All the news the mainstream whore media does NOT show you

Get the REAL news here:

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2013/08/one-block-in-minnamurra-street-kiama-with-its-nbn-story.html

Right!

He compares a 4g cellular connection to a fibre connection.

He has an anti-labor slant a mile wide.

He got sacked from 2UE for asking Julia about the AWU "scandal!"

I'll get my news from less pro-coalition sources.

I prefer this one:

http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/government-it/nbn-the-difference-between-the-two-plans-20130815-hv1dl.html

Labor have a superior network at a cost of around 10 billion more than the Coalition model.

Of course the cbn doesn't factor in the cost of the copper.

Of course Telstra are going to hand this over for no cost!

Vic wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 12:31pm:

I prefer this one: http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/government-it/nbn-the-difference-between-the-two-plans-20130815-hv1dl.html Labor have a superior network at a cost of around 10 billion more than the Coalition model.

for $10B more it should be superior

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

Pictures speak a thousand words

Doesn't matter the source of those pictures, nor their political leanings


THE   PHOTOS   TELL  THE   STORY !


THE   PHOTOS    DO     NOT     LIE  !


The PROBLEMS  inherent  in  this   INSANE   scheme

are  obvious !


You think the pink batt  fiasco  was bad


Wait until the compensation and injury claims resulting  from this botched-up,  third-world  scheme  start  being  lodged  !

Broken ankles !

Gangrene  !

Fatal falls  !

Damage to property !

Damage to facilities  !


This looks like a drainage ditch from deepest AFRICA  !


You mean to tell me this is 21st century technology !


LOL


Stop the madness !

I'm asking the nbn for clarification on whether this is their work or not.

None of that looks like the nbn's work anyway - it looks more like the work that Telstra or Optus has carried out.

I hope he hasn't mislead his readers.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 12:37pm:

Vic wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 12:31pm: I prefer this one: http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/government-it/nbn-the-difference-between-the-two-plans-20130815-hv1dl.html Labor have a superior network at a cost of around 10 billion more than the Coalition model. for $10B more it should be superior

Libs plan will also be deliver ten years EARLIER

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 12:56pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 12:37pm: Vic wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 12:31pm: I prefer this one: http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/government-it/nbn-the-difference-between-the-two-plans-20130815-hv1dl.html Labor have a superior network at a cost of around 10 billion more than the Coalition model. for $10B more it should be superior Libs plan will also be deliver ten years EARLIER

Not according to the SMH article above:

Rollout time:
LABOR - Ten years
COALITION - Six years



Cost to 2012: (own estimates)
LABOR – Capital expenditure $37.4 billion
COALITION – Capital expenditure of $22 billion

10 years earlier, please provide me with proof for this number.

Who cares about the time-frame

We're ON internet NOW aren't we ?


Concentrate on the rural sectors that don't have anything

and leave it at that


The proposed expenditure on systems which will be outdated before they're half completed

is just a chance for pollies to grant contracts to their crooked buddies !

That's ALL this is about !


MONEY !

Another interesting comparison site:

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/aug/13/nbn-policy-labor-coalition-questions

Cost:  Libs 29.5 B

Lab rollout completed by 2021
Lib rollout completed by 2019

'
'

We do not need it

We cannot afford it

It will be outmoded before it's half finished



We're all online now, obviously

We're managing



Both parties want the chance to hide/steal billions from this scheme

plus the chance to award contracts to those who'll grease their palm

Money


No.  I don't want to pay for this third world mess

Leave it as it is

Take care of the rural folk

and leave well enough alone


Far more pressing needs than increased bloody broadband speed


when let's face it ---- all it will produce is more garbage along the lines of Facebook and this forum

F*ck the NBN. i dont need borgs posts delivered any faster

PZ547 - if we don't build the nbn we won't be saving any money!

The money can't be moved to another area.

You may not need it, however Australia needs up to date telecommunications infrastructure.

If we used the same thinking on the copper network or any of our infrastructure it would never have been built.

Horseback and fire is all we'll ever need!

The copper will need replacing within the next 10 years - should we replace it with more copper or with fibre?

Do you think the current network is "fine" and will be forever or are you counting on a magic cellular network that doesn't exist yet?

Mean while in the real world people will be using their wireless phones and pads and asking "WTF is fiber?"

::)

FriYAY wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 2:08pm:

Mean while in the real world people will be using their wireless phones and pads and asking "WTF is fiber?" ::)

I can already use the interweb - I don't need no fixed connection, I have 4g at home! (in reality you probably have a fixed connection with a wireless router!)

Meanwhile in the real world, those who understand the technology will know that to use all of these devices you need fibre and a fast fixed connection with a wireless router attached.

Try and run a number of devices on a cellular (3/4g connection) and get back to me.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 12:56pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 12:37pm: Vic wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 12:31pm: I prefer this one: http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/government-it/nbn-the-difference-between-the-two-plans-20130815-hv1dl.html Labor have a superior network at a cost of around 10 billion more than the Coalition model. for $10B more it should be superior Libs plan will also be deliver ten years EARLIER

and this is why ;)

http://www.talkmoneycafe.com/images/telephone_can_string_talk.PNG

FriYAY wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 2:08pm:

Mean while in the real world people will be using their wireless ...

I'm glad someone brought up that old furphy. Without wireless, mobile computing isn't possible. Unfortunately, the laws of physics stand between wireless and the capacity of fibre. The two don't compete, they complement each other.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2012/11/9/technology/killing-nbn-wireless-myth

Quote:

Killing the NBN wireless myth Paul Wallbank 9 Nov 2012, 10:35 AM The transformative powers of wireless technology is one misconception commonly touted by the opponents of the Labor NBN but improvements in the wireless space are unlikely to render optic fibre networks redundant any time soon. If anything, recent announcements by Japan’s NTT and UK university researchers show that fibre networks are zooming even further ahead of their wireless cousins when it comes to capacity. Telecommunications companies have used fibre for three decades to provide backbone connections and in that time the capacity growth has been impressive. In 1977, the first commercial use of fibre optics in Southern California delivered a 6Mbps connection. Today’s backbone fibre connections which connect cities and telephone exchanges are 2,000 times faster. Fibre faster than ever While it’s established that fibre is a key part of any modern network, with the NBN much of the argument has centred on whether the delivery side would be more ‘future proof’ if it were wireless rather than fibre. Dispelling this view, researchers at the UK’s Bangor University in Northern Wales this week announced their OCEAN Project had been able to push the barriers on home fibre connections to 20Gbps by using existing technology. Currently those links have a maximum speed of around 1Gbps, as opposed to claimed maximum speeds of 40Mbps on 4G networks. While NBN Co’s chief technology officer ,Gary McLaren, sees promise in the Bangor University research, the capacity increases we’ll see in the street will come from evolving the network’s neighbourhood hubs to the 10GPON standard with four time more capacity as demand grows. Down the track, NBN Co’s plans include investment in upgrading both the GPON technologies and the backbone network which carries the data between cities and towns. Backbone fibre networks are seeing even greater capacity improvements with Japan’s NTT recently announcing they’d been able to push 85 Tbps down a single fibre – weaving together 12 of these fibres gave NTT a Petabyte per second connection (1,000,000 Gbps), nearly 80,000 times more capacity than current fibre networks.' Project VIP These improvement in technologies mean NBN Co is not alone in their upgrade plans. In the United States this week, AT&T announced their Project VIP which will move most of their customers onto Internet Protocol (IP) based systems. Project VIP will involve rolling out fibre to the node for most residential customers while businesses in office blocks and industrial parks – Multi-Tenant Business Buildings in AT&T’s terminology – will get fibre directly to their premises. AT&T expect the project will cost them $14 billion over three years which includes upgrading their mobile network to 4G. At these rates the far more comprehensive NBN looks reasonably priced with $12 billion expected to be spent over the same period. It's all about capacity An interesting side note with AT&T’s Project VIP are the markets the telco expects to address with its new network with home automation, mobile wallets and connected cars all mentioned in their announcement. These technologies, which are also being explored by Australian providers, means telcos and agencies like NBN Co are going to need the increased capacity on both fibre and wireless networks. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) reporting that data downloads increased 50 per cent  last year alone, with fixed connections growing fast than mobile. As our appetite for data grows, the need for these faster technologies in both fixed fibre connections and mobile networks are going to become more critical. This is why both public investment like the NBN and private projects like AT&T’s are essential in providing the capacity needed to meet our demands. While wireless networks are an important part of the broadband future, it’s the growth in fibre capacity that is going to be critical in meeting those demands.

.

It's a MONEY GRAB


Using a MONEY PIT


Contracts for the work being granted to buddy corporations

In return, the buddy-corporations hand a kick-back to whomever granted them the contract

Have you learned nothing from the Obeid-Labor Corruption Saga ?


Just another MONEY PIT to service a MONEY GRAB


YOUR money

PZ547 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 1:02pm:

... systems which will be outdated before they're half completed ...

Interesting assertion. What will replace fibre, to make it obsolete? You have evidence, of course.

You wouldn't just say what you think will work, would you? You're not Tony Abbott, are you?

Wireless is not, and will not be a replacement for home network connections.

While you might not need a high speed fibre connection now, it's odds on that you will need one in the not too distant future.

The "high" speeds being touted now, will be the low speeds of the next decade.

Riiiiight

because you all NEED supersonic speeds in order to Post for Pay  here


;D

PZ547 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 3:21pm:

. It's a MONEY GRAB ...

My goodness, you are all assertion and capitals, aren't you?  ::)

Wasn't the need for radical upgrades to Australia's telecommunications network established in the 1990s (Networking the Nation/Networked Nation - something along those lines)?

PZ547 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 3:31pm:

Riiiiight because you all NEED supersonic speeds in order to Post for Pay  here ;D

No. You need only have a 9.6k modem to post here - that was my only option until early last year and I managed fine.

What I said was that you might not need it now, but the chances are odds on that you will need a high speed connection in the future - obviously to all but the extremely moronic, I wasn't meaning for simple forum posts.

The NBN fiasco


is a MONEY GRAB


using a

MONEY PIT



and everyone knows it, regardless of what your owners instruct you to say

Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 2:19pm:

FriYAY wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 2:08pm: Mean while in the real world people will be using their wireless phones and pads and asking "WTF is fiber?" ::) I can already use the interweb - I don't need no fixed connection, I have 4g at home! (in reality you probably have a fixed connection with a wireless router!) Meanwhile in the real world, those who understand the technology will know that to use all of these devices you need fibre and a fast fixed connection with a wireless router attached. Try and run a number of devices on a cellular (3/4g connection) and get back to me.

So who do you think "NEEDS" superfast fiber in the home?

Quote:

So who do you think "NEEDS" superfast fiber in the home?

