it actually EXISTS now and business is already using it. You can also tie ADLS together to multiply your effectyive bandwith. and there is also available 100Mbs fibre connections for business.

My point is not the technical superiority of the NBN but its cost effectiveness. and given that no one can find a genuine need - specially domestic need - for this extra bandwidth, then i question the truly horrendous expense.

Ok, since you've repeated it, what is "ADLS", and what does the "A" stand for?

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 11:52am:

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 20th, 2010 at 11:45am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 20th, 2010 at 11:10am: buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 20th, 2010 at 11:05am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 20th, 2010 at 10:56am: buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 20th, 2010 at 10:49am: Pyne flags broadband change September 19, 2010 Opposition frontbencher Christopher Pyne has flagged that the coalition may change its broadband policy. The coalition took a $6 billion patchwork broadband plan to the federal election, while Labor presented voters with its $43 billion national broadband network (NBN). Mr Pyne said the opposition's new communications spokesman Malcolm Turnbull would be charged with ...   promoting the coalition's policy and I'm sure there will be refinements to all coalition policies over the coming months, and if necessary years," he told ABC TV on Sunday. Mr Pyne said the coalition would be irresponsible not to adapt its policies as "circumstances" changed. "You wouldn't expect our policies in 2010 to be precisely the same as 2013," he said. http://www.theage.com.au/national/pyne-flags-broadband-change-20100919-15hol.htm... Obviously the baked bean can and string model didn't go down too well with the electorate - at the Federal Election It seems to be the issue with rural Australia that swayed the independents into supporting a Labor minority government pretty simplistic thinking. Given that labor got an electoral smacking and the Libs nearly won govt Id say the internet proposal by labor has quite thin support among the electorate. But What about the OP buzz? what would YOU use faster internet for that you currentl cant use? I hadn't given the speed a lot of thought I'd just be greatful of a service that provide access 60 minutes in the hour - 24/7 No 2 hour dropouts on cloudy days All a part of satellite and wireless DNA - but all that is available to VAST tracts of the country In MY case, satellite ONLY... At DOUBLE the price, HALF the speed (on a good day) and half the download of ADSL2 so fully wired up ADLS 2+ standard internet would be awesome for you? the same service you woudl now have if Howard had been elected instead of Rudd? Interesting... It's got nothing to DO with Howard More to do with the PRIVATISED Telstra who have ZERO interst in servicing no-profit viability regions This is the MAJOR case against leaving vital infrastructure in the care of private enterprise What was Howard's plan ? To build an entire new network of telephone exchanges across the country, with a maximum of 6km from one to the next ? (3km from an exchange, the outer impedence range from an exchange to access ADSL) Liek it or not, the reason YOU dont have reliable ADSL2+ is because Rudd cancelled Howards contract which would have been completed by now. it is a common problem in business that by trying to attempt TOO MUCH at one time, you end up with nothing at all. this is what wil happen with this. 93% of the country could have ADLS NOW but doesnt because Rudd wanted a new all-singing project that we cant afford and will take ten years to build.

I'll have to disagree on that point longy...
Howard's NBN plan would have meant that 93% of the country would have received WIRELESS service, using a system that was so outdated, (even at the time) that the signal would have dropped out from interference everytime you turned the microwave on...

Please delete wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 12:47pm:

Ok, since you've repeated it, what is "ADLS", and what does the "A" stand for?

asymetical as you already know - as did I.

you are strong on pedantry and very thin on facts - like what we want this white elephant for!

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 12:48pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 20th, 2010 at 11:52am: buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 20th, 2010 at 11:45am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 20th, 2010 at 11:10am: buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 20th, 2010 at 11:05am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 20th, 2010 at 10:56am: buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 20th, 2010 at 10:49am: Pyne flags broadband change September 19, 2010 Opposition frontbencher Christopher Pyne has flagged that the coalition may change its broadband policy. The coalition took a $6 billion patchwork broadband plan to the federal election, while Labor presented voters with its $43 billion national broadband network (NBN). Mr Pyne said the opposition's new communications spokesman Malcolm Turnbull would be charged with ...   promoting the coalition's policy and I'm sure there will be refinements to all coalition policies over the coming months, and if necessary years," he told ABC TV on Sunday. Mr Pyne said the coalition would be irresponsible not to adapt its policies as "circumstances" changed. "You wouldn't expect our policies in 2010 to be precisely the same as 2013," he said. http://www.theage.com.au/national/pyne-flags-broadband-change-20100919-15hol.htm... Obviously the baked bean can and string model didn't go down too well with the electorate - at the Federal Election It seems to be the issue with rural Australia that swayed the independents into supporting a Labor minority government pretty simplistic thinking. Given that labor got an electoral smacking and the Libs nearly won govt Id say the internet proposal by labor has quite thin support among the electorate. But What about the OP buzz? what would YOU use faster internet for that you currentl cant use? I hadn't given the speed a lot of thought I'd just be greatful of a service that provide access 60 minutes in the hour - 24/7 No 2 hour dropouts on cloudy days All a part of satellite and wireless DNA - but all that is available to VAST tracts of the country In MY case, satellite ONLY... At DOUBLE the price, HALF the speed (on a good day) and half the download of ADSL2 so fully wired up ADLS 2+ standard internet would be awesome for you? the same service you woudl now have if Howard had been elected instead of Rudd? Interesting... It's got nothing to DO with Howard More to do with the PRIVATISED Telstra who have ZERO interst in servicing no-profit viability regions This is the MAJOR case against leaving vital infrastructure in the care of private enterprise What was Howard's plan ? To build an entire new network of telephone exchanges across the country, with a maximum of 6km from one to the next ? (3km from an exchange, the outer impedence range from an exchange to access ADSL) Liek it or not, the reason YOU dont have reliable ADSL2+ is because Rudd cancelled Howards contract which would have been completed by now. it is a common problem in business that by trying to attempt TOO MUCH at one time, you end up with nothing at all. this is what wil happen with this. 93% of the country could have ADLS NOW but doesnt because Rudd wanted a new all-singing project that we cant afford and will take ten years to build. I'll have to disagree on that point longy... Howard's NBN plan would have meant that 93% of the country would have received WIRELESS service, using a system that was so outdated, (even at the time) that the signal would have dropped out from interference everytime you turned the microwave on...

actually you are wrong. much of the plan was on removing deadspots in the cities (eg on RIMs) and on providing wireless or microwave backbone to some regional areas and then copper on to the home. it was a less effective alternative than the NBN for sure BUT it was 1/10 the cost and would already be done.

One would think that such an authority as yourself, who likes to poke fun and be sarcastic in regards other peoples' posts, would know how that it is "ADSL" not "ADLS".

Yes, pedantic of me, but people who play "high and mighty" often deserve being taken down a peg or two.

Please delete wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 12:53pm:

One would think that such an authority as yourself, who likes to poke fun and be sarcastic in regards other peoples' posts, would know how that it is "ADSL" not "ADLS". Yes, pedantic of me, but people who play "high and mighty" often deserve being taken down a peg or two.

the average person - even vegy - can recognise a typo from a lack of knowledge.

and you rely on pedantry to deflect from the fact that you actually have no compelling answer to the original post. you have no real answer as to why we need higher bandwidth than we currently have. no needs, no applications. and when most people already use less than 25% of their bandwidth AT MOST then the need simply ISNT THERE.

ADLS2+ is 500-1000 times the speed of dialup. THAT is a significant and essential improvement. moving from 20Mbs - 100Mbs is not that significant especially when there is almost no way you can use up your existing bandwidth - nevermind 5 times as much!

No typo - I highlighted it, and you repeated your mistake - you go back and look.

And I have made a very compelling answer to the OP. But mister high and mighty doesn't agree - so what?

One who criticizes someone simply for asking a question - ("no idea. do you?") can't lecture ME on pedantry.

excusie, if this has already been posted in any other thread...but

UPDATE   :-*

The United Nations has endorsed Australia's National Broadband Network.It describes the NBN as a 'vital engine driving economic growth'.
The UN is due to announce its own global broadband blueprint in New York.
It says the world is watching Australia's roll out.
The UN Broadband Commission criticises mobile-driven broadband policies, such as the Coalition's plan.

http://skynews.com.au/business/article.aspx?id=515573&articleID=

The UN is due to announce its own global broadband blueprint in New York.
It says the world is watching Australia's roll out.

The UN Broadband Commission criticises mobile-driven broadband policies, such as the Coalition's plan

====================================



Labor government = Moving Forwards !     [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 1:27pm:

excusie, if this has already been posted in any other thread...but UPDATE   :-* The United Nations has endorsed Australia's National Broadband Network.It describes the NBN as a 'vital engine driving economic growth'. The UN is due to announce its own global broadband blueprint in New York. It says the world is watching Australia's roll out. The UN Broadband Commission criticises mobile-driven broadband policies, such as the Coalition's plan. http://skynews.com.au/business/article.aspx?id=515573&articleID=

THE  UN FFS

:D :D

wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 1:27pm:

excusie, if this has already been posted in any other thread...but UPDATE   :-* The United Nations has endorsed Australia's National Broadband Network.It describes the NBN as a 'vital engine driving economic growth'. The UN is due to announce its own global broadband blueprint in New York. It says the world is watching Australia's roll out. The UN Broadband Commission criticises mobile-driven broadband policies, such as the Coalition's plan. http://skynews.com.au/business/article.aspx?id=515573&articleID=

Yes, just like they endorsed a carbon-tax of which will damage our economy also.


Why do I feel as though Rudd has sold our soul to the UN?

And why are we expected to pay a carbon-tax when other developed nations have considered it, planned to implement it, only to have changed their minds at the last minute, when they realised the negative impacts it would have on their nations economy?

Frances constitutional council slammed their carbon-tax (was to be brought in January this year) as being unconstitutional, just short of it being passed.

So what are these smarter nations realising, just before they pass their own carbon-tax, that our less fortunate developing nations like India didn't figure out in time?

::)....Guys, this isn't like gay adoption or euthanasia, we cant just legislate this over night.

Who other than India have implemented the same hefty carbon-tax we have all intentions of passing, ...it's like the UN wants us to be forever the Aussey battlers/under-dogs

Last week Gillard had a different tax scheme, now Bob Browns put his on the table...  do they draft these things up over a few rounds of naked twister or what?

Do either of them have any idea at all?

If the UN has ok'd our NBN...be concerned.

They OK'd our carbon-tax, and Frances also....among other nations now stuffed developing countries failed taxes.

Whenever Rudd goes overseas to meet with the UN, I cringe....  I honestly do.

::)

bwood1946 wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 1:30pm:

wrote on Sep 20th, 2010 at 1:27pm: excusie, if this has already been posted in any other thread...but UPDATE   :-* The United Nations has endorsed Australia's National Broadband Network.It describes the NBN as a 'vital engine driving economic growth'. The UN is due to announce its own global broadband blueprint in New York. It says the world is watching Australia's roll out. The UN Broadband Commission criticises mobile-driven broadband policies, such as the Coalition's plan. http://skynews.com.au/business/article.aspx?id=515573&articleID= THE  UN FFS :D :D

;D ;D ;D

Of course they would oppose Tony Abbott's coalition broadband plan, because Tony is opposed to their 'united' carbon-tax agenda.

::)...They will oppose anything Tony Abbott....  because he's not a suck-job and wont do what the ALP will. Which is bend over.

like we oppose anything mellie

Laura Tingle in the Fin on Friday:

QUOTE

Tony Windsor, the independent MP whose crucial vote locked Labor into minority government, has one way of looking at it.

"One of the arguments against the NBN is its $43 billion price tag," he noted last week.

"Well, apparently the actual government investment is closer to $27 billion. But I'd just note that over $40 billion has been spent on tax cuts since the last election."

He's right, of course.

It's funny how no one ever asks for a cost benefit analysis to be done on personal tax cuts.

For that matter, until Labor came to office in 2007, governments rarely asked for any cost-benefit analysis on infrastructure projects.

Please delete wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 1:14pm:

No typo - I highlighted it, and you repeated your mistake - you go back and look. And I have made a very compelling answer to the OP. But mister high and mighty doesn't agree - so what? One who criticizes someone simply for asking a question - ("no idea. do you?") can't lecture ME on pedantry.