Not the remnants of what we jokingly refer to as 'Australian business' --- that's for sure.  Ever seen the majority of business websites ?  Go to Freedom Furniture Australia and they won't even let you look at their merchandise, lol, until you've entered your post-code.  When you DO, it's rejected on the grounds there 'exists no such post code'.  Not in the US there isn't, Freedom.  Did you forget we're in AUSTRALIA you fools ?

And that's par for the course with Australian business and services websites.  So they might as well stay on landline


Who needs supersonic speeds as will NOT be provided by the broken-backed NBN ?

Well, maybe gamers.  But can they afford it ?  Or at least, can their PARENTS afford it at the same time as keeping middle aged kids at home all day playing online ?  Doubt it

Maybe porn addicts.  They would probably be in favour of the broken-backed NBN --- but as they can't take their hands from themselves, they probably wouldn't utilize it anyway

Who else --- ebay shoppers?  But if that's the case --- are either of the two big fake parties going to start asking ebay to pay a bit of TAX to this country ?  Doubt it


And the Paid to Posts.  They'd like it.  They tell themselves if they had it, they'd be able to post under fifty IDs simultaneously.  However, as they're working for peanuts, they would not be able to afford it, no way


So it's just a MONEY GRAB

using another MONEY PIT

and I'm NOT voting for any crumby party that endorses it

It's only about home users, no business would ever want or need fibre.

You would have been a visionary in 1910!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDQY1upYFfI

Mr Matthews "The practical men in the Department, not the theorists, think that nothing is gained by using copper wire for short lines. Some of the iron wire lines have been in use for 30 years, and give as good results now as copper wire lines."

Do I need to build you a time machine?

Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 3:54pm:

It's only about home users, no business would ever want or need fibre. You would have been a visionary in 1910! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDQY1upYFfI

So businees uptake will pay for the cost of the NBN?

Like the current Copper network?

Do you think that magically appeared?

The government paid for it and it paid itself off (hundreds of times over!)

Of course the nbn will be different  ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Businesses who can afford it use expensive dedicated leased lines.
Those who can't afford it, have to make do with whatever existing copper connection is available to them and either have to put up the limitations or spend up on hardware duplication at their various sites.
What you as a consumer can see is only the tip of the iceberg of a company's networking requirements if they have more than one site/office.

Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 12:58pm:

10 years earlier, please provide me with proof for this number.

NBN corp is falling way, way behind and every status report shows it gttgin worse.  ergo, the official time frame of 10 years is not going to get even close.  A reliable predictor of future performance is past performance.

Same question as always:  What will you do with 100Mbps that you cant do now other than faster porn and faster illegal torrents?

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 4:52pm:

...  What will you do with 100Mbps ...?

We have telegram delivery boys - on bicycles! What would we do with your telly-o-phone?

Seriously though, what do you believe will halt the observed rise  in demand for bandwidth?

PZ547 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 3:41pm:

... regardless of what your owners instruct you to say

Ahh, the old conspiracy theory. It's the paranoids, isn't it? They're out to get you, aren't they?

PZ547 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 1:02pm:

Who cares about the time-frame We're ON internet NOW aren't we ? Concentrate on the rural sectors that don't have anything and leave it at that The proposed expenditure on systems which will be outdated before they're half completed is just a chance for pollies to grant contracts to their crooked buddies ! That's ALL this is about ! MONEY !

Absolute rubbish!!

The speed of light isn't likely to become obsolete or superseded in the foreseeable future.

Copper is already obsolete.

Like most Con-alition claims, this one is based on a false premise, and so holds no water whatsoever.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 4:52pm:

Same question as always:  What will you do with 100Mbps that you cant do now other than faster porn and faster illegal torrents?

And I'll bet you said something similar when 28.8k modems were introduced...

# wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 8:17am:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 4:52pm: ...  What will you do with 100Mbps ...? We have telegram delivery boys - on bicycles! What would we do with your telly-o-phone? Seriously though, what do you believe will halt the observed rise  in demand for bandwidth?

despite your mocking, it is worth observing thatyou have also been unable to give me a single need that requires this bandwith or any application that cant be run on current systems.

And given that the Coalition proposal using VDSL will give bandwith of 50-100Mbps then where is the problem?  50-100Mps was okay last year with fiber.  Why is it now supposedly inadequate?

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 8:56am:

# wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 8:17am: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 4:52pm: ...  What will you do with 100Mbps ...? We have telegram delivery boys - on bicycles! What would we do with your telly-o-phone? Seriously though, what do you believe will halt the observed rise  in demand for bandwidth? ... you have also been unable to give me a single need that requires this bandwith ...

As you have been unable to point to what will halt the rise in demand.

The issue is not tomorrow; it's what's the best investment for the foreseeable future. The Coalition wants to spend $29 billion for no substantial benefit. Their plan relies on Telstra giving cost-free access to their monopoly copper. It relies on that aged copper yielding performance achieved to date only on new copper. It relies on establishing nodes within 400 metres of every premises. It relies on average demand at each node not rising above 100 Mb/s.

Bear in mind that it was the Coalition that branded Fibre to the Node "fraudband" in 2007, when it was Labor policy. See also: http://delimiter.com.au/2012/04/30/fttn-a-huge-mistake-says-ex-bt-cto/.

# wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 9:14am:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 8:56am: # wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 8:17am: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 4:52pm: ...  What will you do with 100Mbps ...? We have telegram delivery boys - on bicycles! What would we do with your telly-o-phone? Seriously though, what do you believe will halt the observed rise  in demand for bandwidth? ... you have also been unable to give me a single need that requires this bandwith ... As you have been unable to point to what will halt the rise in demand. The issue is not tomorrow; it's what's the best investment for the foreseeable future. The Coalition wants to spend $29 billion for no substantial benefit. Their plan relies on Telstra giving cost-free access to their monopoly copper. It relies on that aged copper yielding performance achieved to date only on new copper. It relies on establishing nodes within 400 metres of every premises. It relies on average demand at each node not rising above 100 Mb/s. Bear in mind that it was the Coalition that branded Fibre to the Node "fraudband" in 2007, when it was Labor policy. See also: http://delimiter.com.au/2012/04/30/fttn-a-huge-mistake-says-ex-bt-cto/.

A) you still have provided not a single application that needs more than what we currently have nevermind FTTN with 100Mbps
B) 100Mbps was okay last year so why not this year
C) copper was supposed to be incapable of more than 33kbps until we found it could do better and now it is 100Mbps.  The idea that something 'cant be done' in electronics is rather passé.  processor speeds and PCB track widths were supposed to have reached physical limits and yet they haven't. HHD capacities were suppose to have reached maximum limts long ago and yet haven't
D) FTTN is much cheaper
E) FTTN will be complete far faster and with the NBNs current record of delivery, probably 10 years faster
F)  how does 'no substantial benefit' apply to a network that offers 10 times current bandwidth and identical to the bandwidth of the NBN from only a year ago?
G) and FTTN still provides the capacity for full FTTP if needed by simply running the fibre last segment.  So if you need it, you can get it but yes, you will have to pay for it.  Businesses who need it wont hesitate and residences that need it likewise.  Those that simply WANT it rather than need it might not be so comfortable
H) FTTN becomes FTTP at a later point if deemed necessary and much of the work is already done.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 9:22am:

A) you still have provided not a single application that needs more than what we currently have nevermind FTTN with 100Mbps You have no vision!  1 user watching youtube, 1 user streaming 4k video, 1 user playing xbox 360 and 1 user downloading a movie - not hard to fathom how we could use these speeds. A sdd can write at 300mbps, if you max your connection it still won't reach these speeds. It's not just about home usage either! B) 100Mbps was okay last year so why not this year Can you get 100mbps on copper everywhere?  Unless you have copper pairs (most houses in Australia don't!) and put a car size box ever 100m, copper won't get anywhere near this speed. While the world record for fibre is 126 pettabits a second! C) copper was supposed to be incapable of more than 33kbps until we found it could do better and now it is 100Mbps.  The idea that something 'cant be done' in electronics is rather passé.  processor speeds and PCB track widths were supposed to have reached physical limits and yet they haven't. HHD capacities were suppose to have reached maximum limts long ago and yet haven't Fibre can reach 126 pettabits a second (and climbing!) Copper has reached it's limit @ 1 gigabit (that's if you have new copper and operate at a range of 50m!) D) FTTN is much cheaper Is it? Taking into account the extra maintenance, electricity and the cost of the copper, it actually costs as much or more! E) FTTN will be complete far faster and with the NBNs current record of delivery, probably 10 years faster "Probably 10 years faster"  BZZZZZZ WRONG!!!!!! It will be completed 2 years earlier but won't solve the issues with degraded copper. F)  how does 'no substantial benefit' apply to a network that offers 10 times current bandwidth and identical to the bandwidth of the NBN from only a year ago? Can I have some of what your taking? The nbn is capable of much faster speeds - all you need to do is upgrade the electronics at either end. Copper isn't capable of this G) and FTTN still provides the capacity for full FTTP if needed by simply running the fibre last segment.  So if you need it, you can get it but yes, you will have to pay for it.  Businesses who need it wont hesitate and residences that need it likewise.  Those that simply WANT it rather than need it might not be so comfortable It's not that easy.  You have to replace all of the electronics and you've wasted billions (up to 10 billion) on those car sized cabinets. H) FTTN becomes FTTP at a later point if deemed necessary and much of the work is already done. Fibre-to-the-node was not a stepping stone to fibre-to-the-premise.  In fact, if anything it would put it backwards. ”

http://delimiter.com.au/2012/04/30/fttn-a-huge-mistake-says-ex-bt-cto/

news One of the UK’s foremost telecommunications experts, a former chief technology officer of British telco BT, has publicly stated that fibre to the node-style broadband is “one of the biggest mistakes humanity has made”, imposing huge bandwidth and unreliability problems on those who implement it, as the Coalition may do in Australia.

http://delimiter.com.au/2012/08/24/fibre-to-the-home-the-preferred-option-says-nz/

news New Zealand’s conservative party technology minister has hailed fibre to the home as the preferred option for national telecommunications infrastructure, stating during a visit to Australia this week that it made better “fiscal sense” to deploy fibre all the way to the premise where possible, instead of only to neighbourhood ‘nodes’ as Australia’s Coalition is proposing.

http://delimiter.com.au/2013/05/20/is-fttn-vectoring-just-a-pipe-dream/

Vectoring is a technique applied to copper ADSL networks which aims to significantly increase the speeds attainable on such networks. According to Wikipedia, the technique is based on the principle of noise cancellation on an ADSL line. Over the past several years, Turnbull has mentioned vectoring several times as a possible technology to help deliver the Coalition’s FTTN-based NBN rollout. Here’s the Liberal MP on launch day in April for the Coalition’s NBN policy:

More recently, some pro-FTTP commentators have been examining the vectoring situation more closely. Local IT pro Kieran Cummings, for example, wrote last week, in a provocatively titled post named headed “Why You’ll Never Get Vectoring”:

“When I see the claims of 90% of Australia receiving a minimum of 50Mbps I remind myself of the reality that there are no VDSL2 providers offering any guarantees like this. In fact, BT has already revised down the “capable” speeds of their VDSL2 services due to consumer backlash over lacklustre speeds. When looking at the [Deutsche Telekom] example, they are well aware the end-game is fibre, and that end-game is near with DT estimating less than 30 years before their copper network will be decommissioned.”

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-23/telstras-copper-network-in-a-state-of-disrepair-say-unions/4774342

Unions have told the ABC that Telstra's copper network is in a state of disrepair, with workers at the coalface of the infrastructure using plastic bags to protect cables from water.

The telecommunications pits have been nicknamed 'bag-dad' by contractors because of the plastic bags, that are in theory supposed to keep the water out.

Do I really have to keep debating you on why fttn is not the way

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 9:22am:

# wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 9:14am: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 8:56am: # wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 8:17am: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 4:52pm: ...  What will you do with 100Mbps ...? We have telegram delivery boys - on bicycles! What would we do with your telly-o-phone? Seriously though, what do you believe will halt the observed rise  in demand for bandwidth? ... you have also been unable to give me a single need that requires this bandwith ... As you have been unable to point to what will halt the rise in demand. The issue is not tomorrow; it's what's the best investment for the foreseeable future. The Coalition wants to spend $29 billion for no substantial benefit. Their plan relies on Telstra giving cost-free access to their monopoly copper. It relies on that aged copper yielding performance achieved to date only on new copper. It relies on establishing nodes within 400 metres of every premises. It relies on average demand at each node not rising above 100 Mb/s. ... ... B) 100Mbps was okay last year so why not this year

So you're saying that the rise in demand has stopped. What stopped it?

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 9:22am:

C) copper was supposed to be incapable of more than 33kbps until we found it could do better and now it is 100Mbps. ...

You imply that copper can match fibre. The last time I had anything to do with the industry, fibre had hit 1.6 terrabits per second on commercially affordable hardware. That was the early 2000s.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 9:22am:

D) FTTN is much cheaper

Depending on assumptions and timeframe. On the published estimates, the Coalition might save a little now, but foreseeable costs in the near future are vastly higher.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 9:22am:

E) FTTN will be complete far faster and with the NBNs current record of delivery, probably 10 years faster

Assertion with no evidence.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 9:22am:

G) and FTTN still provides the capacity for full FTTP if needed by simply running the fibre last segment.  So if you need it, you can get it but yes, you will have to pay for it.  Businesses who need it wont hesitate and residences that need it likewise.  Those that simply WANT it rather than need it might not be so comfortable H) FTTN becomes FTTP at a later point if deemed necessary and much of the work is already done.

There, I guess lies the core of the problem. Labor wants to do it well. The Coalition wants to do it cheap; their "if you need it, then pay for it" model is no more than taxation by stealth. The individual or corporate taxpayer pays for public infrastructure, which the government plans to sell.

The greatest costs lie in getting workers and equipment on site. That's why doing it well first time is far cheaper, in the medium term. The total project cost of the Coalition plan is far higher, unless you limit your perspective to the very shortest term.

Getting the workers and equipment back will impose monumental costs on the nation, bearing in mind that it will need to be done millions of times. If you object to "millions of times"; how many premises are there in Australia?

That, I guess, is the issue. The election is in the short term. The costs will come later.

Let's not forget that, at first, Labor wanted to do it cheap. That's when the Coalition branded Fibre to the Node "fraudband". Sol Trujillo got in the way, so Labor came up with Fibre to the Premises as a way around Telstra's monopoly. The fact that it also addresses the "last mile" problem that dogs every first world telecommunications network is just a happy coincidence.

One block in Minnamurra St? What about photo's of the rest of Kiama????



I recently had phone lines put in ... guess what, you just cannot do it without digging up the gardens ... no matter how much you'd like to.

There was never a belief that copper was incapable of more than 33k.
Copper cables quite happily handle speeds measured in Gb/s - but only for distances measured in cm or at best metres - not kilometres.

With dialup technology, the limit has been reached because of the requirement that the signal negotiate switches and multiple copper runs of unknown length as it travels between modems.

The limitation has always been the trade off between throughput and distance over copper.

One technology which currently exists that requires a high speed connection is UHD TV.

Who knows what else is around the corner?

Had you suggested twenty years ago that households would want to have network connections as high as even 1mbs, most industry experts would have laughed at you because those kind of speeds were unavailable - even to those corporations who used dedicated lines.

To claim that current speeds are all that we will ever need is at best stupid.

Personally, I'd be happy with FTTN.
If I require fibre to my home then I'll cough up for the connection - or move.

But.... be aware that the maintenance and upkeep of a FTTN system is actually higher than a FTTP configuration (way way more pits - powering those pits - way more hardware).

What you save on initial installation costs you end up spending on upkeep.

It'll be a third world setup long before a FTTP config is.

http://www.itnews.com.au/News/353616,turnbulls-nbn-policy-detailed-enough-to-escape-costing.aspx
Turnbull's NBN policy 'detailed enough' to escape costing

Sees no value-add from independent financial analysis.


Quote:

Opposition Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull believes the Coalition's NBN plan is detailed enough to warrant not pushing further for an independent assessment of costings and assumptions.

Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 9:59am:

[quote author=longweekend58 link=1376533454/40#40 date=1376608932] A) you still have provided not a single application that needs more than what we currently have nevermind FTTN with 100Mbps You have no vision!  1 user watching youtube, 1 user streaming 4k video, 1 user playing xbox 360 and 1 user downloading a movie - not hard to fathom how we could use these speeds. A sdd can write at 300mbps, if you max your connection it still won't reach these speeds. It's not just about home usage either! B) 100Mbps was okay last year so why not this year Can you get 100mbps on copper everywhere?  Unless you have copper pairs (most houses in Australia don't!) and put a car size box ever 100m, copper won't get anywhere near this speed. While the world record for fibre is 126 pettabits a second! C) copper was supposed to be incapable of more than 33kbps until we found it could do better and now it is 100Mbps.  The idea that something 'cant be done' in electronics is rather passé.  processor speeds and PCB track widths were supposed to have reached physical limits and yet they haven't. HHD capacities were suppose to have reached maximum limts long ago and yet haven't Fibre can reach 126 pettabits a second (and climbing!) Copper has reached it's limit @ 1 gigabit (that's if you have new copper and operate at a range of 50m!) D) FTTN is much cheaper Is it? Taking into account the extra maintenance, electricity and the cost of the copper, it actually costs as much or more! E) FTTN will be complete far faster and with the NBNs current record of delivery, probably 10 years faster "Probably 10 years faster"  BZZZZZZ WRONG!!!!!! It will be completed 2 years earlier but won't solve the issues with degraded copper. F)  how does 'no substantial benefit' apply to a network that offers 10 times current bandwidth and identical to the bandwidth of the NBN from only a year ago? Can I have some of what your taking? The nbn is capable of much faster speeds - all you need to do is upgrade the electronics at either end. Copper isn't capable of this G) and FTTN still provides the capacity for full FTTP if needed by simply running the fibre last segment.  So if you need it, you can get it but yes, you will have to pay for it.  Businesses who need it wont hesitate and residences that need it likewise.  Those that simply WANT it rather than need it might not be so comfortable It's not that easy.  You have to replace all of the electronics and you've wasted billions (up to 10 billion) on those car sized cabinets. H) FTTN becomes FTTP at a later point if deemed necessary and much of the work is already done. Fibre-to-the-node was not a stepping stone to fibre-to-the-premise.  In fact, if anything it would put it backwards. ”

http://delimiter.com.au/2012/04/30/fttn-a-huge-mistake-says-ex-bt-cto/

news One of the UK’s foremost telecommunications experts, a former chief technology officer of British telco BT, has publicly stated that fibre to the node-style broadband is “one of the biggest mistakes humanity has made”, imposing huge bandwidth and unreliability problems on those who implement it, as the Coalition may do in Australia.

http://delimiter.com.au/2012/08/24/fibre-to-the-home-the-preferred-option-says-nz/

news New Zealand’s conservative party technology minister has hailed fibre to the home as the preferred option for national telecommunications infrastructure, stating during a visit to Australia this week that it made better “fiscal sense” to deploy fibre all the way to the premise where possible, instead of only to neighbourhood ‘nodes’ as Australia’s Coalition is proposing.

http://delimiter.com.au/2013/05/20/is-fttn-vectoring-just-a-pipe-dream/

Vectoring is a technique applied to copper ADSL networks which aims to significantly increase the speeds attainable on such networks. According to Wikipedia, the technique is based on the principle of noise cancellation on an ADSL line. Over the past several years, Turnbull has mentioned vectoring several times as a possible technology to help deliver the Coalition’s FTTN-based NBN rollout. Here’s the Liberal MP on launch day in April for the Coalition’s NBN policy:

More recently, some pro-FTTP commentators have been examining the vectoring situation more closely. Local IT pro Kieran Cummings, for example, wrote last week, in a provocatively titled post named headed “Why You’ll Never Get Vectoring”:

services due to consumer backlash over lacklustre speeds. When looking at the [Deutsche Telekom] example, they are well aware the end-game is fibre, and that end-game is near with DT estimating less than 30 years before their copper network will be decommissioned.”

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-23/telstras-copper-network-in-a-state-of-disrepair-say-unions/4774342

Unions have told the ABC that Telstra's copper network is in a state of disrepair, with workers at the coalface of the infrastructure using plastic bags to protect cables from water.

The telecommunications pits have been nicknamed 'bag-dad' by contractors because of the plastic bags, that are in theory supposed to keep the water out.

BIGGEST ERROR HUMANITY HAS EVER MADE????

well there goes his credibility right out the window!   That opening line just destroys the credibility of anything he has to say.

# wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 10:01am:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 9:22am: # wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 9:14am: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 8:56am: # wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 8:17am: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 4:52pm: ...  What will you do with 100Mbps ...? We have telegram delivery boys - on bicycles! What would we do with your telly-o-phone? Seriously though, what do you believe will halt the observed rise  in demand for bandwidth? ... you have also been unable to give me a single need that requires this bandwith ... As you have been unable to point to what will halt the rise in demand. The issue is not tomorrow; it's what's the best investment for the foreseeable future. The Coalition wants to spend $29 billion for no substantial benefit. Their plan relies on Telstra giving cost-free access to their monopoly copper. It relies on that aged copper yielding performance achieved to date only on new copper. It relies on establishing nodes within 400 metres of every premises. It relies on average demand at each node not rising above 100 Mb/s. ... ... B) 100Mbps was okay last year so why not this year So you're saying that the rise in demand has stopped. What stopped it? Im not saying that.  try reading what I write. longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 9:22am: C) copper was supposed to be incapable of more than 33kbps until we found it could do better and now it is 100Mbps. ... You imply that copper can match fibre. The last time I had anything to do with the industry, fibre had hit 1.6 terrabits per second on commercially affordable hardware. That was the early 2000s.  No I imply that copper can match what we currently NEED.  there is a big difference. longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 9:22am: D) FTTN is much cheaper Depending on assumptions and timeframe. On the published estimates, the Coalition might save a little now, but foreseeable costs in the near future are vastly higher. Well, no.  it is as much as $30B cheaper given that the NBN costs are grossly understated and the rest of this 'future costs' are essentially imagined. longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 9:22am: E) FTTN will be complete far faster and with the NBNs current record of delivery, probably 10 years faster Assertion with no evidence. No evidence?  You mean apart from the fact that you are the only person to dispute that that FTTN will be completed a lot faster?  The job is only half as big so that alone should prove the point but feel free to provide an actual argument to dispute that a job half the size will take as long as the full-size one. longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 9:22am: G) and FTTN still provides the capacity for full FTTP if needed by simply running the fibre last segment.  So if you need it, you can get it but yes, you will have to pay for it.  Businesses who need it wont hesitate and residences that need it likewise.  Those that simply WANT it rather than need it might not be so comfortable H) FTTN becomes FTTP at a later point if deemed necessary and much of the work is already done. There, I guess lies the core of the problem. Labor wants to do it well. The Coalition wants to do it cheap; their "if you need it, then pay for it" model is no more than taxation by stealth. The individual or corporate taxpayer pays for public infrastructure, which the government plans to sell. The greatest costs lie in getting workers and equipment on site. That's why doing it well first time is far cheaper, in the medium term. The total project cost of the Coalition plan is far higher, unless you limit your perspective to the very shortest term. Getting the workers and equipment back will impose monumental costs on the nation, bearing in mind that it will need to be done millions of times. If you object to "millions of times"; how many premises are there in Australia? That, I guess, is the issue. The election is in the short term. The costs will come later. Let's not forget that, at first, Labor wanted to do it cheap. That's when the Coalition branded Fibre to the Node "fraudband". Sol Trujillo got in the way, so Labor came up with Fibre to the Premises as a way around Telstra's monopoly. The fact that it also addresses the "last mile" problem that dogs every first world telecommunications network is just a happy coincidence.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 9:22am:

G) and FTTN still provides the capacity for full FTTP if needed by simply running the fibre last segment.  So if you need it, you can get it but yes, you will have to pay for it.  Businesses who need it wont hesitate and residences that need it likewise.  Those that simply WANT it rather than need it might not be so comfortable H) FTTN becomes FTTP at a later point if deemed necessary and much of the work is already done.

There, I guess lies the core of the problem. Labor wants to do it well. The Coalition wants to do it cheap; their "if you need it, then pay for it" model is no more than taxation by stealth. The individual or corporate taxpayer pays for public infrastructure, which the government plans to sell.

The greatest costs lie in getting workers and equipment on site. That's why doing it well first time is far cheaper, in the medium term. The total project cost of the Coalition plan is far higher, unless you limit your perspective to the very shortest term.

Getting the workers and equipment back will impose monumental costs on the nation, bearing in mind that it will need to be done millions of times. If you object to "millions of times"; how many premises are there in Australia?

That, I guess, is the issue. The election is in the short term. The costs will come later.

Let's not forget that, at first, Labor wanted to do it cheap. That's when the Coalition branded Fibre to the Node "fraudband". Sol Trujillo got in the way, so Labor came up with Fibre to the Premises as a way around Telstra's monopoly. The fact that it also addresses the "last mile" problem that dogs every first world telecommunications network is just a happy coincidence.[/quote]

Labor wants to do it well???  that would be a first!  AS mentioned before (with no reply) a broadband network that is super-fast, super-expensive is of no value if it is not actually used or needed.  So how about you put up an actual CASE for a 1Gbps NBN.  I suggest you go back to the old arguments you used for the 100Mbps NBN that is now not good enough because the coalition can provide that twice as quickly and at half the cost.

This is the actual cruz of the issue: WHY?

you have not produced a single credible argument to support the NBN.  The failure to do so is the single biggest weakness and a fatal flaw.

Life_goes_on wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 11:09am:

There was never a belief that copper was incapable of more than 33k. Copper cables quite happily handle speeds measured in Gb/s - but only for distances measured in cm or at best metres - not kilometres. With dialup technology, the limit has been reached because of the requirement that the signal negotiate switches and multiple copper runs of unknown length as it travels between modems. The limitation has always been the trade off between throughput and distance over copper.

and get VDSL gets 100Mbs.  the point is that supposed limits in most technological areas are routinely overcome.  Believing that the copper line from the node to the house is fundamentally limited to X speed is naïve.

I didn't say a limit has been reached. I said there's a trade off between throughput and distance.

Yes... VDSL can achieve speeds of 100Mps - but at what distances?
I believe it's up to about 1km for those kind of speeds.
Exactly how many pits and boxes do you want out there?
One on every block?

Life_goes_on wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 12:46pm:

I didn't say a limit has been reached. I said there's a trade off between throughput and distance. Yes... VDSL can achieve speeds of 100Mps - but at what distances? I believe it's up to about 1km for those kind of speeds. Exactly how many pits and boxes do you want out there? One on every block?

They are not much bigger than the current Telstra boxes out there.  I don't see a problem with 100Mbps speeds with FTTN.  it was the gold-standard as recently as a year ago but now because FTTN can achieve that the standard NOW has to be 1Gbps - a speed the NBN isn't even offereing?

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 12:37pm:

... Labor wants to do it well???...

Only by default. They started out wanting to do it as poorly as the Coalition now proposes, remember?

Life_goes_on wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 12:46pm:

I didn't say a limit has been reached. I said there's a trade off between throughput and distance. Yes... VDSL can achieve speeds of 100Mps - but at what distances? I believe it's up to about 1km for those kind of speeds. Exactly how many pits and boxes do you want out there? One on every block?

1KM????

http://nbnmyths.wordpress.com/why-not-fttn/

http://nbnmyths.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/fttn-speed-graph.gif

http://nbnmyths.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/dsl-speed-comparisons.jpg

500m max and this with 2 good (not degraded!) copper pairs.

Do people honestly think this what the current network is like?

1. The NBN will cost taxpayers 50/70/90/100 billion dollars. We can’t afford it and it’s uncosted

False

The total capital cost of the NBN is budgeted at $37.4 billion dollars. Of that, the government investment is set at $30.4 billion. The remainder will come from revenue and NBN Co’s private debt. Unlike most Government expendiature though, the NBN is forecast to return all of the Government funds, plus interest, by 2034. It is forecast to begin repaying the Government funds in 2020.[1]

2. If it were viable, the private sector would build it

False

a. The private sector could not afford it. ~$37bn is a huge investment for any company, and well beyond any telco operating in Australia.

b. The private sector demand a ROI of at least 15%, because they need to earn a profit for their shareholders. The NBN has a projected 7% ROI[1]. While this is well below commercial rates, it’s quite acceptable for a Government, which is not seeking to earn a profit.

3. We will never need that much speed or data

False

This claim ignores the massive growth in average internet speeds that have occurred over the relatively short lifetime of the internet. As speeds continue to grow, new applications are quickly developed to take advantage of those new speeds. MP3 files and iPods, YouTube, Skype, HD video, Cloud storage. None of these applications were possible until sufficient bandwidth became available. The Cloud is probably the next Big Thing, but with current broadband speeds in Australia, we will be unable to take advantage of the opportunities it presents.

hhttp://nbnmyths.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/australian-internet-speeds.jpg

4. Noone else in the world is installing such a system

False

Fibre-To-The-Premises or Home (FTTP/H) is currently being rolled out in over fifty countries around the World, including New Zealand, Canada, the UK, Germany, Norway, France, Sweden, Kenya, Qatar, Japan,  Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong and China.[5] Google have announced they are building a trial network to cover up to 500,000 homes in the USA,

5. Our internet speed is good enough

False

Australia has amongst the slowest available broadband speeds in the developed world. This is a huge impost to new technologies for business and education. Where FTTP is available, the cost is so high that only the largest businesses can afford it.

Australia’s average speed of just 1.7Mbps is less than 1/30th of the average speed available in Japan, and about 1/3 of the average speed in the USA.[10] Even the Slovak Republic and Turkey have faster average internet access than Australia! What a disgrace.

As FTTH networks are rolled out around the world, we

http://nbnmyths.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/speed-and-penetration.png

6. A Wireless (eg 4G, LTE, WiMax) or DSL (ADSL2+/VDSL/HDSL) network can provide the same speed for a fraction of the price

False

Much is claimed (usually by those with a vested interest) about the potential of wireless networks, with speeds such as 300Mbps being quoted. But this is highly deceptive, because those are peak speeds per cell site (ie per tower), not realistically achievable speeds for individuals. For example if the “300Mb” tower has just two users active, then speed is halved to 150Mbps. A trial of “4G/LTE” in 2009 showed that with just 20 people using any one tower, speed plummeted to just 7Mbps.[11] Distance, topography, buildings and weather also degrade available speeds. To put this in perspective, if only 2% of Australians wanted to be able to access even the slow 7Mbps speed at any one time, we would need to double the number of mobile phone towers across the country. For wireless to be an effective alternative to fibre, we would quite literally need a tower on every street corner.

http://nbnmyths.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/lte-speeds.jpg

7. People don’t want fixed internet, they only want mobile

False

The growth in this market is predominantly smartphones and handheld devices such as iPads. Mobile broadband is not making any inroads to high-volume home or business internet connections. Wireless’ high latency (lag) makes it unsuitable for gaming, video conferencing and VOIP just for a start. Average costs per MB are over 10 times higher than for fixed connections but only offer around ¼ of the speed, making them impractical and uneconomical for high-volume use

http://nbnmyths.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/fixed-v-wireless-average-volumes-dec09-to-dec12.png

8. It will be too expensive to have an NBN connection

False

Skymesh have released NBN broadband pricing starting at $29.95 per month

Do i have to keep going?

I'm sick of having to debunk the same myths over and over!

Throw your playbook away!

Why not wireless?

Fibre Vs Wireless speeds

Fibre-Optics:

Commercially, fibre-optic cables are being used to carry data at speeds of about 2 Terabits per second (Tbps). Experimentally, trials are now achieving over 69Tbps over a single fibreoptic strand.  (A Terabit is 1,000 Gigabits or 1,000,000 Megabits).

As it currently stands, fibreoptics are achieving speeds that are 250,000 times faster than wireless. In the experimental stages,  fibre can carry 69,000 times more data than the entire bandwidth delivered by a wireless tower!