'compelling' obviously has different meanings to different people, but internet TV and downloading movies doesnt seem to cut it for me or perhaps most people. everything else you said already exists under existing infrastructure.

wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 1:27pm:

excusie, if this has already been posted in any other thread...but UPDATE   :-* The United Nations has endorsed Australia's National Broadband Network.It describes the NBN as a 'vital engine driving economic growth'. The UN is due to announce its own global broadband blueprint in New York. It says the world is watching Australia's roll out. The UN Broadband Commission criticises mobile-driven broadband policies, such as the Coalition's plan. http://skynews.com.au/business/article.aspx?id=515573&articleID=

The UN... possibly the least competent, least relevant and most hopelessly biased and conflicted organisation in world history. Also an organisation whose mandate could hardly be expected to extend to technical matters. Also of interest, they are a group that has zero concern on the financial cost of ANYTHING. It would be difficult to find a less compelling endorsement of the NBN if you tried!

wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 3:16pm:

Laura Tingle in the Fin on Friday: QUOTE Tony Windsor, the independent MP whose crucial vote locked Labor into minority government, has one way of looking at it. "One of the arguments against the NBN is its $43 billion price tag," he noted last week. "Well, apparently the actual government investment is closer to $27 billion. But I'd just note that over $40 billion has been spent on tax cuts since the last election." He's right, of course. It's funny how no one ever asks for a cost benefit analysis to be done on personal tax cuts. For that matter, until Labor came to office in 2007, governments rarely asked for any cost-benefit analysis on infrastructure projects.

A) the $27B assumes private investment. none has been forthcoming at this stage
B) tax cuts are in fact not CUTS at all but rather maintaining the level of tax with wage rises.
C) the NBN isnt an infrastructure project - it is a commercial enterprise. EVERYONE does a CBA on a commercial enterprise. and a road isnt built just for the hell of it. it is built on the basis of a measured and analysed NEED along with a capacity to pay for it - commonly called a Cost Benefit Analysis.

A) the $27B assumes private investment. none has been forthcoming at this stage

Absolute crap Telstra $11 Billion other investor haven't confirmed amounts

B) tax cuts are in fact not CUTS at all but rather maintaining the level of tax with wage rises.

C) the NBN isnt an infrastructure project - it is a commercial enterprise. EVERYONE does a CBA on a commercial enterprise. and a road isnt built just for the hell of it. it is built on the basis of a measured and analysed NEED along with a capacity to pay for it - commonly called a Cost Benefit Analysis.

The NBN is majority government owned so cant be commercial

UN backs the NBN: reportPublished 7:56 AM, 20 Sep 2010


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/UN-backs-the-NBN-report-pd20100920-9FSGV?OpenDocument&src=hp6

A United Nations official has given the Gillard government's $43 billion national broadband network (NBN) roll-out a tick of approval, saying the infrastructure project was vital for economic growth, The Australian Financial Review reports.

The newspaper said Hamadoun Toure, vice-chairman of the UN Broadband Commission for Digital Development, described the NBN as the one of the world's "most ambitious broadband build-out programs".

He said developed and developing nations were watching to see how Australia overcomes significant hurdles in the project, such as coordinating the roll-out across Australia's vast land mass and connecting remote communities.

Mr Toure said broadband infrastructure was crucial for economic growth and competitiveness and would ensure efficient delivery of education, health and trade and business services, the newspaper reported.

Treasurer Wayne Swan last week described the NBN as one of the biggest economic reforms in Australia's history, saying it will ensure the country can compete globally.

The coalition opposes the roll-out, but opposition frontbencher Christopher Pyne said on Sunday that new shadow communications spokesman Malcolm Turnbull could move alter his party's NBN policy.

opps silly me, -  forgot to highlight this part;

The coalition opposes the roll-out, but opposition frontbencher Christopher Pyne said on Sunday that new shadow communications spokesman Malcolm Turnbull could move alter his party's NBN policy.

Quote:

The NBN is majority government owned so cant be commercial

do you know what 'commercial' means? it DOESNT mean private enterprise. It does however mean an entity that runs on a profit and requires that profit to keep operating. the NBN is such an entity just as telstra was when it was govt owned and the commonweath bank and a host of other commercial operations run by the govt.

so lets try and get back on track. what do YOU (meaning everyone on here) plan to do with 100Mbs that you currently cant do?

I will be good to be able to download movies and music clips faster than I already can. That is the only thing I'd look forward to. Other than that...it's not really a big deal.

And if I have to pay extra for it...then I don't want it.

Vanessa wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 3:55pm:

I will be good to be able to download movies and music clips faster than I already can. That is the only thing I'd look forward to. Other than that...it's not really a big deal. And if I have to pay extra for it...then I don't want it.

which is kinda the point. im stil trying to work out why residential customers need faster internet and so far no one has come up with much of a reason.

IF faster broadband is NOT needed then why is it necessary that the  Coalition ,or better still OPPOSITION frontbencher Christopher Pyne , flagging  that the Coalition may change its broadband policy then ?

Well from the experience I'm having the USA could use the NBN, maybe we'll export the technology because the internet I'm on is slower than home.
Then again it is free wifi in a hotel so I suppose it's their cheapest option :o

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 4:29pm:

Well from the experience I'm having the USA could use the NBN, maybe we'll export the technology because the internet I'm on is slower than home. Then again it is free wifi in a hotel so I suppose it's their cheapest option :o

to be fair the most expense and worst performing internet ANYWHERE would have to be in a hotel. it is like the electronic mini-bar...

THE  UN FFS

 

:D :D



;D ;D ;D

=============================


well you two may take the smirks of your face - as your beloved Turnbull ENDORSED the UN Report... :-*
 

Imagine if it was the Coalition who suggested the NBN.

Then imagine the posts on here by their supporters.

"great foresight", "high technological knowledge", "future expansion", "great for the economy", "sheer brilliance from the Coalition as usual!", "copper is such a laborite technology - outdated"

Life_goes_on wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 7:36pm:

Imagine if it was the Coalition who suggested the NBN. Then imagine the posts on here by their supporters. "great foresight", "high technological knowledge", "future expansion", "great for the economy", "sheer brilliance from the Coalition as usual!", "copper is such a laborite technology - outdated"

I was just about to shut down when I saw this comment.....SLOL

Thanks, life_goes_on, you have really made my day....

;)

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 3:23pm:

...the NBN isnt an infrastructure project ...

Denial aint just dat river in Egypt.  ;D

Life_goes_on wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 7:36pm:

Imagine if it was the Coalition who suggested the NBN. Then imagine the posts on here by their supporters. "great foresight", "high technological knowledge", "future expansion", "great for the economy", "sheer brilliance from the Coalition as usual!", "copper is such a laborite technology - outdated"

It would have been nice to not see headlines like "NBN massive cost blowouts and rorting rife."

Oh sorry, thats next Julys headlines.

he is so true .. their supporters would be praising Abbott for his future thought of the country

Faster internet will mean that video conferencing will become more popular, and pollies will have fewer excuses to take "junkets" overseas.

# wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 8:21pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 20th, 2010 at 3:23pm: ...the NBN isnt an infrastructure project ... Denial aint just dat river in Egypt.  ;D

if you lack the ability to tell the difference between a non-commerical infrastruture project( eg a road) and a commercial projetc like a NBN Corp then the problem is one of your own making.

long okay for the last time the NBN Co is not a Corp i have it here in plain writing from ASIC just for you and as said it is a company not a corporation . it has invested shares in it via the government / private entities so cant trade commercial stop the BS please

Name      NBN CO LIMITED
ACN    
136 533 741
ABN    
86 136 533 741
Type     Australian Public Company, Limited By Shares
Registration Date     09/04/2009
Next Review Date     09/04/2011
Status     Registered
Locality of Registered Office     Melbourne VIC 3000
Jurisdiction     Australian Securities & Investments Commission
   

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 21^st, 2010 at 9:14am:

# wrote on Sep 20th, 2010 at 8:21pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 20th, 2010 at 3:23pm: ...the NBN isnt an infrastructure project ... Denial aint just dat river in Egypt.  ;D if you lack the ability to tell the difference between a non-commerical infrastruture project( eg a road) and a commercial projetc like a NBN Corp then the problem is one of your own making.

A telecommunications network is not infrastructure?

Like I said:
Denial aint just dat river in Egypt.  ;D

Just for long this is the definition of Infrastructure and it pretty much sums up why we need it as well ..

Quote:

Infrastructure is the basic physical and organizational structures needed for the operation of a society or enterprise, or the services and facilities necessary for an economy to function. The term typically refers to the technical structures that support a society, such as roads, water supply, sewers, power grids, telecommunications, and so forth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrastructure

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 21^st, 2010 at 10:03am:

long okay for the last time the NBN Co is not a Corp i have it here in plain writing from ASIC just for you and as said it is a company not a corporation . it has invested shares in it via the government / private entities so cant trade commercial stop the BS please Name      NBN CO LIMITED ACN     136 533 741 ABN     86 136 533 741 Type     Australian Public Company, Limited By Shares Registration Date     09/04/2009 Next Review Date     09/04/2011 Status     Registered Locality of Registered Office     Melbourne VIC 3000 Jurisdiction     Australian Securities & Investments Commission

exactly what do you think a COMMERCIAL operation is??? do you think the commonwealth bank and telstra mysterisouly only become commercial operations when they were privatised??? A commercial operation is one that operates along COMMERCIAL principles. in fact the ASIC listing you copied proves it is infact a commercial operation.

Longy, when you are wrong, you are wrong, and no amount of prevarication will change that, so just a polite, "oops", or a more complete, "I admit that I was totally wrong, of course a telecommunications network would be considered as infrastructure', would be sufficient to signal your acceptance of your error.

with each coalition membership they give out free brainwashing classes to their followers .. longy has signed up several times now

Just watching an internet connected TV. (from corporate location with a fast connection)

The internet connection can not cope with the lowest rate stream of 1Mbs. Keeps stopping to catch up.

Faster internet will fix this one.

You can now buy TV's which the current internet speeds will not cater.

Well, I like to d/l bit-torrents of movies and TV shows, and games.

My SPEED is adequate (barely) on Bigpuddle wireless, but the d/l limits suck AND blow all at the same time.

It can, however, rival any technology in the speed with which it enables me to ignore idiots.

[smiley=evil.gif] [smiley=evil.gif] [smiley=evil.gif] [smiley=evil.gif] [smiley=evil.gif]

yep DNa all hardware made is sold for world wide markets so in Australia some features wont work at all or hardly work due to our internet

In all honesty, probably nothing. If it costs more I'm not going to be getting it. I stopped pirating software/music/films a long time ago. What I primarily use the internet for (posting on forums, reading blogs, posting on my blog, research, youtube videos) doesn't require internet speed any faster than what is already available to me.

Opt out if possible.

mozzaok wrote on Sep 21^st, 2010 at 6:19pm:

Longy, when you are wrong, you are wrong, and no amount of prevarication will change that, so just a polite, "oops", or a more complete, "I admit that I was totally wrong, of course a telecommunications network would be considered as infrastructure', would be sufficient to signal your acceptance of your error.

Another person who doesnt know what a commercial operation is. When you become a lefty do they amputate the thinking part of your brain and just leave you withthe touchy-feely part?  the NBN is a commercial enterprise which even the labor govt understands but apparently lefties do not.

Dnarever wrote on Sep 21^st, 2010 at 6:41pm:

Just watching an internet connected TV. (from corporate location with a fast connection) The internet connection can not cope with the lowest rate stream of 1Mbs. Keeps stopping to catch up. Faster internet will fix this one. You can now buy TV's which the current internet speeds will not cater.

name one.

So I see that n one has come up with a legitamate domestic use for 100Mbs internet.  Not really surprising. and once we get to the reason for it we can discuss download limits. Im presuming if you are going to get 10 times the speed then naturally you will want 10 times the download limit. So if your limit is 50Gb now what are you planning to used 500Gb for?

anyone got any clue??