Below is a graphic showing the effect of distance, which is particularly important in a large country such as Australia:

http://nbnmyths.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/fibre-v-adsl-v-3g.jpg

The Spectrum Shortage

The biggest issue currently facing wireless data networks isn’t the obstructions. It’s another physical limitation: Radio Spectrum.

Every user added to a wireless network uses more radio spectrum. Every speed increase also uses more spectrum. For example, the 4G/LTE consortium reports that they can deliver a 300Mbps network using 20Mhz of spectrum per site. But delivering 1Gbps requires 100Mhz of spectrum per site (See page 12).

Mobile Towers

Even if the spectrum issue could be overcome, for wireless to deliver superfast broadband to all of Australia it would require a huge increase in the number of mobile phone towers, and we all know how popular they are!

Australia currently has about 10,000 mobile phone towers across the country. To build a 4G/LTE Advanced network that could achieve a similar level of performance to the fibre-optic NBN, we would need to build approximately 75,000 additional mobile phone towers (Assuming 10M premises, 1Gbps per cell, 6 cells per tower, delivering 100Mbps to 50% of premises simultaneously).

Of course, all of those towers would have to be connected using fibre-optic cable.

Isn’t the world going wireless?

There is a perception that everyone is changing to wireless, but they’re not. They are adding it. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the number of mobile broadband internet connections grew by ~40% in Australia between 2009 and 2010. But the total amount of data downloaded over the wireless networks actually fell, despite the greater numbers. Conversely, the amount being downloaded over fixed networks is still increasing by about 50% every year.

What about cost?

The other big issue preventing wireless networks replacing fixed ones is the enormous cost difference between the services, despite the vastly inferior performance.

For example, the largest wireless broadband plan on the Telstra NextG wireless network is 12GB of data for $89.95 per month, where Telstra quote speeds of “between 1.1 and 20Mbps in metropolitan areas, with lower speeds outside metro areas”. (see here) By contrast, on the NBN you can get 20GB of data for $29.95 per month, at a speed of 25Mbps. (see here) For another $9.95, you can add a phoneline with all local and national calls for free.

What about DIDO?

The ink was barely dry on the sketchy DIDO wireless white paper when the anti-NBN brigade began touting it as something which will imminently make the optical fibre of the NBN obsolete. So what is DIDO?

Well, right now it’s vapourware. There are no technical specifications, detailed explanations or independent tests of the technology, outside the self-published and extremely basic white paper linked to above.

Keep dreaming about your wireless utopia - unless we can bend the laws of physics, fibre is it for the near future!

and so when I ask what applications depend on this you come up with a list of ones we are already using quite fine right now on ADSL 2+ which is a 1/4 of the speed of the FTTN??

this is why Labor wouldn't do a CBA  because C (Cost) was a guess B (benefit) was indefinable and A (analysis) is a non-speciality of labr

And you would have to be the only person on the planet that thinks the NBN will be brought in on time and within budget.  it is already massively behind on schedule and the true budget figures wont be known until Sept 8

I am simply asking you to make a case for the NBN and you have manifestly failed to do so.

So where is the CBA and costings for the coalition alternative?

You can ask all you want, however they (and you) haven't even provided costings or a CBA for the alternative.

Could it be that they don't have a clue about telecommunications (who can forget the 2 luddites in charge previously).

Lets sell Telstra with the Copper - nothing could possibly go wrong!

Try being a web developer on an adsl connection having to upload 1gb of data or a database administrator or any multiple of other professions!

Is your dislike for the nbn because everyone get's great access to the internet.

It appears that conservative thinking means everyone can't possible have equal access to something.

Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 3:25pm:

So where is the CBA and costings for the coalition alternative? You can ask all you want, however they (and you) haven't even provided costings or a CBA for the alternative. Could it be that they don't have a clue about telecommunications (who can forget the 2 luddites in charge previously). Lets sell Telstra with the Copper - nothing could possibly go wrong! Try being a web developer on an adsl connection having to upload 1gb of data or a database administrator or any multiple of other professions! Is your dislike for the nbn because everyone get's great access to the internet. It appears that conservative thinking means everyone can't possible have equal access to something.

I WAS A DATABASE developer for 30 years.  I know what you are saying.  But we aren't talking about that are we.  we are talking about RESIDENCES.  and with residences being 90% of the cost of the NBN you need to talk to me about the need for the RESIDENCES to have this speed.  As a database developer I might pay for the extra fibre connection although with 50Mbps I probably wouldn't.  But as a home owner wih a bit of email and web browsing I wouldn't bother.

so once again... give me examples of the RESIDENTIAL use of this speed and why we simply must have it right flaming now!!!  Why is 50-100Mbps too slow for homes?

please please just answer this question with actual on-topic answers.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 3:32pm:

Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 3:25pm: So where is the CBA and costings for the coalition alternative? You can ask all you want, however they (and you) haven't even provided costings or a CBA for the alternative. Could it be that they don't have a clue about telecommunications (who can forget the 2 luddites in charge previously). Lets sell Telstra with the Copper - nothing could possibly go wrong! Try being a web developer on an adsl connection having to upload 1gb of data or a database administrator or any multiple of other professions! Is your dislike for the nbn because everyone get's great access to the internet. It appears that conservative thinking means everyone can't possible have equal access to something. I WAS A DATABASE developer for 30 years.  I know what you are saying.  But we aren't talking about that are we.  we are talking about RESIDENCES.  and with residences being 90% of the cost of the NBN you need to talk to me about the need for the RESIDENCES to have this speed.  As a database developer I might pay for the extra fibre connection although with 50Mbps I probably wouldn't.  But as a home owner wih a bit of email and web browsing I wouldn't bother. so once again... give me examples of the RESIDENTIAL use of this speed and why we simply must have it right flaming now!!!  Why is 50-100Mbps too slow for homes? please please just answer this question with actual on-topic answers.

data usage has increased sevenfold in the last 5 yrs, this rate of increase will only get higher in the future as more and more things move online, if you are going to build a NBN, you don't build it to accommodate todays usage, that would be stupid ... you need to build it to accommodate usage for the next 50 yrs.

John Smith wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 3:44pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 3:32pm: Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 3:25pm: So where is the CBA and costings for the coalition alternative? You can ask all you want, however they (and you) haven't even provided costings or a CBA for the alternative. Could it be that they don't have a clue about telecommunications (who can forget the 2 luddites in charge previously). Lets sell Telstra with the Copper - nothing could possibly go wrong! Try being a web developer on an adsl connection having to upload 1gb of data or a database administrator or any multiple of other professions! Is your dislike for the nbn because everyone get's great access to the internet. It appears that conservative thinking means everyone can't possible have equal access to something. I WAS A DATABASE developer for 30 years.  I know what you are saying.  But we aren't talking about that are we.  we are talking about RESIDENCES.  and with residences being 90% of the cost of the NBN you need to talk to me about the need for the RESIDENCES to have this speed.  As a database developer I might pay for the extra fibre connection although with 50Mbps I probably wouldn't.  But as a home owner wih a bit of email and web browsing I wouldn't bother. so once again... give me examples of the RESIDENTIAL use of this speed and why we simply must have it right flaming now!!!  Why is 50-100Mbps too slow for homes? please please just answer this question with actual on-topic answers. data usage has increased sevenfold in the last 5 yrs, this rate of increase will only get higher in the future as more and more things move online, if you are going to build a NBN, you don't build it to accommodate todays usage, that would be stupid ... you need to build it to accommodate usage for the next 50 yrs.

its not about data usage.  it is about THROUGHPUT increase.  and you have to give at least lipservice to the notion of a competing technology that is ten times as good.  pretending otherwise is a really really bad idea.

50-100mbps isn't too slow.

In the real world Copper cannot get anywhere near these speeds.

As can be demonstrated by:

http://www.kitguru.net/mobile/faith/bt-infinity-does-badly-in-real-world-speed-test/

Offer
With BT Infinity, we were told that 70Mb/s download and 19Mb/s upload was possible. That is ACTUALLY what was delivered. But once you start using it, what happens?

http://www.kitguru.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/BT-Infinity-KitGuru-Offer-and-Delivery1.jpg

No where near the speeds promised!

http://delimiter.com.au/2013/03/11/corrosion-drastically-impacts-bt-fttn-speed/

“The CTO and Co-Founder of business ISP Timico UK, Trefor Davies, has called for a “total network rollout” of true fibre optic broadband (FTTP) services after highlighting how corrosion on his copper BT telecoms line had caused a recently installed FTTC service to drop from an average speed of 53Mbps to just 6Mbps (Megabits).”

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/plastic-bags-to-patch-telstra-lines/story-e6frg6n6-1111115431592

The Daily Telegraph has learned the number of faults skyrocketed to more than 5000 problems during the rains last week, compared to an average of 1000 in normal conditions.

The problem is so severe that parts of NSW are referred to as "Baghdad" because the plastic bag patch-up technique is so prevalent.

The situation follows massive job cuts as part of the controversial cost-cutting program embarked on by Telstra CEO Sol Trujillo in 2005.


http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/14/1068674351979.html

Telstra will replace its century-old copper wire phone network with new technology within the next 15 years, saying the ageing lines are now at "five minutes to midnight".

WHAT CHANGED????

http://www.abc.net.au/technology/articles/2012/11/23/3639761.htm

An industry insider has told ABC Tech in no uncertain terms that Australia's copper network is "Rooted." The insider has been in the industry for well over a decade and has worked in many different sectors and companies. They didn't want to be named because of the current nature of their work with the rollout of the National Broadband Network and the sensitivities surrounding that

They went on to provide some general examples:

In suburban Australia over 85 per cent of the copper network is over 30 years old. The life expectancy for the copper is 30 years. A 'typical' suburban street has 50 homes, Copper cable was provisioned at 'two to two-and-a-half' pairs per home.
That means there are around 100 pairs per street. Subsequently, at the start there was near 100 per cent redundancy.

Each Telstra pillar services around 200 customers spread across four streets or so. As such there are 4 x 100 cable pairs.

The 4 x 100 cable pairs terminate on the customer side of the pillar. A 300 pair cable (or larger) terminates on the exchange side of the pillar. Customer pairs are cross connected (called 'jumpered') to the telephone exchange side pairs in the pillar.

Because of faulty pairs, ageing, water intrusion, changes and split-redeveloped blocks, redundancy in the cables is now much less than the original 'near 100 per cent.' It is now closer to zero.

Now add to this the adds, moves, changes, and the repairs performed by contractors who have no ownership of the infrastructure and who have not updated records for over five years. The result is we have no redundancy and a 30-plus per cent error rate in the records for the last kilometre - the pillar to the home

Pair Gain Systems are virtual circuits which have been installed to accommodate growth. Most people don't know they are on these 'inferior' systems until they apply for ADSL. Then they need to be changed onto a real copper pair. These lines won't work with Fibre to the Node.

What happens to those on pair gains?