No use answering you longie.  I gave good links to insights as to why a faster futurist broadband has merit...but you either don't read them OR ignore it..so basically you are just like Abbott  -oppose it all !

wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2010 at 6:03pm:

No use answering you longie.  I gave good links to insights as to why a faster futurist broadband has merit...but you either don't read them OR ignore it..so basically you are just like Abbott  -oppose it all !

You answered me with a list of things we are already doing. IM looking for NEW things. You keep taking about things we wtih ADSL 2+ can already do. dont assume because you are stuck on dialup (your own fault since you voted for rudd who pulled the plug onthe Broadband you woudl otherwise already have) that the rest of us cant already do the things you are salivating over. have you ever actually USED broadband before?

Funny how with the exception of off site backups and hosting, no one hasnt given a reasonable answer to the benefits of $43billion worth of money that isnt already done now, only they want them faster.  Considering most of those activities they want to do are illegal ones it doesnt sound like a worthy investment to me.

Verge wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2010 at 6:10pm:

Funny how with the exception of off site backups and hosting, no one hasnt given a reasonable answer to the benefits of $43billion worth of money that isnt already done now, only they want them faster.  Considering most of those activities they want to do are illegal ones it doesnt sound like a worthy investment to me.

all of which are business uese and businesses needing that can already do it if they want to. at the same time I am exceptionally dubious about cloud computing and having a third party back up my data, my emails and confidential information. but we can already do it anyhow.

but since residences make up 90% of the market where is the NEED for it?

Quote;

The need for speed is certainly there if families are doing several things at once. Imagine one person watching ultra-high-definition 3D sport, another video-chatting with friends, and another working with four colleagues scattered across the planet - and don't tell me that won't transform society! - all while browsing material on their tablet PCs. People already use their iPads while watching TV. Now multiply it by 10.

Fibre broadband today is like electricity a century ago. So many applications will be discovered for 1Gbps internet over the next 50 years that we will look back and wonder why the hell we even hesitated to roll it out.

And just think,  New services will only emerge when the speeds exist to support them.  :-*

wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2010 at 7:51pm:

Quote; The need for speed is certainly there if families are doing several things at once. Imagine one person watching ultra-high-definition 3D sport, another video-chatting with friends, and another working with four colleagues scattered across the planet - and don't tell me that won't transform society! - all while browsing material on their tablet PCs. People already use their iPads while watching TV. Now multiply it by 10. Fibre broadband today is like electricity a century ago. So many applications will be discovered for 1Gbps internet over the next 50 years that we will look back and wonder why the hell we even hesitated to roll it out. And just think,  New services will only emerge when the speeds exist to support them.  :-*

so far you have identified ENTERTAINMENT as the only reason for spending $43B.

You are proving my point!

so far you have identified ENTERTAINMENT as the only reason for spending $43B.

You are proving my point!

------------------------

OH FFS.  ::)

look at your the title of your topic ;
'So what are you going to do with faster internet?'

and when we talked of the' business advantage side' you said 'but what will you use it for'...l

longie longie longie :'(

____ wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 8:43am:

The potential of the internet ... is on par with the human brain ... massive potential. Opposing evolution of human society, just for political reasons has, and will in the near future, backfire on the Coalition. I would suggest Abbott and his party should go back to the drawing board and choose his fights more carefully. Start selecting battles he has a chance of willing. Opposing the roll out of broadband is on par with opposing the roll out of education.

If the grammar on this site is indicative of the effectiveness of the later, it'd be fair to say it were a monumental waste of money.

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 8:51am:

sorry del i forgot my proof on claims for the power switching .. it is called Smart Grid , Belgium , Netherlands , UK and soon to be the US have all implemented it  and European brand appliances have it in them now Quote: Peak curtailment/levelling and time of use pricing To reduce demand during the high cost peak usage periods, communications and metering technologies inform smart devices in the home and business when energy demand is high and track how much electricity is used and when it is used. To motivate them to cut back use and perform what is called peak curtailment or peak levelling, prices of electricity are increased during high demand periods, and decreased during low demand periods. It is thought that consumers and businesses will tend to consume less during high demand periods if it is possible for consumers and consumer devices to be aware of the high price premium for using electricity at peak periods, this could mean cooking dinner at 9pm instead of 5pm. When businesses and consumers see a direct economic benefit of not having to pay double for the same energy use to become more energy efficient, the theory is that they will include energy cost of operation into their consumer device and building construction decisions. See Time of day metering and demand response. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_grid

A Smart electricity grid is almost justification enough to scrap the NBN entirely; FFS how much more power do you want to give an energy company.  I'll disconnect my house from the grid if that ever becomes a reality.

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 11:07am:

The NBN is to replace the entire telecommunications infrastructure across Australia ... the country areas had very poor service when compared to the city .. Telstra had been told several times before and during when they got sold off to fix certain things which they still hadn't .. Howards bandaid fix to this was to try to get ADSL to these regions but seeing as the whole infrastructure was not going to last more then 5 or so years lifespan wise it was decided to replace it all .. They decided to do the country areas first because they had always been lacking these services and with the view to keep these areas still going .. It has nothing to do with who gets what first or how much do you roll out .. It has to do with services provided . They will roll out cable and not see a customer but that is the same now with copper ... It is all areas need a modern service that is future proofed...

Isn't the Australian Government a major shareholder in Telstra?

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 11:31am:

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 20th, 2010 at 11:26am: we have all told you why ... remote hospitals , remote schooling , internet Tv , gaming , smart appliances , video phones / voip service and if you look at the chart above you will see it isn't good enough .. technology moves forward .. we cant so we stay behind and lose the benefits of a technological economy .. but hang on that is the coalition mantra we can do all that now. internet TV is probably the only application that wouldnt really work very well. but that is hardly the killer application that justifies a $43B spend.

Google Fetch TV supplied by iiNet Longy.

http://www.iinet.net.au/fetchtv/  Have a look at how it's delivered.

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 21^st, 2010 at 10:03am:

long okay for the last time the NBN Co is not a Corp i have it here in plain writing from ASIC just for you and as said it is a company not a corporation . it has invested shares in it via the government / private entities so cant trade commercial stop the BS please Name      NBN CO LIMITED ACN     136 533 741 ABN     86 136 533 741 Type     Australian Public Company, Limited By Shares Registration Date     09/04/2009 Next Review Date     09/04/2011 Status     Registered Locality of Registered Office     Melbourne VIC 3000 Jurisdiction     Australian Securities & Investments Commission

With a post such as this BN, I seriously admire your ability to function normally.

Extracted from ASIC's database at AEST 21:00:04 on 22/09/2010
Name      BHP BILLITON LIMITED
ACN      
004 028 077
ABN      
49 004 028 077
Type      Australian Public Company, Limited By Shares
Registration Date      13/08/1885
Next Review Date      01/03/2011
Status      Registered
Locality of Registered Office      Melbourne VIC 3000
Jurisdiction      Australian Securities & Investments Commission

Look familiar?

Please don't attempt to reasonably discuss anything financial ever again.  You have just proven you've not got a clue.

I would like to share the outcome of my first-hand experience of upgrading to faster broadband - in the past month...

Value judgements, about teenagers wantonly downloading anime videos, notwithstanding: our household internet usage has increased to around double our previous monthly limit...

It wasn't until we upgraded to faster broadband, that we realised how much download times had been limiting the amount of internet activity possible by the 3 people in our household...

On a more general level, I think it is fair to say that: -

* The internet usage habits of Gen Y are far more data-intensive than those of those of Gen X; and

* There has been an exponential growth in the data-hungry graphic content of the internet - and that there are no signs of a plateau being reached.

Equitist wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2010 at 9:39pm:

I would like to share the outcome of my first-hand experience of upgrading to faster broadband - in the past month... Value judgements, about teenagers wantonly downloading anime videos, notwithstanding: our household internet usage has increased to around double our previous monthly limit... It wasn't until we upgraded to faster broadband, that we realised how much download times had been limiting the amount of internet activity possible by the 3 people in our household... On a more general level, I think it is fair to say that: - * The internet usage habits of Gen Y are far more data-intensive than those of those of Gen X; and * There has been an exponential growth in the data-hungry graphic content of the internet - and that there are no signs of a plateau being reached.

What did you upgrade from and to Thy, if you don't mind me asking.

Well I have just got to point out that the kind of thinking being displayed by anti NBN people in relation to the possible uses for High Speed Internet is similar to the early civic leaders in Sydney, who could never imagine any need for roads bigger than needed to take two horse drawn carts at once.

While there is short term validation in their ideas, the myopic approach towards the future that they employ, always ends up being counter productive in the long run.

We already know that digital media will be growing dramatically and fibre is the only way to deliver digital mass media successfully, so for most of us, that will be it's primary role, in the near future.

qikvtec wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2010 at 9:47pm:

Equitist wrote on Sep 22nd, 2010 at 9:39pm: I would like to share the outcome of my first-hand experience of upgrading to faster broadband - in the past month... Value judgements, about teenagers wantonly downloading anime videos, notwithstanding: our household internet usage has increased to around double our previous monthly limit... It wasn't until we upgraded to faster broadband, that we realised how much download times had been limiting the amount of internet activity possible by the 3 people in our household... On a more general level, I think it is fair to say that: - * The internet usage habits of Gen Y are far more data-intensive than those of those of Gen X; and * There has been an exponential growth in the data-hungry graphic content of the internet - and that there are no signs of a plateau being reached. What did you upgrade from and to Thy, if you don't mind me asking.

Bigpond ADSL Liberty 16GB to Bigpond ADSL2+ Elite Liberty 50GB - and the dramatic difference in speed is even noticeable on my old laptop, which has only 512K of RAM!

Mozz, your analogy is flawed.

NBN wants a 12 lane expressway to every dunny in Cape York and Wilcannia and shantytown. That costs serious money.

But to have a 12 lane superhighway in the major population centres (say, 20,000+ peope) doesn't. There is a  very very favourable cost/benefit ratio for superfast internet to 80% of the pop. The cost of the same connection to the remaining 20% is not worth it.

It is not worth it. They will just have to live with the current broadband.   A horse 'n cart is just fine for Woop Woop. It's not as if we have a massive untapped human potential in Woop Woop...  Do we??


This is the same idea that says we can't have a hospital and a university in every town and village.

Equitist wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2010 at 10:08pm:

qikvtec wrote on Sep 22nd, 2010 at 9:47pm: Equitist wrote on Sep 22nd, 2010 at 9:39pm: I would like to share the outcome of my first-hand experience of upgrading to faster broadband - in the past month... Value judgements, about teenagers wantonly downloading anime videos, notwithstanding: our household internet usage has increased to around double our previous monthly limit... It wasn't until we upgraded to faster broadband, that we realised how much download times had been limiting the amount of internet activity possible by the 3 people in our household... On a more general level, I think it is fair to say that: - * The internet usage habits of Gen Y are far more data-intensive than those of those of Gen X; and * There has been an exponential growth in the data-hungry graphic content of the internet - and that there are no signs of a plateau being reached. What did you upgrade from and to Thy, if you don't mind me asking. Bigpond ADSL Liberty 16GB to Bigpond ADSL2+ Elite Liberty 50GB

I just had the same upgrade although my limit went from 10GB to 50GB

The weakest link now is between the laptop and the wireless router.  

Edit: However I am still only using a fraction of what capacity is available.  

I can do everything I need for the number of users in our home without any need for improvement.  

Quote:

It is not worth it. They will just have to live with the current broadband.   A horse 'n cart is just fine for Woop Woop. It's not as if we have a massive untapped human potential in Woop Woop...  Do we??

I would have you know that Wilcannia would have the highest per capita number of individuals with IQs over 185 if it were supplied with fiber optic broadband, Soren.

wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2010 at 8:17pm:

so far you have identified ENTERTAINMENT as the only reason for spending $43B. You are proving my point! ------------------------ OH FFS.  ::) look at your the title of your topic ; 'So what are you going to do with faster internet?' and when we talked of the' business advantage side' you said 'but what will you use it for'...l longie longie longie :'(

and you are STILL proving my point. en you are admitting that for domestic users, the NBN wil be used for ENTERTAINMENT! so the biggest infrastructure project in history and what swan ludicrously calls the 'biggest economic reform indecades' is for ENTERTAINMENT??

qikvtec wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2010 at 10:11pm:

Equitist wrote on Sep 22nd, 2010 at 10:08pm: qikvtec wrote on Sep 22nd, 2010 at 9:47pm: Equitist wrote on Sep 22nd, 2010 at 9:39pm: I would like to share the outcome of my first-hand experience of upgrading to faster broadband - in the past month... Value judgements, about teenagers wantonly downloading anime videos, notwithstanding: our household internet usage has increased to around double our previous monthly limit... It wasn't until we upgraded to faster broadband, that we realised how much download times had been limiting the amount of internet activity possible by the 3 people in our household... On a more general level, I think it is fair to say that: - * The internet usage habits of Gen Y are far more data-intensive than those of those of Gen X; and * There has been an exponential growth in the data-hungry graphic content of the internet - and that there are no signs of a plateau being reached. What did you upgrade from and to Thy, if you don't mind me asking. Bigpond ADSL Liberty 16GB to Bigpond ADSL2+ Elite Liberty 50GB I just had the same upgrade although my limit went from 10GB to 50GB The weakest link now is between the laptop and the wireless router.

Same problem at this end!

Actually, given that we'd only breached the monthly 12GB a few times in the past couple of years (and we had just been converted to the new billing system), I made the switch about 1/3 into the billing month but had planned to go for the 25GB T-Box bundle early in this billing cycle...

Unless my boys just got carried away with the novelty of rapid downloads, it is now looking as though the 25GB won't suffice...

I wouldn't mind a 25G d/l limit.

ATM I have THREE.

And I ALWAYS go over.

Equitist wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2010 at 9:39pm:

I would like to share the outcome of my first-hand experience of upgrading to faster broadband - in the past month... Value judgements, about teenagers wantonly downloading anime videos, notwithstanding: our household internet usage has increased to around double our previous monthly limit... It wasn't until we upgraded to faster broadband, that we realised how much download times had been limiting the amount of internet activity possible by the 3 people in our household... On a more general level, I think it is fair to say that: - * The internet usage habits of Gen Y are far more data-intensive than those of those of Gen X; and * There has been an exponential growth in the data-hungry graphic content of the internet - and that there are no signs of a plateau being reached.

and you are confirming that the use of this ever-increasing demand is purely entertainment... so explain again why the govt shoudl spend such an enormous amount of money so we can all download crap faster?

Equitist wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2010 at 10:08pm:

qikvtec wrote on Sep 22nd, 2010 at 9:47pm: Equitist wrote on Sep 22nd, 2010 at 9:39pm: I would like to share the outcome of my first-hand experience of upgrading to faster broadband - in the past month... Value judgements, about teenagers wantonly downloading anime videos, notwithstanding: our household internet usage has increased to around double our previous monthly limit... It wasn't until we upgraded to faster broadband, that we realised how much download times had been limiting the amount of internet activity possible by the 3 people in our household... On a more general level, I think it is fair to say that: - * The internet usage habits of Gen Y are far more data-intensive than those of those of Gen X; and * There has been an exponential growth in the data-hungry graphic content of the internet - and that there are no signs of a plateau being reached. What did you upgrade from and to Thy, if you don't mind me asking. Bigpond ADSL Liberty 16GB to Bigpond ADSL2+ Elite Liberty 50GB - and the dramatic difference in speed is even noticeable on my old laptop, which has only 512K of RAM!

since you went from ADSL 1 to ADLS2+ there is no surprise wince it is potentially 40 times as fast and in your case at least 10 times so.

Still putting all value judgements aside, here is my household's actual broadband Internet usage back to the May 2010 bill...

BTW, the modem didn't change in the September bill, just the plan which switched over on 31 August (actually, I think that the lower June usage might be due to several days of downtime because of the death of our old ADSL modem)...

Moreover, in this household, we also have a total of 3 token mobile data plans - a Dodo mobile wireless broadband dongle and 2 mobile phones - all of which are utilised at various times (sometimes daily)...

---

i use a average of 20gb - 25gb per month and we do not download video or torrents .. just couple of machines , smartphones , itunes for a very little amount of music and online games etc..

I have watched our usage creep up as thing like youtube has become more popular ... news websites that stream are also heavy in content ... dial up and slower types of internet cant and wont be able to handle the web content these days the website are more feature rich to supply more information ..

A simple site that used to be text now has shopping carts and streaming video as the normal .. text based forums can have pictures inserted or youtube videos it is just the way it is

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 8:32am:

i use a average of 20gb - 25gb per month and we do not download video or torrents .. just couple of machines , smartphones , itunes for a very little amount of music and online games etc.. I have watched our usage creep up as thing like youtube has become more popular ... news websites that stream are also heavy in content ... dial up and slower types of internet cant and wont be able to handle the web content these days the website are more feature rich to supply more information .. A simple site that used to be text now has shopping carts and streaming video as the normal .. text based forums can have pictures inserted or youtube videos it is just the way it is

and yet amazingly you can still manage to do it on your ancient broadband which by your own admisison is 30Mbs. the benefit to you wil be what exactly??

My SPEED is fine(ish), but d/l limits on wireless are a smacking joke.

$49.95 a month for THREE GIGS?

Then it goes to dial-up speed where you are pushing shyte uphill simply to open an email.

And forget about trying to open the Bigpuddle home-page in less than 10 minutes:-((

smack me!

Kat wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 8:46am:

My SPEED is fine(ish), but d/l limits on wireless are a smacking joke. $49.95 a month for THREE GIGS? Then it goes to dial-up speed where you are pushing shyte uphill simply to open an email. And forget about trying to open the Bigpuddle home-page in less than 10 minutes:-(( smack me!

Why dont you have internet wired up at home and use a wireless modem?

"the benefit to you wil be what exactly?? "

The ability to continue to use the internet, as the content gets richer and options increase.

Geez mr weekend, how are the luddite classes going? Anyone with half a brain knows what is going to happen with the internet, and even oldies will be using it in ways that would have been undreamed of 3 years ago.

If you will prove to me that nothing new will come onto the internet, that new uses will NOT be developed, I'll agree with you. Otherwise your refrain just sounds like sour grapes and "we'll all be rooned" chicken little crap.

Here's another prediction one for you - cars will be connected, and kids will be watching youtube in the back seat while parents are guided using real time GPS. And toll roads won't need e-tags anymore.

Please delete wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 9:00am:

"the benefit to you wil be what exactly?? " The ability to continue to use the internet, as the content gets richer and options increase. Geez mr weekend, how are the luddite classes going? Anyone with half a brain knows what is going to happen with the internet, and even oldies will be using it in ways that would have been undreamed of 3 years ago. If you will prove to me that nothing new will come onto the internet, that new uses will NOT be developed, I'll agree with you. Otherwise your refrain just sounds like sour grapes and "we'll all be rooned" chicken little crap. Here's another prediction one for you - cars will be connected, and kids will be watching youtube in the back seat while parents are guided using real time GPS. And toll roads won't need e-tags anymore.

and the govt wil know where your car is at all times... yeah. real thrilled!

and to repeat YET AGAIN my complaint about the NBN... it is the COST and the fact that we are primarily funding an entertainment vehicle. very few people will actually benefit from it in the cities - who already have broadband. and the areas that dont have broadband could get it already with relatively cheap infrastructure improvements. The reason the govt is refusing to do a cost-benefit analysis is because there is very little benefit. and the cost is massive. IM all for fibre to the node and let customers choose to connect to the node if there is a genuine need (and a willingness to pay the connection cost). But paying to give EVERYBODY fibre in a country witht he population (lack of) density of ours is ludicrous. If we put down fibre to the node now then when the need for fibre to the home becomes apparent then we can do that. But I belive you wil find the need is a LONG LONG time coming.

"and the govt wil know where your car is at all times... yeah. real thrilled!"

A logical development. Electronic speed signs, and cars limited to those speeds.

Or an upload to the RTA followed by all the fines for all the times you broke a road rule.

Safer trucks, TRULY speed limited.

Easier to track crims.

Lots of negatives for rule breakers - is that you mr weekend?

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 8:39am:

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 23rd, 2010 at 8:32am: i use a average of 20gb - 25gb per month and we do not download video or torrents .. just couple of machines , smartphones , itunes for a very little amount of music and online games etc.. I have watched our usage creep up as thing like youtube has become more popular ... news websites that stream are also heavy in content ... dial up and slower types of internet cant and wont be able to handle the web content these days the website are more feature rich to supply more information .. A simple site that used to be text now has shopping carts and streaming video as the normal .. text based forums can have pictures inserted or youtube videos it is just the way it is and yet amazingly you can still manage to do it on your ancient broadband which by your own admisison is 30Mbs. the benefit to you wil be what exactly??

30Mbps is fine at present but we would never of got it if the NBN or other companies were not improving their speeds to compete ... to me I mighten see much difference on 100Mbps but it will be more technology like internet TV other areas  that would benefit...

It will futureproof your needs as the content grows like as others have  said .. i never used to need the speed or the usage but as games got more content rich , video streaming got better quality , website were filled with more information it was better to move on .

The cost you keep going on about is absolute rubbish , you know their is investors that will pay like Telstra to come on board and this will make the cost a lot cheaper in the long term ..

Please delete wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 9:13am:

"and the govt wil know where your car is at all times... yeah. real thrilled!" A logical development. Electronic speed signs, and cars limited to those speeds. Or an upload to the RTA followed by all the fines for all the times you broke a road rule. Safer trucks, TRULY speed limited. Easier to track crims. Lots of negatives for rule breakers - is that you mr weekend?

and every time you exceeded the speed limit you are automatically fined? are you SERIOUS?????

if this is what you want then frankly you need your head examined.  You are probably one of those people that wants speed cameras at every intersection (btw they have been shown to INCREASE accidents because people are watching speedos and not traffic) and cameras on parking spots. and i suppose you will be supporting the govt randomly searching your hard drive via the internet to look for naughty or subversive stuff?

NBN aside?  are you seriously supporting the idea of the govt knowing where we are at all times????

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 9:15am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23rd, 2010 at 8:39am: Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 23rd, 2010 at 8:32am: i use a average of 20gb - 25gb per month and we do not download video or torrents .. just couple of machines , smartphones , itunes for a very little amount of music and online games etc.. I have watched our usage creep up as thing like youtube has become more popular ... news websites that stream are also heavy in content ... dial up and slower types of internet cant and wont be able to handle the web content these days the website are more feature rich to supply more information .. A simple site that used to be text now has shopping carts and streaming video as the normal .. text based forums can have pictures inserted or youtube videos it is just the way it is and yet amazingly you can still manage to do it on your ancient broadband which by your own admisison is 30Mbs. the benefit to you wil be what exactly?? 30Mbps is fine at present but we would never of got it if the NBN or other companies were not improving their speeds to compete ... to me I mighten see much difference on 100Mbps but it will be more technology like internet TV other areas  that would benefit... It will futureproof your needs as the content grows like as others have  said .. i never used to need the speed or the usage but as games got more content rich , video streaming got better quality , website were filled with more information it was better to move on . The cost you keep going on about is absolute rubbish , you know their is investors that will pay like Telstra to come on board and this will make the cost a lot cheaper in the long term ..

you certainly can spin a line - and it is almost totally rubbish.  your 30Mbs connection has nothing to do with competition from the NBN. just for starters, the NBN doesnt even exist outside of a small area in tasmania. you spout some amazing rubbish sometimes. I very much doubt you are a IT expert with the nonsense you come up with sometimes.

"if this is what you want"

Where is the logic of setting rules which 99% of people break? If your child was saved becasue someones' car was SPEED LIMITED to 40 in a school zone, wouldn't you be happy?

If that truck was prevented from zooming past you at 130 in the right hand lane, wouldn't that be safer?

And I don't worry that "big brother" will know where I am at all times - doesn't bother me.

It WILL happen - I wouldn't bet against it.

How will congestion tolling work? My bet is that EVENTUALLY it will be EITHER e-tag or internet connection.

Then the e-tag option will be dropped.