Our insider explained how three years ago, when Telstra tendered the process to switch to their own Fibre to the Node scheme it was found that the average network pillar had a 30 per cent failure rate in terms of line faults and lines being listed as connected to the wrong number.

The copper network is primed to provide a world class broadband network.

I know - lets flush 30 billion down the toilet and then build ftth anyway - that's what the Coalition plan entails.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 3:32pm:

... give me examples of the RESIDENTIAL use of this speed ...

Stupid question. Do you honestly believe that, because you don't know what the bandwidth will be used for, demand will not increase? That's telegram delivery boys on bicycles thinking.


longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 3:32pm:

...and why we simply must have it right flaming now!!!  ...

Studies done, going on 20 years ago (Networked Nation/Networking the Nation - something along those lines), established that we need to upgrade our telecommunications network. Little has been done since; in fact, the lines to premises (the so-called "last mile") have degraded overall. Given that need and the current condition of our infrastructure, FTTH is actually cheaper than FTTN. Very few of us could say that we need it now; it's just more cost-effective to do it now.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 3:52pm:

... you have to give at least lipservice to the notion of a competing technology that is ten times as good. ...

You mean FTTP, right?

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2013/07/alcatel-lucent-talk-g-fast-and-vectoring-2-for-future-1gbps-fttc-broadband.html

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/wp-content/gallery/2013-internet-statistics/gfast_and_vectoring_2_fttc_speeds.gif

Do you want a cabinet every 100 meters?

Quote:

you have to give at least lipservice to the notion of a competing technology that is ten times as good

Ten times as good as what?
It quite possibly could be ten times as good as ASDL2 if you happen to be lucky enough to live within a few hundred metres of the nearest access point.

But it is the same recurring theme:  no one can come up with a legitimate application that needs this speed and cant be run currently.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 5:17pm:

But it is the same recurring theme:  no one can come up with a legitimate application that needs this speed and cant be run currently.

because you are asking about future uses for applications that haven't been developed yet .. FTTP is about allowing potential, FTTN is about the here and now, and then when in 5 yrs it's not enough, then you have to spend another $30 to $50 B to do it right the second time.

John Smith wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 5:21pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 5:17pm: But it is the same recurring theme:  no one can come up with a legitimate application that needs this speed and cant be run currently. because you are asking about future uses for applications that haven't been developed yet .. FTTP is about allowing potential, FTTN is about the here and now, and then when in 5 yrs it's not enough, then you have to spend another $30 to $50 B to do it right the second time.

we should be building aerial roadways for the coming fleet of flying cars.  we MUST BE READY. they are coming!

as like every other dud in this debate you cannot come up with A SINGLE use for all of this.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 5:25pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 5:21pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 5:17pm: But it is the same recurring theme:  no one can come up with a legitimate application that needs this speed and cant be run currently. because you are asking about future uses for applications that haven't been developed yet .. FTTP is about allowing potential, FTTN is about the here and now, and then when in 5 yrs it's not enough, then you have to spend another $30 to $50 B to do it right the second time. we should be building aerial roadways for the coming fleet of flying cars.  we MUST BE READY. they are coming! as like every other dud in this debate you cannot come up with A SINGLE use for all of this.

you are an idiot .... the internet is already being used

areal airways are a figment of fantasy ... unless you think the Jetsons was a reality show ...

John Smith wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 5:35pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 5:25pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 5:21pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 5:17pm: But it is the same recurring theme:  no one can come up with a legitimate application that needs this speed and cant be run currently. because you are asking about future uses for applications that haven't been developed yet .. FTTP is about allowing potential, FTTN is about the here and now, and then when in 5 yrs it's not enough, then you have to spend another $30 to $50 B to do it right the second time. we should be building aerial roadways for the coming fleet of flying cars.  we MUST BE READY. they are coming! as like every other dud in this debate you cannot come up with A SINGLE use for all of this. you are an idiot .... the internet is already being used areal airways are a figment of fantasy ... unless you think the Jetsons was a reality show ...

wow... your understanding of literary devices, metpahors etc REALLY is pitiful isn't it.  Maybe you should do night school and learn how to comprehend the nature of an opposing position. you sound like a SOB-style moron, unable to understand anything beyond a grade 2 level.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 5:17pm:

But it is the same recurring theme:  no one can come up with a legitimate application that needs this speed and cant be run currently.

Still fancy boys on bicycles, el58?

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 5:37pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 5:35pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 5:25pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 5:21pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 5:17pm: But it is the same recurring theme:  no one can come up with a legitimate application that needs this speed and cant be run currently. because you are asking about future uses for applications that haven't been developed yet .. FTTP is about allowing potential, FTTN is about the here and now, and then when in 5 yrs it's not enough, then you have to spend another $30 to $50 B to do it right the second time. we should be building aerial roadways for the coming fleet of flying cars.  we MUST BE READY. they are coming! as like every other dud in this debate you cannot come up with A SINGLE use for all of this. you are an idiot .... the internet is already being used areal airways are a figment of fantasy ... unless you think the Jetsons was a reality show ... wow... your understanding of literary devices, metpahors etc REALLY is pitiful isn't it.  Maybe you should do night school and learn how to comprehend the nature of an opposing position. you sound like a SOB-style moron, unable to understand anything beyond a grade 2 level.

and yet I understand enough to know an idiot when I see one ..... you want to compare the NBN to aerial roadways, and you call me an idiot.  ;D ;D ;D ;D

clutch clutch clutch .... way to go longy, keep proving what a loser you are

# wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 4:13pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 3:32pm: ... give me examples of the RESIDENTIAL use of this speed ... Stupid question. Do you honestly believe that, because you don't know what the bandwidth will be used for, demand will not increase? That's telegram delivery boys on bicycles thinking.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 5:17pm:

But it is the same recurring theme:  no one can come up with a legitimate application that needs this speed and cant be run currently.

Still fancy boys on bicycles, el58?

For the record, I don't know everything the Internet is used for now, let alone what uses will arise in the future. In the mid 1990s, when people were forecasting the rise of Internet commerce, I thought it was all bollocks. I'd had to assemble my own operating environment to enable me to do anything at all useful on the 'net and thought it would remain too difficult for the average mug punter for the foreseeable future. Turns out I was wrong.

Given the observed trend in demand for bandwidth, the rational question is; how will we meet the demand?

For anyone who thinks that the market will provide; telegraph, followed by telephone, railways and roads pretty much belie your faith. Markets have never met Australia's infrastructure needs; we've always needed government to step in.

# wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 2:14pm:

# wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 4:13pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 3:32pm: ... give me examples of the RESIDENTIAL use of this speed ... Stupid question. Do you honestly believe that, because you don't know what the bandwidth will be used for, demand will not increase? That's telegram delivery boys on bicycles thinking. longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 5:17pm: But it is the same recurring theme:  no one can come up with a legitimate application that needs this speed and cant be run currently. Still fancy boys on bicycles, el58? For the record, I don't know everything the Internet is used for now, let alone what uses will arise in the future. In the mid 1990s, when people were forecasting the rise of Internet commerce, I thought it was all bollocks. I'd had to assemble my own operating environment to enable me to do anything at all useful on the 'net and thought it would remain too difficult for the average mug punter for the foreseeable future. Turns out I was wrong. Given the observed trend in demand for bandwidth, the rational question is; how will we meet the demand? For anyone who thinks that the market will provide; telegraph, followed by telephone, railways and roads pretty much belie your faith. Markets have never met Australia's infrastructure needs; we've always needed government to step in.

don't you find it curious that Australia's biggest and most expensive infrastructure project is being done to meet the need for... (and nobody can ever answer)

the fact that NO ONE can ever come up with an answer to this question is a significant issue.

A LIBERAL MP has endorsed Labor's National Broadband Network by switching it on in her electorate with Deputy Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.
The Member for Macquarie Louise Markus smiled as she pressed an over-sized orange button to connect the Western Sydney suburb of Windsor to the network.
“Louise Markus was switching on the NBN that the Coalition will deny to millions of Australians,” Mr Albanese told The Australian.
“If Louise Markus wants the NBN, she needs to vote Labor.”Ms Markus did not return phone calls while opposition broadband spokesman Malcolm Turnbull is yet to comment.


Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/coalition-mp-louise-marcus-helps-switch-on-nbn/story-e6frfkp9-1226698344608#ixzz2cCjXRPCw


;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 3:44pm:

... don't you find it curious that Australia's biggest and most expensive infrastructure project is being done to meet the need for... (and nobody can ever answer) ...

Perhaps you just can't understand the answers you've been given.

I find more significant your inability to explain what you believe will halt the rise in demand for bandwidth.

HOw much have we spent on the NBN so far and only 460 household has taken it up in 3 years



Quote:

http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/18530209/questions-over-slow-nbn-take-up-rate-in-tasmania/ Questions are being raised about the slow take-up of the National Broadband Network, three years after it was switched on in Tasmania. Scottsdale in the state's north east was one of the country's first towns to be connected. It was always going to be a hard task with low incomes, an aging population and low digital literacy. About 460 families and businesses are on the NBN but not everyone is happy.

Maqqa wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 4:19pm:

HOw much have we spent on the NBN so far and only 460 household has taken it up in 3 years Quote: http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/18530209/questions-over-slow-nbn-take-up-rate-in-tasmania/... Scottsdale in the state's north east was one of the country's first towns to be connected. ... About 460 families and businesses are on the NBN but not everyone is happy.

So how big is Scottsdale? What proportion of Scottsdale's families is that 450?

# wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 4:24pm:

Maqqa wrote on Aug 17th, 2013 at 4:19pm: HOw much have we spent on the NBN so far and only 460 household has taken it up in 3 years Quote: http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/18530209/questions-over-slow-nbn-take-up-rate-in-tasmania/... Scottsdale in the state's north east was one of the country's first towns to be connected. ... About 460 families and businesses are on the NBN but not everyone is happy. So how big is Scottsdale? What proportion of Scottsdale's families is that 450?

Interesting you ask

"how big"

"what proportion"

This is hypocritical if you apply it to the reason why Greens and Labor wants carbon emissions

They will tax Australian BILLIONs

given that Australians contribute 1.3% to world carbon emissions and the billions in carbon tax is designed to reduce 5% of the 1.3%

So lefties are not in any position to lecture anyone on the "how big" and "what proportion" when they themselves ignore this concept when it suits them

over to you #

Maqqa wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 4:19pm:

HOw much have we spent on the NBN so far and only 460 household has taken it up in 3 years Quote: http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/18530209/questions-over-slow-nbn-take-up-rate-in-tasmania/ Questions are being raised about the slow take-up of the National Broadband Network, three years after it was switched on in Tasmania. Scottsdale in the state's north east was one of the country's first towns to be connected. It was always going to be a hard task with low incomes, an aging population and low digital literacy. About 460 families and businesses are on the NBN but not everyone is happy.

about 460, out of maybe 650 families ..... yeah, sounds like a real failure to me.