Please delete wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 9:31am:

"if this is what you want" Where is the logic of setting rules which 99% of people break? If your child was saved becasue someones' car was SPEED LIMITED to 40 in a school zone, wouldn't you be happy? If that truck was prevented from zooming past you at 130 in the right hand lane, wouldn't that be safer? And I don't worry that "big brother" will know where I am at all times - doesn't bother me.

so you are one of those drivers that does 55 in a 60 zone so that you wont accidentally speed? the same person that blocks off traffic and causes trouble for other motorists? i always wondered what it would be like to meet someone who would happily have fines generated EVERY TIME you did something wrong. our roads would turn into crawling parking lots if such a thing eventuated. and apparently YOU would be pleased.

Please delete wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 9:31am:

"if this is what you want" Where is the logic of setting rules which 99% of people break? If your child was saved becasue someones' car was SPEED LIMITED to 40 in a school zone, wouldn't you be happy? If that truck was prevented from zooming past you at 130 in the right hand lane, wouldn't that be safer? And I don't worry that "big brother" will know where I am at all times - doesn't bother me.

that kind of comment begs the question... DO YOU DRIVE?

I would be genuinely pleased that kids couldn't do 200km with 4 mates in the car, that trucks would be controlled - REALLY controlled - and that children would be safer.

Why does my position so offend you? Because it limits our freedoms??

That contest was lost decades ago.

no you are the one that is very wrong .. I had signed with Optus for a trial 100Mbps plan this is what optus are doing to directly compete with NBN in the areas they have cable now .. this did not exist before for users ... and all the Telco's know the NBN will eventually be in their areas it is Australia wide not just Tasmania

As i am a Telstra customer i mentioned this to them they said we have upgraded our plans recently never told anyone they doubled the quotas from 25gb to 50gb and the speed would be increased and prices dropped by $20 on same plan .. i am not naive to think otherwise they want to keep their customers as they will all be rolled over to NBN if i went optus i would be on 100 now ..

here it the email from the 9/9/2010 about recent speed change ..

Quote:

Thanks to some recent network upgrades, you could now get even more speed out of your BigPond Elite Cable Broadband plan. The network can now provide speeds up to a maximum of 30 Mbps*  almost double the old 17Mbps maximum. Getting the speed upgrade is easy. Simply switch off your modem, wait a minute or so, then switch it on again. When it reboots it will automatically access the faster network speeds.

Please delete wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 9:41am:

I would be genuinely pleased that kids couldn't do 200km with 4 mates in the car, that trucks would be controlled - REALLY controlled - and that children would be safer. Why does my position so offend you? Because it limits our freedoms?? That contest was lost decades ago.

and what about the person doing 61 in a 60 zone? or even - shock horror - 42 in a 40 zone? do you want to fine all of those?

and the 'contest' was not lost decades ago. but attitudes like yours enure that it eventually WILL be.

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 9:41am:

no you are the one that is very wrong .. I had signed with Optus for a trial 100Mbps plan this is what optus are doing to directly compete with NBN in the areas they have cable now .. this did not exist before for users ... and all the Telco's know the NBN will eventually be in their areas it is Australia wide not just Tasmania As i am a Telstra customer i mentioned this to them they said we have upgraded our plans recently never told anyone they doubled the quotas from 25gb to 50gb and the speed would be increased and prices dropped by $20 on same plan .. i am not naive to think otherwise they want to keep their customers as they will all be rolled over to NBN if i went optus i would be on 100 now .. here it the email from the 9/9/2010 about recent speed change .. Quote: Thanks to some recent network upgrades, you could now get even more speed out of your BigPond Elite Cable Broadband plan. The network can now provide speeds up to a maximum of 30 Mbps*  almost double the old 17Mbps maximum. Getting the speed upgrade is easy. Simply switch off your modem, wait a minute or so, then switch it on again. When it reboots it will automatically access the faster network speeds.

your middle name must be 'naive'. Listening to you, one would think there has never before been an upgrade to networks or speeds or limits before the NBN came to town - even though it hasnt yet come to anyones town at all. You sound like you are a teenager with techo skills and little real-world experience to draw from. so a heads up for you: the internet has grown and continues to grow and expand WITHOUT the NBN's influence.

You're SO macho mr weekend. A true free spirit of a bygone age.

How can someone do 61 in a 60 zone, if the car is speed limited?

Please delete wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 9:48am:

You're SO macho mr weekend. A true free spirit of a bygone age. How can someone do 61 in a 60 zone, if the car is speed limited?

oh of course... SPEED LIMITING FOR EVERYONE.

and you actually endorse this idea? It is hard to imagine how anyone can be so daft and so 1984 about it. You didnt give up the battle for personal freedom. You are the type of people we fight AGAINST.

Yes I endorse this idea.

The laws are there, it is not a "freedom" to break a law - it's a crime. I haven't been fined for ANYTHING on the roads for 25 years or so. I hate giving the government money.

You do what you like. Speed, crash, kill a pedestrian, get tried for manslaughter - you can even DUI if you like.

I choose not to.

Please delete wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 9:56am:

Yes I endorse this idea. The laws are there, it is not a "freedom" to break a law - it's a crime. I haven't been fined for ANYTHING on the roads for 25 years or so. I hate giving the government money. You do what you like. Speed, crash, kill a pedestrian, get tried for manslaughter - you can even DUI if you like. I choose not to.

I gotta ask... how old are you? the attitude says 70+ perhaps 80+

I'm roughly the same age as you, mr rugged individualist.

I can imagine people in the old days arguing against drink driving laws, in the same way you seem to argue that you have a "right" to speed.

You go for it.

Please delete wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 10:05am:

I'm roughly the same age as you, mr rugged individualist. I can imagine people in the old days arguing against drink driving laws, in the same way you seem to argue that you have a "right" to speed. You go for it.

nothing like those old 'extremist' points of view is there? the 'right to speed' is not exactly the same as sometimes exceeding the speed limt by a small amount. and overtaking someone on the highway usually requires you to exceed the speed limit for a short period.

wow, i never thought Id ever see an actual living advocate for govt control over our likes like in 1984.  

May the future you long for never happen and you have to suffer through cars and trucks overtaking you because you are driving so slow.

And I never thought I would see a conservative christian standing in the way of a proposal to reduce young people being killed on the roads doing ridiculous speeds, and families being wiped out by trucks.

Or schoolchildren being run over in school zones.

"Extremist points of view" - does that include saying "61km in a 60 zone" which no reasonable person would advocate?

Please delete wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 10:15am:

And I never thought I would see a conservative christian standing in the way of a proposal to reduce young people being killed on the roads doing ridiculous speeds, and families being wiped out by trucks. Or schoolchildren being run over in school zones.

Interesting road facts for you: a majority of fatal accidents occur UNDER the speedlimit. 30% of fatalities occur becaue no seatbelt was worn. 30%+ is as a direct result of drugs and/or alcohol. speed is not the major factor in the big majority of accidents.

Please delete wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 10:16am:

"Extremist points of view" - does that include saying "61km in a 60 zone" which no reasonable person would advocate?

i think i will let the rest of the posters comment on whether '61 in a 60 zone' is the heinous crime you seem to think it is.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 8:50am:

Kat wrote on Sep 23rd, 2010 at 8:46am: My SPEED is fine(ish), but d/l limits on wireless are a smacking joke. $49.95 a month for THREE GIGS? Then it goes to dial-up speed where you are pushing shyte uphill simply to open an email. And forget about trying to open the Bigpuddle home-page in less than 10 minutes:-(( smack me! Why dont you have internet wired up at home and use a wireless modem?

Because I do not have, or want, and cannot afford, a land-line connection.

"speed is not the major factor in the big majority of accidents."

And so you believe anyone should be allowed to speed? Becasue 30% of fatalities happen under the speed limit means what to this argument?

BTW speeding while overtaking is still speeding, and is against the road rules.

One more thing - YOU were the one saying "61 in a 60 zone", not me. The reason that is not currently enforced by radar and other speed monitors is becasue of the margin of error. I see no reason why that would change.

"Speeding has long been recognised as a major factor in many road crashes. Excessive speed was noted as a definite cause in 8 percent of crashes and up to twice that as a probable cause in studies overseas. In Australia, excessive speeding has been noted as a contributing factor in up to 30 percent of fatal crashes. On these statistics, speed related road trauma is likely to cost the Australian community up to A$1 billion annually"

Kat wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 10:27am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23rd, 2010 at 8:50am: Kat wrote on Sep 23rd, 2010 at 8:46am: My SPEED is fine(ish), but d/l limits on wireless are a smacking joke. $49.95 a month for THREE GIGS? Then it goes to dial-up speed where you are pushing shyte uphill simply to open an email. And forget about trying to open the Bigpuddle home-page in less than 10 minutes:-(( smack me! Why dont you have internet wired up at home and use a wireless modem? Because I do not have, or want, and cannot afford, a land-line connection.

you can get naked-DSL which is through the land-line connected to you house even tho you dont have a phone account. that would be cheaper, faster and better than what you are currently using.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 10:22am:

Please delete wrote on Sep 23rd, 2010 at 10:15am: And I never thought I would see a conservative christian standing in the way of a proposal to reduce young people being killed on the roads doing ridiculous speeds, and families being wiped out by trucks. Or schoolchildren being run over in school zones. Interesting road facts for you: a majority of fatal accidents occur UNDER the speedlimit. 30% of fatalities occur becaue no seatbelt was worn. 30%+ is as a direct result of drugs and/or alcohol. speed is not the major factor in the big majority of accidents.

Hey Bates, could you kindly refrain from mixing up your stats, ta!

Please delete wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 10:32am:

"speed is not the major factor in the big majority of accidents." And so you believe anyone should be allowed to speed? Becasue 30% of fatalities happen under the speed limit means what to this argument? BTW speeding while overtaking is still speeding, and is against the road rules. One more thing - YOU were the one saying "61 in a 60 zone", not me. The reason that is not currently enforced by radar and other speed monitors is becasue of the margin of error. I see no reason why that would change.

correction:  SIGNIFICANT MAJORITY (ie not 30%) of accidents occur under the speed limit and the VAST MAJORITY occur within 10kms/hr over the limit or below. in other words. speed is actually NOT the major factor in accidents. and some more advanced countries liek in NZ allow a 20Km/hr premium on the speed limit while overtaking to acknowledge the safety issue of overtaking quickly. anyone who overtakes someone doing 95km/hr at 100 km/hr is a fool. safety trumps law anytime - especially in a minor case like this.

Please delete wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 10:35am:

"Speeding has long been recognised as a major factor in many road crashes. Excessive speed was noted as a definite cause in 8 percent of crashes and up to twice that as a probable cause in studies overseas. In Australia, excessive speeding has been noted as a contributing factor in up to 30 percent of fatal crashes. On these statistics, speed related road trauma is likely to cost the Australian community up to A$1 billion annually"

now the other side of that same quote. 'excessive speed' - note that it does not say 'exceeding the posted speed limit' but EXCESSIVE speed.  it also says that 92% of accidents are NOT the cause of excessive speed. the other statistic also says that in 70% of fatal accidents speed is NOT a factor. I believe that that is PRECISELY what I was saying.

Equitist wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 10:42am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23rd, 2010 at 10:22am: Please delete wrote on Sep 23rd, 2010 at 10:15am: And I never thought I would see a conservative christian standing in the way of a proposal to reduce young people being killed on the roads doing ridiculous speeds, and families being wiped out by trucks. Or schoolchildren being run over in school zones. Interesting road facts for you: a majority of fatal accidents occur UNDER the speedlimit. 30% of fatalities occur becaue no seatbelt was worn. 30%+ is as a direct result of drugs and/or alcohol. speed is not the major factor in the big majority of accidents. Hey Bates, could you kindly refrain from mixing up your stats, ta!

what stats confused you?

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 10:45am:

Please delete wrote on Sep 23rd, 2010 at 10:35am: "Speeding has long been recognised as a major factor in many road crashes. Excessive speed was noted as a definite cause in 8 percent of crashes and up to twice that as a probable cause in studies overseas. In Australia, excessive speeding has been noted as a contributing factor in up to 30 percent of fatal crashes. On these statistics, speed related road trauma is likely to cost the Australian community up to A$1 billion annually" now the other side of that same quote. 'excessive speed' - note that it does not say 'exceeding the posted speed limit' but EXCESSIVE speed.  it also says that 92% of accidents are NOT the cause of excessive speed. the other statistic also says that in 70% of fatal accidents speed is NOT a factor. I believe that that is PRECISELY what I was saying.

FFS, the local limit often becomes irrelevant and inappropriate, given that: it is always incumbent upon all drivers to drive according to the prevailing conditions at any points in time and place!

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 10:48am:

Equitist wrote on Sep 23rd, 2010 at 10:42am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23rd, 2010 at 10:22am: Please delete wrote on Sep 23rd, 2010 at 10:15am: And I never thought I would see a conservative christian standing in the way of a proposal to reduce young people being killed on the roads doing ridiculous speeds, and families being wiped out by trucks. Or schoolchildren being run over in school zones. Interesting road facts for you: a majority of fatal accidents occur UNDER the speedlimit. 30% of fatalities occur becaue no seatbelt was worn. 30%+ is as a direct result of drugs and/or alcohol. speed is not the major factor in the big majority of accidents. Hey Bates, could you kindly refrain from mixing up your stats, ta! what stats confused you?

The confusion was at your end, Bates - you either did not understand and/or clarify the context of the separate stats you quoted!

Hint: which of those stats refers to fatal accidents alone!?

Equitist wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 10:56am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23rd, 2010 at 10:45am: Please delete wrote on Sep 23rd, 2010 at 10:35am: "Speeding has long been recognised as a major factor in many road crashes. Excessive speed was noted as a definite cause in 8 percent of crashes and up to twice that as a probable cause in studies overseas. In Australia, excessive speeding has been noted as a contributing factor in up to 30 percent of fatal crashes. On these statistics, speed related road trauma is likely to cost the Australian community up to A$1 billion annually" now the other side of that same quote. 'excessive speed' - note that it does not say 'exceeding the posted speed limit' but EXCESSIVE speed.  it also says that 92% of accidents are NOT the cause of excessive speed. the other statistic also says that in 70% of fatal accidents speed is NOT a factor. I believe that that is PRECISELY what I was saying. FFS, the local limit often becomes irrelevant and inappropriate, given that: it is always incumbent upon all drivers to drive according to the prevailing conditions at any points in time and place!

100% agree!  one of the big problems with the over-dependance on speed limits is that drivers - especially new ones - assume that the posted speed limit is the SAFE speed. it is usually not at all. I was travelling back from Vic during the storms that hit there recently. driving rain, high winds poor visibility. maintaining 100 km/hr in even a car of my standard required a lot of concentration and was not a lot of fun whereas only hours earlier it was a breeze. most speed limits are posted because of WHERE the road is (urban or country) not because of what is really the safe speed. And i understand that there isnt any real alternative to that. but the notion that faster is necessarily more dangerous - especially on the open road - is quite simply wrong. USA increased its speed limits on its interstates are were rewarded with a slightly LOWER road toll. experts beleive it is because drivers are less frustrated when they are driving at more realistic speeds and therefore take fewer chances and make less mistakes.

Equitist wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 10:59am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23rd, 2010 at 10:48am: Equitist wrote on Sep 23rd, 2010 at 10:42am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23rd, 2010 at 10:22am: Please delete wrote on Sep 23rd, 2010 at 10:15am: And I never thought I would see a conservative christian standing in the way of a proposal to reduce young people being killed on the roads doing ridiculous speeds, and families being wiped out by trucks. Or schoolchildren being run over in school zones. Interesting road facts for you: a majority of fatal accidents occur UNDER the speedlimit. 30% of fatalities occur becaue no seatbelt was worn. 30%+ is as a direct result of drugs and/or alcohol. speed is not the major factor in the big majority of accidents. Hey Bates, could you kindly refrain from mixing up your stats, ta! what stats confused you? The confusion was at your end, Bates - you either did not understand and/or clarify the context of the separate stats you quoted! Hint: which of those stats refers to fatal accidents alone!?

whilst the pedantry of your comment is accurate I might point out that I was responding to the claim that speeding is the direct cause of death and injury on the road when it simply IS NOT.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 11:09am:

Equitist wrote on Sep 23rd, 2010 at 10:59am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23rd, 2010 at 10:48am: Equitist wrote on Sep 23rd, 2010 at 10:42am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23rd, 2010 at 10:22am: Please delete wrote on Sep 23rd, 2010 at 10:15am: And I never thought I would see a conservative christian standing in the way of a proposal to reduce young people being killed on the roads doing ridiculous speeds, and families being wiped out by trucks. Or schoolchildren being run over in school zones. Interesting road facts for you: a majority of fatal accidents occur UNDER the speedlimit. 30% of fatalities occur becaue no seatbelt was worn. 30%+ is as a direct result of drugs and/or alcohol. speed is not the major factor in the big majority of accidents. Hey Bates, could you kindly refrain from mixing up your stats, ta! what stats confused you? The confusion was at your end, Bates - you either did not understand and/or clarify the context of the separate stats you quoted! Hint: which of those stats refers to fatal accidents alone!? whilst the pedantry of your comment is accurate I might point out that I was responding to the claim that speeding is the direct cause of death and injury on the road when it simply IS NOT.

Noted, ta!

BTW, motion is a factor in all vehicular collisions - and collisions often occur because one or more drivers fail/s to adjust the speed/motion of their vehicle/s to the risks posed by the conditions prevailing in the vicinity. (Edit: Sorry, just noticed that I had missed your post at 11:07am!)



PS Methinks that this tangent needs to be discontinued and/or taken elsewhere.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 10:39am:

Kat wrote on Sep 23rd, 2010 at 10:27am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23rd, 2010 at 8:50am: Kat wrote on Sep 23rd, 2010 at 8:46am: My SPEED is fine(ish), but d/l limits on wireless are a smacking joke. $49.95 a month for THREE GIGS? Then it goes to dial-up speed where you are pushing shyte uphill simply to open an email. And forget about trying to open the Bigpuddle home-page in less than 10 minutes:-(( smack me! Why dont you have internet wired up at home and use a wireless modem? Because I do not have, or want, and cannot afford, a land-line connection. you can get naked-DSL which is through the land-line connected to you house even tho you dont have a phone account. that would be cheaper, faster and better than what you are currently using.

Thanks, I'll look into that.   :)

Sorry, things got busy

"For example a driver travelling at 65 km/h in a 60 zone is twice as likely to have a serious injury or fatality crash as a driver travelling at the speed limit. Driving at 70 km/h in a 60 km/h zone, the driver is more than 4 times as likely to crash.

Based on this research it can be concluded that

   In a 60 km/h speed limit area, the risk of involvement in a casualty crash doubles with each 5 km/h increase in travelling speed above 60 km/h.

There are three reasons that small reductions in speed make such a large difference to risk.

1. Small differences in speeds mean differences both in time to collision and ability to avoid a crash.

   Even if a vehicle cannot be stopped in the available distance, the collision can still sometimes be avoided. When a driver is speeding there is less time for both that driver and any other road user (either a pedestrian or another driver) to:

   * Recognise danger
   * Decide on an evasive action (brake, swerve)
   * Complete the evasive action

   Furthermore, a vehicle travelling at a higher speed is more difficult to manoeuvre.

2. Small differences in vehicle speeds, before braking begins, can result in large differences in impact speeds.

   The diagram below shows the relationship between speed, stopping distance and impact speed. For each travelling speed both the stopping distance for vehicles travelling 50 km/h to 90 km/h are shown and the impact speeds for vehicles travelling faster than 50km/h at the point where the vehicle travelling at 50 km/h would have stopped (i.e. at 29m).

   The following example illustrates how impact speed can differ between two cars with only a 10 km/h difference in travelling speeds:

   ...consider two cars travelling side by side at a given instant, one car travelling at 50 km/h and the other overtaking at 60 km/h. Suppose that a child runs onto the road at a point just beyond that at which the car travelling at 50 km/h can stop. The other car will still be travelling at 44 km/h at that point2.

3. Even small differences in impact speed make a large difference to the probability of serious injury.

   The reason for this difference is that the force of the crash varies with the square of the impact speed. For example, a 70 km/h collision has about twice the force of a 50 km/h collision."

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/speedandspeedcameras/speedingresearch.html

Senior police may back the use of speed limiters for probationary drivers in a bid to avert a repeat of Sunday's high-speed car crash in Melbourne's north that killed five teenagers.

Victoria Police Deputy Commissioner for road policing, Ken Lay, said police would consider speed limiters, following a poll in the Herald Sun newspaper that showed 87 per cent of respondents backed the suggestion.

He said police would also consider a range of measures including curfews or even raising the legal driving age to cut the number of road deaths involving young people.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/speed-limiters-considered-after-crash-20100119-mh0v.html

Please delete wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 11:30am:

Senior police may back the use of speed limiters for probationary drivers in a bid to avert a repeat of Sunday's high-speed car crash in Melbourne's north that killed five teenagers. Victoria Police Deputy Commissioner for road policing, Ken Lay, said police would consider speed limiters, following a poll in the Herald Sun newspaper that showed 87 per cent of respondents backed the suggestion. He said police would also consider a range of measures including curfews or even raising the legal driving age to cut the number of road deaths involving young people. http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/speed-limiters-considered-after-crash-20100119-mh0v.html

Police should be there to enforce EXISTING laws.

NOT create laws.


Police-state, anyone?

Kat wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 11:44am:

Please delete wrote on Sep 23rd, 2010 at 11:30am: Senior police may back the use of speed limiters for probationary drivers in a bid to avert a repeat of Sunday's high-speed car crash in Melbourne's north that killed five teenagers. Victoria Police Deputy Commissioner for road policing, Ken Lay, said police would consider speed limiters, following a poll in the Herald Sun newspaper that showed 87 per cent of respondents backed the suggestion. He said police would also consider a range of measures including curfews or even raising the legal driving age to cut the number of road deaths involving young people. http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/speed-limiters-considered-after-crash-20100119-mh0v.html Police should be there to enforce EXISTING laws. NOT create laws. Police-state, anyone?

Actually, I've gotta disagree there: I reckon that Police are in a unique position, to be able to advise on the need for changes to a range of existing laws - since they must deal with the harsh and often tragic realities of inappropriate laws.

That said, I point out the thread title and reiterate that this tangent should be stopped and/or taken elsewhere!

Equitist wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 11:17am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23rd, 2010 at 11:09am: Equitist wrote on Sep 23rd, 2010 at 10:59am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23rd, 2010 at 10:48am: Equitist wrote on Sep 23rd, 2010 at 10:42am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23rd, 2010 at 10:22am: Please delete wrote on Sep 23rd, 2010 at 10:15am: And I never thought I would see a conservative christian standing in the way of a proposal to reduce young people being killed on the roads doing ridiculous speeds, and families being wiped out by trucks. Or schoolchildren being run over in school zones. Interesting road facts for you: a majority of fatal accidents occur UNDER the speedlimit. 30% of fatalities occur becaue no seatbelt was worn. 30%+ is as a direct result of drugs and/or alcohol. speed is not the major factor in the big majority of accidents. Hey Bates, could you kindly refrain from mixing up your stats, ta! what stats confused you? The confusion was at your end, Bates - you either did not understand and/or clarify the context of the separate stats you quoted! Hint: which of those stats refers to fatal accidents alone!? whilst the pedantry of your comment is accurate I might point out that I was responding to the claim that speeding is the direct cause of death and injury on the road when it simply IS NOT. Noted, ta! BTW, motion is a factor in all vehicular collisions - and collisions often occur because one or more drivers fail/s to adjust the speed/motion of their vehicle/s to the risks posed by the conditions prevailing in the vicinity. (Edit: Sorry, just noticed that I had missed your post at 11:07am!) PS Methinks that this tangent needs to be discontinued and/or taken elsewhere.

Ironically, the most expensive accident my car has been involved in was when my car was barely moving! not exactly a case of serious injury but $5000 damage and the other car was unregistered, uninsured and of course, the driver was UNLICENSED.

"That said, I point out the thread title and reiterate that this tangent should be stopped and/or taken elsewhere!"

I agree that this looks like a tangential argument, but it was originally based on the thread - that the NBN will play a role in our use of cars.

Please delete wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 11:30am:

Senior police may back the use of speed limiters for probationary drivers in a bid to avert a repeat of Sunday's high-speed car crash in Melbourne's north that killed five teenagers. Victoria Police Deputy Commissioner for road policing, Ken Lay, said police would consider speed limiters, following a poll in the Herald Sun newspaper that showed 87 per cent of respondents backed the suggestion. He said police would also consider a range of measures including curfews or even raising the legal driving age to cut the number of road deaths involving young people. http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/speed-limiters-considered-after-crash-20100119-mh0v.html

a non-credible suggestion supported by a even less credible on-line poll. the logistics of speed-limiters for P plate drivers is problematic to say the least. if they can be over-ruled then they will be.  and if they cant be over-ruled then how does a P plate driver drive the family car - as most already have to do? and can a p plate driver ONLY drive a car with a speed limiter in it?

And let's be fair, the majority of police didnt chose the profession over becoming brain surgeons. most of them are decidely unintelligent and not surprisingly, some of their road-safety ideas are more than a little silly. they never have a idea that is 'out of the box'.

Please delete wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 11:59am:

"That said, I point out the thread title and reiterate that this tangent should be stopped and/or taken elsewhere!" I agree that this looks like a tangential argument, but it was originally based on the thread - that the NBN will play a role in our use of cars.

given that cars would have to use wireless internet and NBN is talking about purely wired connections in cities then I dont see any relevance at all. I was just gobsmacked that you like the idea of a nanny-state controlling your car and recording everywhere you went and when. truly amazing!

Cars will be wireless, the infrastructure that monitors car activity will not. And you can't have wireless in cars without expanded availability of the internet - via the NBN.

As to my support for a nanny state, I'm equally amazed that you support breaking the law.

Speed limiters are a stupid and dangerous idea.

Sometimes you need to drive faster than the alloted speed limit for the road to avoid an accident.

I was clocked in Australia doing 69 in a 60 km/hr zone and I wrote a detailed letter explaining why I had to speed up to avoid clashing with a car that had pulled out of a driveway quickly. Because it was dark and cars were behind me, it would have been dangerous to stop quickly and to avert the danger it was necessary to speed up.

I had the points and fine cancelled as a result 3 weeks later.

Speed limiters would prevent this sensible course of driving.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 12:18pm:

Speed limiters are a stupid and dangerous idea. Sometimes you need to drive faster than the alloted speed limit for the road to avoid an accident. I was clocked in Australia doing 69 in a 60 km/hr zone and I wrote a detailed letter explaining why I had to speed up to avoid clashing with a car that had pulled out of a driveway quickly. Because it was dark and cars were behind me, it would have been dangerous to stop quickly and to avert the danger it was necessary to speed up. I had the points and fine cancelled as a result 3 weeks later. Speed limiters would prevent this sensible course of driving.

a friend of mine drove a seriously injured (impaled) person to hospital. He drove above the speed limit and thru red lights. he broke many laws and nobody criticised him. If he had been speed-limited the man would have probably died. and this scenario is played out very often.

And I can say that Rural Fire Service volunteers, on their way to a fire, are REQUIRED TO OBEY THE SPEED LIMITS.

Eveyone has an excuse - I'm merely predicting what I firmly believe will happen.

And if the friend with the injured person had caused a head-on at a set of traffic lights?

My father saved a baby in similar circumstances when I was a child. Collision - doctors said dad was a hero, all that.

Now, in 2010, things are different.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 12:34pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 23rd, 2010 at 12:18pm: Speed limiters are a stupid and dangerous idea. Sometimes you need to drive faster than the alloted speed limit for the road to avoid an accident. I was clocked in Australia doing 69 in a 60 km/hr zone and I wrote a detailed letter explaining why I had to speed up to avoid clashing with a car that had pulled out of a driveway quickly. Because it was dark and cars were behind me, it would have been dangerous to stop quickly and to avert the danger it was necessary to speed up. I had the points and fine cancelled as a result 3 weeks later. Speed limiters would prevent this sensible course of driving. a friend of mine drove a seriously injured (impaled) person to hospital. He drove above the speed limit and thru red lights. he broke many laws and nobody criticised him. If he had been speed-limited the man would have probably died. and this scenario is played out very often.

I've been in a similar situation, broke most laws in the book.

In situations like this, it is justified, and I've been told that by both a doctor AND a cop.

So who am I to argue. (BTW, the passenger would NOT have survived otherwise, as in your case, Longy).

Please delete wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 12:53pm:

And I can say that Rural Fire Service volunteers, on their way to a fire, are REQUIRED TO OBEY THE SPEED LIMITS. Eveyone has an excuse - I'm merely predicting what I firmly believe will happen. And if the friend with the injured person had caused a head-on at a set of traffic lights? My father saved a baby in similar circumstances when I was a child. Collision - doctors said dad was a hero, all that. Now, in 2010, things are different.

Life is a serious of risks. the driver had to choose between almost certain death and a increased risk of accident on the way. YOU would have chose certain death and I have no idea why. and apparently neither does anyone else.  Speed limits are after all, ARBITRARY. they are chosen for consistency and usually the lowest common denominator. if a person drove at 80 in a 60 zoen during an emergency it is arguable that in most cases the increased risk was negligable on main roads.

I am NOT arguing for an end to speed limits or speeding fines but rather saying that there are legitimate reasons at times while you say that there are none. I will choose LIFE any day of the week rather than obey almost ANY law - as would most people. and if it means speeding then so be it.

Please delete wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 12:53pm:

And I can say that Rural Fire Service volunteers, on their way to a fire, are REQUIRED TO OBEY THE SPEED LIMITS. Eveyone has an excuse - I'm merely predicting what I firmly believe will happen. And if the friend with the injured person had caused a head-on at a set of traffic lights? My father saved a baby in similar circumstances when I was a child. Collision - doctors said dad was a hero, all that. Now, in 2010, things are different.

so what your dad did was intrinsically wrong? or that someone how in 2010 it is no longer ok to save a life by breaking a speed limit?

I'll ask again:

"And if the friend with the injured person had caused a head-on at a set of traffic lights? "

Friend dead anyway? Family of 4 killed in the other car?

Cowboys always have an excuse.

The ends doesn't always justify the means.

Quote:

And I can say that Rural Fire Service volunteers, on their way to a fire, are REQUIRED TO OBEY THE SPEED LIMITS.

Actually, emergency services vehicles ARE allowed to exceed the speed limit but are required to justify it - eg life-saving emergency. A bit like what I am saying we as individuals currently do.

That was NOT the case in 2001, when I asked the RFS captain that very question.

Here I go again, weighing in on the tangent...oh what the hey...

In an emergency, I think that most people would take greater risks and bend their usual respect for arbitrary laws - but the first rule in first aid (or any other response to an emergency) is necessarily: DANGER, i.e. SAFETY FIRST...

Oh, and there was a very recent case of a NSW woman being killed by an Ambulance: -

http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/woman-dies-after-being-hit-by-ambulance-20100904-14uoy.html


Quote:

Woman dies after being hit by ambulance September 4, 2010 The NSW Ambulance Service has offered its condolences after one of its emergency vehicles hit and killed a woman in Sydney. Chief Executive Greg Rochford on Saturday said the ambulance service was saddened by the accident that had affected everyone. "We are deeply saddened by this tragic incident which has also affected everyone in the ambulance service," he said in a statement. "The paramedics involved in the accident were most distressed by the incident and after doing all that they could at the scene, were transported to Royal Prince Alfred Hospital by colleagues. "All of Ambulance's staff support services have been activated overnight following the very tragic event and will continue to provide support to the staff involved." A woman died after being hit by an ambulance on Parramatta at Camperdown in Sydney's inner west at about 10pm (AEST) on Friday. Police said the ambulance, with its flashing lights and siren on, was travelling west on Parramatta Road, when the woman apparently stepped into its path. The woman died at the scene and the driver and passenger in the ambulance, both men, were taken to hospital to be treated for shock, police said. Officers from Newtown Local Area Command are investigating the incident and any witnesses are urged to contact Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000.

I'm not suggesting that the Ambo's were at fault in any way, but shyte happens - and all risks should be limited where possible...

Please delete wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 1:07pm:

I'll ask again: "And if the friend with the injured person had caused a head-on at a set of traffic lights? " Friend dead anyway? Family of 4 killed in the other car? Cowboys always have an excuse. The ends doesn't always justify the means.

99 times out of 100 there would be no accident. but you would sacrifice the 99 on the OFF CHANCE there might be an accident? and while you are right that the end doesnt JUSTIFY the means it doesnt also imply that the 'end' should not influence our 'means'.  If you seriously want to suggest that not even saving a life should allow us to speed then I think you need a serious overhaul in your personal ethics. and PLEASE.. never become an ambulance driver. I couldnt see you shortening a legally-demanded lunch break to save a life. after all, the law is paramount over all - including life, right?

Equitist wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 1:16pm:

Here I go again, weighing in on the tangent...oh what the hey... In an emergency, I think that most people would take greater risks and bend their usual respect of arbitrary laws - but the first rule in first aid (or any other response to an emergency) is necessarily: DANGER, i.e. SAFETY FIRST... Oh, and there was a very recent case of a NSW woman being killed by an Ambulance: - http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/woman-dies-after-being-hit-by-ambulance-20100904-14uoy.html Quote: Woman dies after being hit by ambulance September 4, 2010 The NSW Ambulance Service has offered its condolences after one of its emergency vehicles hit and killed a woman in Sydney. Chief Executive Greg Rochford on Saturday said the ambulance service was saddened by the accident that had affected everyone. "We are deeply saddened by this tragic incident which has also affected everyone in the ambulance service," he said in a statement. "The paramedics involved in the accident were most distressed by the incident and after doing all that they could at the scene, were transported to Royal Prince Alfred Hospital by colleagues. "All of Ambulance's staff support services have been activated overnight following the very tragic event and will continue to provide support to the staff involved." A woman died after being hit by an ambulance on Parramatta at Camperdown in Sydney's inner west at about 10pm (AEST) on Friday. Police said the ambulance, with its flashing lights and siren on, was travelling west on Parramatta Road, when the woman apparently stepped into its path. The woman died at the scene and the driver and passenger in the ambulance, both men, were taken to hospital to be treated for shock, police said. Officers from Newtown Local Area Command are investigating the incident and any witnesses are urged to contact Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000. I'm not suggesting that the Ambo's were at fault in any way, but shyte happens - and all risks should be limited where possible...

and the ambulance wasnt speeding and the pedestrian appeasr to be 100% at fault. Like you said, nemesis, life is a series of risks and the important things in life require more risk than others. and as a general rule, breaking the law is unwise but when law clearly impedes safety then only a fool obeys it. overtaking shoudl be done at a minimum of 20KMhr faster than the person you are overtaking. if this involves speeding then it is clearly much more preferable to being on the wrong side of the road 4 times as long! Raod safety advisors even suggest it.

Experts in the field always say NOT TO SPEED even in those circumstances.

I don't mind a scenario where someone breaks the law, is called to justify their actions, and is patted on the back for doing the right thing. However, I bet that the main reason people get away with such actions is that they aren't caught in the act, and no-one was hurt.

If you can guarantee that me and mine won't be injured by a panicked driver rushing his child to a hospital with a bad cough, I'll say go for it.

But you can't, and therefore the only reasonable answer is for everyone to show respect for the lethality involved in driving a motor vehicle.

I don't understand the relevance of the accident in Newtown with the Ambulance.

The pedestrian appears to have been at fault. No laws were being broken. Therefore it's not relevant.

Please delete wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 1:24pm:

Experts in the field always say NOT TO SPEED even in those circumstances. I don't mind a scenario where someone breaks the law, is called to justify their actions, and is patted on the back for doing the right thing. I bet that the main reason people get away with such actions is that they aren't caught in the act, and no-one was hurt. If you can guarantee that me and mine won't be injured by a panicked driver rushing his child to a hospital with a bad cough, I'll say go for it. But you can't, and therefore the only reasonable answer is for everyone to show respect for the lethality involved in driving a motor vehicle.

you want GUARANTEES? what planet do you live on? nothign has a guarantee on it - not even life itself. we always have to make choices and these choices are based not on guarantees but on risk. most decisions have very little risk but at the sametime very little reward either. but when a life is at stake the acceptable risk is suddenly a lot higher. If my child's life was at risk and I had to choose between speeding or letting her die then what kind of freak would I be to even think about the choice? Im not saying do 200 along a side road but I am saying that 90 on a main road is a very small risk compared to the certainly of a death. Your attitude amazes me. IM sure you woudl think differently if a loved one was in the seat next to you bleeding to death and you had to choose between speeding and their death. At least I hope so.

If your actions endanger my life, yes, I want you controlled.

Please delete wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 1:24pm:

Experts in the field always say NOT TO SPEED even in those circumstances. I don't mind a scenario where someone breaks the law, is called to justify their actions, and is patted on the back for doing the right thing. However, I bet that the main reason people get away with such actions is that they aren't caught in the act, and no-one was hurt. If you can guarantee that me and mine won't be injured by a panicked driver rushing his child to a hospital with a bad cough, I'll say go for it. But you can't, and therefore the only reasonable answer is for everyone to show respect for the lethality involved in driving a motor vehicle.

It wasnt a COUGH you moron. it was a fence post right thru the persons body. what is it about risk assessment that you just DONT GET?

Please delete wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 1:31pm:

If your actions endanger my life, yes, I want you controlled.

and there is the crux to it all... it is all about YOU and bugger everyone else. And porbably what you support the NBN... because YOU want faster internet.

explains everything perfectly.

Please delete wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 1:27pm:

I don't understand the relevance of the accident in Newtown with the Ambulance. The pedestrian appears to have been at fault. No laws were being broken. Therefore it's not relevant.

Actually, the article doesn't put the Ambos totally in the clear - by my reckoning, it doesn't provide sufficient details for such a legal conclusion to be drawn. There is also no evidence, either way, as to whether they complied with usual professional protocols.

I am also not aware of the outcome of any relevant investigations. Therefore, the relevance is probably yet to be determined.

I didn't mean to sidetrack the discussion - merely wanted to provide an example of where an emergency situation tragically resulted in an additional road casualty...

Either way, I doubt that the woman's loved ones would be so quick to place 100% blame on the dead woman based on the information in that article...

longie,

bet you were on the school  debating team  

Mr weekend, you can get angry and sarcastic all you like, but everything in these matters is "about you".

You've tangentialized this to ridiculous extremes, but I will maintain.

You are NOT capable of driving a car beyond the speed limits imposed by an expert, looking at the conditions, without endangering lives.

You don't have the driving training, the specially equipped vehicle, the flashing lights and siren.

To drive beyond the speed limits, in a panicked matter NO MATTER WHAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES, is to endanger your own life, your injured passengers' life, and other people's lives.

But don't let common sense stop you.

Please delete wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 1:31pm:

If your actions endanger my life, yes, I want you controlled.

I'll make that decision based upon the circumstances at the time, the availability or otherwise of professional assistance, and the prevailing conditions.

And if it happens to be a loved one, or a child, or if there's no other alternative, then all I can say is that you'd better get the smack out of my way.

"And if it happens to be a loved one, or a child, or if there's no other alternative, then all I can say is that you'd better get the smack out of my way."

So you'd kill me, my family, and perhaps yourself and your loved one, to prove how macho you are? How wonderful.

wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 1:38pm:

longie, bet you were on the school  debating team

bet you werent!

Please delete wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 1:41pm:

Mr weekend, you can get angry and sarcastic all you like, but everything in these matters is "about you". You've tangentialized this to ridiculous extremes, but I will maintain. You are NOT capable of driving a car beyond the speed limits imposed by an expert, looking at the conditions, without endangering lives. You don't have the driving training, the specially equipped vehicle, the flashing lights and siren. To drive beyond the speed limits, in a panicked matter NO MATTER WHAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES, is to endanger your own life, your injured passengers' life, and other people's lives. But don't let common sense stop you.

Thats a good one! You got virtually everything wrong.

The speed limits are NOT imposed by experts. They are in fact usually put in place by a bureaucrat who, if we are lucky, uses the australian standards for speed limits which are themseves set at the LOWEST common denominator. they are NOT the maximum safe speed at all. If that were the case you wouldnt have the same 60km limit on a narrow road that you have on a 6 lane arterial road. speed limits are placed with CONSISTENCY in mind - not safety.

The idea that I (or anyone else) cannot drive above the speed limit safely is ridiculous and assumes so much as to be laughable. to imagine that 65 in a 60 zone is somehow dangerous is stupid. Oh and btw, I actually DO have the training and I also have a car that would out perform and out handle (by a long way) cop cars and certainly ambulances.

So what would you do if someone in your family was sitting in the seat next to you dying and the ONLY way to save them was to speed to the hospital. Let's say even as 'fast' as 90Km/hr in a 60 zone. Would you choose to let them die rather than speed? Please answer, because I am fascinated with what response you can come up with.

Please delete wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 1:53pm:

"And if it happens to be a loved one, or a child, or if there's no other alternative, then all I can say is that you'd better get the smack out of my way." So you'd kill me, my family, and perhaps yourself and your loved one, to prove how macho you are? How wonderful.

classic stupidty from soneone who seems unable to read or comprehend a simple statement of risk management.

"So what would you do if someone in your family was sitting in the seat next to you dying and the ONLY way to save them was to speed to the hospital. Let's say even as 'fast' as 90Km/hr in a 60 zone. Would you choose to let them die rather than speed? Please answer, because I am fascinated with what response you can come up with. "

"Only way to save them"??? How is that measured? What are we talking about here? Decapitation?

I'd wait for the ambulance. Nothing is achieved if I crash the car, and all is lost.

At the very least I would make sure the ambulance was on it's way, and arrange to meet them somewhere (did this three years ago with a boat accident victim, so not speaking through my arse - and I didn't break any laws, or risk further accident).

This whole theoretical is based upon some third person, whom you never met, with a stake impaled in his leg - so now we need some more information - was he able to climb into the car? In which case I dispute his life was in danger, and racing him to the hospital was more of an endangerment than the accident in the first place.

"I actually DO have the training and I also have a car that would out perform and out handle (by a long way) cop cars and certainly ambulances."

Oh yawn! And double yawn!

You are SUCH a hero.

So they have a neck injury, and I decide to lift them into my car and race them to hospital, and because of MY stupidity they are a quadraplegic??

Do you have NO sense?

Someone said that emergency vehicles can exceed the speed limit.

They can't without prior approval and even then it's only by 10 or 20kph max depending on the posted limit and usually only once police are controlling traffic on that particular section of road.

Simply throwing on the light bar and siren doesn't mean they can disregard the posted speed limit.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 5:04pm:

Quote: The idea that I (or anyone else) cannot drive above the speed limit safely is ridiculous and assumes so much as to be laughable. to imagine that 65 in a 60 zone is somehow dangerous is stupid. Oh and btw, I actually DO have the training and I also have a car that would out perform and out handle (by a long way) cop cars and certainly ambulances. Mind if I ask what type of vehicle longy; only out of interest? [quote]So what would you do if someone in your family was sitting in the seat next to you dying and the ONLY way to save them was to speed to the hospital. Let's say even as 'fast' as 90Km/hr in a 60 zone. Would you choose to let them die rather than speed? Please answer, because I am fascinated with what response you can come up with.

I would call 000 whilst underway and advise them of the situation and that I was driving the injured to hospital, I had no intention of stopping, for anything, and if they were interested in talking to me they could do so at the destination.  An escort would be ideal.

Frankly where ever possible and safe to do so I would break land speed records if required and slow at intersections until clear to proceed through; if that involved running any posted or electronic speed limit or device so be it.  

Life_goes_on wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 7:55pm:

Someone said that emergency vehicles can exceed the speed limit. They can't without prior approval and even then it's only by 10 or 20kph max depending on the posted limit and usually only once police are controlling traffic on that particular section of road. Simply throwing on the light bar and siren doesn't mean they can disregard the posted speed limit.

What is legal procedure and actually happens are two entirely different things.

I spend a lot of time on the Bruce Highway and frequently get passed at 110kph like I'm standing still by police, ambos and fire brig.  I often will pull in behind the coppers and sit with them if possible.  Hard to justify pulling me up when they are doing the same thing without following procedure.

Quote:

I spend a lot of time on the Bruce Highway and frequently get passed at 110kph like I'm standing still by police, ambos and fire brig.  I often will pull in behind the coppers and sit with them if possible.  Hard to justify pulling me up when they are doing the same thing without following procedure.

I don't doubt that happens. But one of our local ambos is currently sitting out a 12 month good behaviour after exceeding his points while on the job.

qikvtec wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 8:07pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 23rd, 2010 at 5:04pm: Quote: The idea that I (or anyone else) cannot drive above the speed limit safely is ridiculous and assumes so much as to be laughable. to imagine that 65 in a 60 zone is somehow dangerous is stupid. Oh and btw, I actually DO have the training and I also have a car that would out perform and out handle (by a long way) cop cars and certainly ambulances. Mind if I ask what type of vehicle longy; only out of interest? [quote]So what would you do if someone in your family was sitting in the seat next to you dying and the ONLY way to save them was to speed to the hospital. Let's say even as 'fast' as 90Km/hr in a 60 zone. Would you choose to let them die rather than speed? Please answer, because I am fascinated with what response you can come up with. I would call 000 whilst underway and advise them of the situation and that I was driving the injured to hospital, I had no intention of stopping, for anything, and if they were interested in talking to me they could do so at the destination.  An escort would be ideal. Frankly where ever possible and safe to do so I would break land speed records if required and slow at intersections until clear to proceed through; if that involved running any posted or electronic speed limit or device so be it.

I drive a BA FPV-GT which goes like a rocket and the handling is fantastic. no surprises when the back hangs out and the ride is great. also works well as a family car. 0-100 in 5.9.

I cant imagine ANYONE who would not break the speed limit to save someone's life. But apparently they DO exist!

The FPV-GT is a great car that you have.

I have to say Australians do make excellent performance cars by Ford and Holden.

If we had stayed in Melbourne, I wanted to get the Holden Commodore 6.0 V8.
Awesome car.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 24^th, 2010 at 11:24am:

The FPV-GT is a great car that you have. I have to say Australians do make excellent performance cars by Ford and Holden. If we had stayed in Melbourne, I wanted to get the Holden Commodore 6.0 V8. Awesome car.

yes aussie muscle cars are pretty good and compete with overseas performance cars at twice the price. and something of great importance to ownere is that spare parts are sometimes 1/10 of the price of imported performance cars. The Holden HSV is a great car too. I basically chose my Ford of the Holden because ' it looked better'. everythign else was virtually identical.

So any one yet come up with some good ideas about what we will do with faster internet?

Its ok Longy..your grandkids will find a use for it  :)

I remember when the company I was with had computers with 20 meg hard drives, we had a project which required substantial logging capability so I got one of the very early 100 Meg hard drives.

Nobody could imagine what you could possibly do with a 100 Meg of disk space, people thought it would never run out but then again at that time nobody could afford to buy any more then about 2 meg of memory either.

Just wondering Longy have you upgraded that 233 P1 with 32 meg of ram and a 4.3G disk yet?

.

Dnarever wrote on Sep 26^th, 2010 at 10:57pm:

I remember when the company I was with had computers with 20 meg hard drives, we had a project which required substantial logging capability so I got one of the very early 100 Meg hard drives. Nobody could imagine what you could possibly do with a 100 Meg of disk space, people thought it would never run out but then again at that time nobody could afford to buy any more then about 2 meg of memory either. Just wondering Longy have you upgraded that 233 P1 with 32 meg of ram and a 4.3G disk yet? .

I'm also aware of the technology maxim that 'work expands to fill the space available'. it was one thing to spend a few hundred dollars on ulgrading your computer. it is another thing altogether to by a super-computer for every houselhold - which is the equivalent.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 26^th, 2010 at 5:18pm:

So any one yet come up with some good ideas about what we will do with faster internet?

When BMUS:// joins HTTP:// and MNT reduces physical goods to yottabytes of data, won't that question sound silly?