John Smith wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 4:41pm:

about 460, out of maybe 650 families ..... yeah, sounds like a real failure to me.

Of potato farmers, dairy farmers and poppy farmers  ;D ;D ;D

Maqqa wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 4:28pm:

# wrote on Aug 17th, 2013 at 4:24pm: Maqqa wrote on Aug 17th, 2013 at 4:19pm: HOw much have we spent on the NBN so far and only 460 household has taken it up in 3 years Quote: http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/18530209/questions-over-slow-nbn-take-up-rate-in-tasmania/... Scottsdale in the state's north east was one of the country's first towns to be connected. ... About 460 families and businesses are on the NBN but not everyone is happy. So how big is Scottsdale? What proportion of Scottsdale's families is that 450? Interesting you ask ... This is hypocritical ...

So you've realised your mistake. Now, you're trying to bluster your way out of your embarrassment.

Maqqa wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 4:51pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 17th, 2013 at 4:41pm: about 460, out of maybe 650 families ..... yeah, sounds like a real failure to me. Of potato farmers, dairy farmers and poppy farmers  ;D ;D ;D

Does it make a difference what they farm?

Maqqa wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 4:51pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 17th, 2013 at 4:41pm: about 460, out of maybe 650 families ..... yeah, sounds like a real failure to me. Of potato farmers, dairy farmers and poppy farmers  ;D ;D ;D

Quote:

It was always going to be a hard task with low incomes, an aging population and low digital literacy.

Given the demographic, I'd call that a resounding success. Maqqa, you've made a fool of yourself.

Again.

# wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 4:19pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 17th, 2013 at 3:44pm: ... don't you find it curious that Australia's biggest and most expensive infrastructure project is being done to meet the need for... (and nobody can ever answer) ... Perhaps you just can't understand the answers you've been given. I find more significant your inability to explain what you believe will halt the rise in demand for bandwidth.

And I repeat the same question regarding the domestic connectivity.  What will people do with it?  Don't you find it at least a tiny bit odd that no one can come up with a single application for all of this?  The business community is oe thing but it is the residential said - which is the bulk of the cost - that I find intriguing. 

So why can you not even ANTICIPATE an application that will use this in the residential market?

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 4:57pm:

# wrote on Aug 17th, 2013 at 4:19pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 17th, 2013 at 3:44pm: ... don't you find it curious that Australia's biggest and most expensive infrastructure project is being done to meet the need for... (and nobody can ever answer) ... Perhaps you just can't understand the answers you've been given. I find more significant your inability to explain what you believe will halt the rise in demand for bandwidth. ... So why can you not even ANTICIPATE an application that will use this in the residential market?

Isn't it you who pretends to know the future? Surely, it's easier for you to forecast what will halt the rise in demand for bandwidth. That's a broader, more general question.

You're so certain it will happen. Surely, you know how.

So your reasoning for spending $50B is "I think we will need it but IM not really sure what for"

do you now wonder why people mocked labor over not having a CBA for the NBN?  if it was $5B as originally proposed then that would be okay but not FIFTY billion and still with no real idea what it will  be used for.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 5:08pm:

So your reasoning for spending $50B is "I think we will need it but IM not really sure what for" do you now wonder why people mocked labor over not having a CBA for the NBN?  if it was $5B as originally proposed then that would be okay but not FIFTY billion and still with no real idea what it will  be used for.

do you think they foresaw using the copper network for faxes or internet when that was first laid? You'd still be using a stage coach if you had your way. There is little doubt that demand for bandwidth will increase over time, what for and by how much is anybody's guess.

By your logic, if you build a dam, we should only build it to catch the predicted rainfall for the next few months ... anything beyond that is merely a guess

John Smith wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 5:14pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 17th, 2013 at 5:08pm: So your reasoning for spending $50B is "I think we will need it but IM not really sure what for" do you now wonder why people mocked labor over not having a CBA for the NBN?  if it was $5B as originally proposed then that would be okay but not FIFTY billion and still with no real idea what it will  be used for. do you think they foresaw using the copper network for faxes or internet when that was first laid? You'd still be using a stage coach if you had your way. There is little doubt that demand for bandwidth will increase over time, what for and by how much is anybody's guess. By your logic, if you build a dam, we should only build it to catch the predicted rainfall for the next few months ... anything beyond that is merely a guess

that's a sloppy analogy which unexpectedly (for you) PROVES my point.  Dams are built on the basis of known and current rainfall - not the prediction of climate change 50 years hence that will double rainfall (perhaps, maybe, who knows).

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 5:08pm:

So your reasoning for spending $50B is "I think we will need it ...

Actually, I don't pretend to know enough to think that. Besides, didn't Turnbull say it will cost several trillion?

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 5:08pm:

... but IM not really sure what for" ...

Unlike you, I don't pretend to know all.

Anyway, over dinner we've been having a little fun with your silly question.

Our first hypothetical builds on your Jetsons reference, I call it "When bmus:// replaces http://". "http://" refers to the protocol by which web pages are transmitted; "bmus://" is an initialism for "Beam me up, Scotty". OK, that's Star Trek, not The Jetsons, but close enough.

The Star Trek transporter supposedly converted matter into energy, beamed the energy to another location, then converted the energy back into matter. It's been calculated that doing so with something the size of a human being would take more energy than is thought to exist in the known universe, so it's a little impractical.

One proposed way around the difficulty is to transmit, not the energy of your matter, but information about that matter. To do that, you'd be blasted into a plasma, the quantum state of every subatomic particle recorded, the information transmitted and you reassembled from matter that's already at the receiving end, using that information.

So far, I'm told, we can blast you into plasma quite effectively. Optical fibre has the necessary capacity, though the NBN hardware at each end would need upgrading. Recording the quantum states and reassembly after transmission will be left as exercises for the class.  ;)

Of course, the amount of data involved (a human body is composed of quite a few atoms and each atom of many particles) is prodigious, so the bandwidth is substantial.

The second hypothetical involves the nano-assembler, on which the likes of Drexler have been working for decades. The idea is that objects be built up, atom by atom.

Goods could, for example, would be purchased online and delivered, not physically, but as instructions for the nano-assembler. Transmitting data for every atom in an object is bound to be bandwidth-intensive.

One interesting side-effect is that so-called "piracy" enters a whole new dimension (or three).

The third is not so hypothetical. It has been proposed that, where there's sufficient penetration of fibre to the premises, services that are currently broadcast be transferred to the network. That frees up valuable spectrum for other uses.

This only works where there's a free fibre connection to every premises. The Coalition's half-baked proposal simply won't cut it. Copper lacks the necessary bandwidth and demanding that people pay for connections to services that are currently broadcast free would be difficult to sell politically.

You asked me to anticipate an application for the residential market. I've given you three possibilities, two of which have serious proponents (much to my surprise). In reality, we're all in the position of that bloke who couldn't figure out what use a telephone might be. Our frame of reference is telegrams delivered by bicycle.

You still haven't clarified what you believe will halt the rise in demand for bandwidth. I presume that's because nothing will.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 8:02pm:

... Dams are built on the basis of known and current rainfall - not the prediction of climate change ...

You can link to substantiation of that assertion, can't you?

# wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 9:23pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 17th, 2013 at 5:08pm: So your reasoning for spending $50B is "I think we will need it ... Actually, I don't pretend to know enough to think that. Besides, didn't Turnbull say it will cost several trillion? longweekend58 wrote on Aug 17th, 2013 at 5:08pm: ... but IM not really sure what for" ... Unlike you, I don't pretend to know all. Anyway, over dinner we've been having a little fun with your silly question. Our first hypothetical builds on your Jetsons reference, I call it "When bmus:// replaces http://". "http://" refers to the protocol by which web pages are transmitted; "bmus://" is an initialism for "Beam me up, Scotty". OK, that's Star Trek, not The Jetsons, but close enough. The Star Trek transporter supposedly converted matter into energy, beamed the energy to another location, then converted the energy back into matter. It's been calculated that doing so with something the size of a human being would take more energy than is thought to exist in the known universe, so it's a little impractical. One proposed way around the difficulty is to transmit, not the energy of your matter, but information about that matter. To do that, you'd be blasted into a plasma, the quantum state of every subatomic particle recorded, the information transmitted and you reassembled from matter that's already at the receiving end, using that information. So far, I'm told, we can blast you into plasma quite effectively. Optical fibre has the necessary capacity, though the NBN hardware at each end would need upgrading. Recording the quantum states and reassembly after transmission will be left as exercises for the class.  ;) Of course, the amount of data involved (a human body is composed of quite a few atoms and each atom of many particles) is prodigious, so the bandwidth is substantial. The second hypothetical involves the nano-assembler, on which the likes of Drexler have been working for decades. The idea is that objects be built up, atom by atom. Goods could, for example, would be purchased online and delivered, not physically, but as instructions for the nano-assembler. Transmitting data for every atom in an object is bound to be bandwidth-intensive. One interesting side-effect is that so-called "piracy" enters a whole new dimension (or three). The third is not so hypothetical. It has been proposed that, where there's sufficient penetration of fibre to the premises, services that are currently broadcast be transferred to the network. That frees up valuable spectrum for other uses. This only works where there's a free fibre connection to every premises. The Coalition's half-baked proposal simply won't cut it. Copper lacks the necessary bandwidth and demanding that people pay for connections to services that are currently broadcast free would be difficult to sell politically. You asked me to anticipate an application for the residential market. I've given you three possibilities, two of which have serious proponents (much to my surprise). In reality, we're all in the position of that bloke who couldn't figure out what use a telephone might be. Our frame of reference is telegrams delivered by bicycle. You still haven't clarified what you believe will halt the rise in demand for bandwidth. I presume that's because nothing will.

Your understanding of physics is lamentable.  I don't know where you read it, but it was someone's comic book.

# wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 9:23pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 17th, 2013 at 5:08pm: So your reasoning for spending $50B is "I think we will need it ... Actually, I don't pretend to know enough to think that. Besides, didn't Turnbull say it will cost several trillion? longweekend58 wrote on Aug 17th, 2013 at 5:08pm: ... but IM not really sure what for" ... Unlike you, I don't pretend to know all. Anyway, over dinner we've been having a little fun with your silly question. Our first hypothetical builds on your Jetsons reference, I call it "When bmus:// replaces http://". "http://" refers to the protocol by which web pages are transmitted; "bmus://" is an initialism for "Beam me up, Scotty". OK, that's Star Trek, not The Jetsons, but close enough. The Star Trek transporter supposedly converted matter into energy, beamed the energy to another location, then converted the energy back into matter. It's been calculated that doing so with something the size of a human being would take more energy than is thought to exist in the known universe, so it's a little impractical. One proposed way around the difficulty is to transmit, not the energy of your matter, but information about that matter. To do that, you'd be blasted into a plasma, the quantum state of every subatomic particle recorded, the information transmitted and you reassembled from matter that's already at the receiving end, using that information. So far, I'm told, we can blast you into plasma quite effectively. Optical fibre has the necessary capacity, though the NBN hardware at each end would need upgrading. Recording the quantum states and reassembly after transmission will be left as exercises for the class.  ;) Of course, the amount of data involved (a human body is composed of quite a few atoms and each atom of many particles) is prodigious, so the bandwidth is substantial. The second hypothetical involves the nano-assembler, on which the likes of Drexler have been working for decades. The idea is that objects be built up, atom by atom. Goods could, for example, would be purchased online and delivered, not physically, but as instructions for the nano-assembler. Transmitting data for every atom in an object is bound to be bandwidth-intensive. One interesting side-effect is that so-called "piracy" enters a whole new dimension (or three). The third is not so hypothetical. It has been proposed that, where there's sufficient penetration of fibre to the premises, services that are currently broadcast be transferred to the network. That frees up valuable spectrum for other uses. This only works where there's a free fibre connection to every premises. The Coalition's half-baked proposal simply won't cut it. Copper lacks the necessary bandwidth and demanding that people pay for connections to services that are currently broadcast free would be difficult to sell politically. You asked me to anticipate an application for the residential market. I've given you three possibilities, two of which have serious proponents (much to my surprise). In reality, we're all in the position of that bloke who couldn't figure out what use a telephone might be. Our frame of reference is telegrams delivered by bicycle. You still haven't clarified what you believe will halt the rise in demand for bandwidth. I presume that's because nothing will.

so you are telling me that at some stage, the tv network which can be viewed anywhere on a TV will only be able to be viewed when plugged into the NBN?  And I guess you think this is some improvement? 

# wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 9:27pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 17th, 2013 at 8:02pm: ... Dams are built on the basis of known and current rainfall - not the prediction of climate change ... You can link to substantiation of that assertion, can't you?

Im trying to work out why you think that dams are built on any OTHER criteria.  Do you really think it is even possible that people build dams where they know that wont be much use?

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 8:54am:

# wrote on Aug 17th, 2013 at 9:27pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 17th, 2013 at 8:02pm: ... Dams are built on the basis of known and current rainfall - not the prediction of climate change ... You can link to substantiation of that assertion, can't you? Im trying to work out why you think that dams are built on any OTHER criteria.  Do you really think it is even possible that people build dams where they know that wont be much use?

Dams are built on the basis of current rainfall, and future rainfall. They don't know how much rain will fall next year .... its an educated guess based on current and past trends ... the same applies to future uses of the NBN, it is based on the growth of internet usage, two decades ago, a PDF document and a few emails was high usage , follow the growth in usage to the next 20, 30 40 yrs and you may get close to what is required, although I would guess it will still fall short...

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 8:54am:

... Im trying to work out why you think that dams are built on any OTHER criteria. ...

So, you believe that demand projections aren't significant?

Can't substantiate your assertion then?

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 8:53am:

... so you are telling me that at some stage, the tv network which can be viewed anywhere on a TV will only be able to be viewed when plugged into the NBN?  ...

It has been mooted, I'm told.


longweekend58 wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 8:53am:

... And I guess you think this is some improvement?

Evidently, someone thinks so. I don't pretend to know enough to have an opinion either way.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 8:50am:

... Your understanding of physics is lamentable. ...

I don't pretend to have qualifications in the area. Your silly question was just a topic of amusement over dinner. This is but part of the answers that we came up with.

# wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 11:40am:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 8:50am: ... Your understanding of physics is lamentable. ... I don't pretend to have qualifications in the area. Your silly question was just a topic of amusement over dinner. This is but part of the answers that we came up with.

check out e=mc2 and have another think about 'more energy that exists in the universe'.  the sun generates more energy in a microsecond that would be involved in this.

# wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 11:32am:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 8:54am: ... Im trying to work out why you think that dams are built on any OTHER criteria. ... So, you believe that demand projections aren't significant? Can't substantiate your assertion then?

As a rule, rainfall doesn't change for a particular area but remains effectively constant over centuries.  it was perhaps the worst possible example you could use for internet traffic.

Copper network...like that will be technically relevant in 5 years time let alone the next 10!!!

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 4:57pm:

...  the sun generates more energy in a microsecond that would be involved in this.

Oh dear, now who doesn't have a clue?

Still battling to distract from your foolish question, I see.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 4:59pm:

# wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 11:32am: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 8:54am: ... Im trying to work out why you think that dams are built on any OTHER criteria. ... So, you believe that demand projections aren't significant? Can't substantiate your assertion then? As a rule, rainfall doesn't change for a particular area but remains effectively constant over centuries.  it was perhaps the worst possible example you could use for internet traffic.

Still evading the questions, I see.

Was it my example?

red baron wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 5:01pm:

Copper network...like that will be technically relevant in 5 years time let alone the next 10!!!

and yet... the copper network that was so incapable of going faster then 55kps is now doing 1000 times as fast.

It takes a brave/foolish person to claim that a certain technology has reached its limits only to be overtaken (yet again) by someone doing exactly that - exceeding tham.

# wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 5:04pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 4:57pm: ...  the sun generates more energy in a microsecond that would be involved in this. Oh dear, now who doesn't have a clue? Still battling to distract from your foolish question, I see.

do you care to support you embarrassing foolishness then about the hypothetical am amounts of energy involved in matter transfer?  Or are you just going to claim you 'know better' despite clearly not having even done year 11 physics.

The sky is the limit for the Wireless Network, I predict that within 5 years the technology for wireless will be so advanced it will make copper networks look like Jurrassic Park.

red baron wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 5:10pm:

The sky is the limit for the Wireless Network, I predict that within 5 years the technology for wireless will be so advanced it will make copper networks look like Jurrassic Park.

Yes, wireless technology will make copper networks look like Jurrassic Park. But it won't have the same effect on Fibre.

Life_goes_on wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 5:50pm:

red baron wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 5:10pm: The sky is the limit for the Wireless Network, I predict that within 5 years the technology for wireless will be so advanced it will make copper networks look like Jurrassic Park. Yes, wireless technology will make copper networks look like Jurrassic Park. But it won't have the same effect on Fibre.

its like listening to two non-techos discussing a future they know nothing about.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 4:59pm:

# wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 11:32am: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 8:54am: ... Im trying to work out why you think that dams are built on any OTHER criteria. ... So, you believe that demand projections aren't significant? Can't substantiate your assertion then? As a rule, rainfall doesn't change for a particular area but remains effectively constant over centuries.  it was perhaps the worst possible example you could use for internet traffic.

But they don't build dams based on the rainfall do they? The amount of rainfall merely determines where they build them, but what determines how big they make it is the usage .... and they don't go on todays usage, they go on predictions of future usage. Now tell me, where do they get future usage from?

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 5:06pm:

red baron wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 5:01pm: Copper network...like that will be technically relevant in 5 years time let alone the next 10!!! and yet... the copper network that was so incapable of going faster then 55kps is now doing 1000 times as fast. It takes a brave/foolish person to claim that a certain technology has reached its limits only to be overtaken (yet again) by someone doing exactly that - exceeding tham.

Really... so you can dispute the laws of physics? Attenuation will garble all data streams the faster you go, in other words the higher the frequency (or more speed you try to gain) the more it will attenuate the further away you get from the node.

This has been the issue since the internets inception, it was also the reason why fibre was sought after during the 70's. It is the reason now why people paying for ADSL2 can still only get 4Mbps even though they're paying for 24Mbps. It is also the thinking behind incumbent telco's to try and save on expenditure going through red tape and milking their existing infrastructure for all it's worth (the reason FTTN exists).


red baron wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 5:10pm:

The sky is the limit for the Wireless Network, I predict that within 5 years the technology for wireless will be so advanced it will make copper networks look like Jurrassic Park.

I dont even know what to say to this... wireless contention ratio's are low now BECAUSE of fixed line that is why you can get decent speeds. If everyone switched to wireless that would be a different story all together since wireless speeds are on a per cell basis not per user.

If they ever get true quantum entanglement mastered sure everything can go wireless, but we are about as far away from this as achieving the colonization of mars, fathomable yes but we will not be alive to see it.

John Smith wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 7:31pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 4:59pm: # wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 11:32am: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 8:54am: ... Im trying to work out why you think that dams are built on any OTHER criteria. ... So, you believe that demand projections aren't significant? Can't substantiate your assertion then? As a rule, rainfall doesn't change for a particular area but remains effectively constant over centuries.  it was perhaps the worst possible example you could use for internet traffic. But they don't build dams based on the rainfall do they? The amount of rainfall merely determines where they build them, but what determines how big they make it is the usage .... and they don't go on todays usage, they go on predictions of future usage. Now tell me, where do they get future usage from?

you wish... as do I.  water infrastructure building in Australia ground to a halt about 30 years ago.  Adelaide hasnbt built a single reservoir in 30 years while its population doubled. that story is repeated nationwide. so instead... we build  desal plants..  dumb as!

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 7:34pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 7:31pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 4:59pm: # wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 11:32am: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 8:54am: ... Im trying to work out why you think that dams are built on any OTHER criteria. ... So, you believe that demand projections aren't significant? Can't substantiate your assertion then? As a rule, rainfall doesn't change for a particular area but remains effectively constant over centuries.  it was perhaps the worst possible example you could use for internet traffic. But they don't build dams based on the rainfall do they? The amount of rainfall merely determines where they build them, but what determines how big they make it is the usage .... and they don't go on todays usage, they go on predictions of future usage. Now tell me, where do they get future usage from? you wish... as do I.  water infrastructure building in Australia ground to a halt about 30 years ago.  Adelaide hasnbt built a single reservoir in 30 years while its population doubled. that story is repeated nationwide. so instead... we build  desal plants..  dumb as!

when they built Sydney's cataract dam, they built it whilst Sydney had a population of half what todays population is ... if they had built it to service ONLY that number, Sydney would be out of water ....

I don't care when they built the dam, the fact remains that when they build it they build it so as so satisfy future predicted demand and not simply to satisfy todays demand.

John Smith wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 7:37pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 7:34pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 7:31pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 4:59pm: # wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 11:32am: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 8:54am: ... Im trying to work out why you think that dams are built on any OTHER criteria. ... So, you believe that demand projections aren't significant? Can't substantiate your assertion then? As a rule, rainfall doesn't change for a particular area but remains effectively constant over centuries.  it was perhaps the worst possible example you could use for internet traffic. But they don't build dams based on the rainfall do they? The amount of rainfall merely determines where they build them, but what determines how big they make it is the usage .... and they don't go on todays usage, they go on predictions of future usage. Now tell me, where do they get future usage from? you wish... as do I.  water infrastructure building in Australia ground to a halt about 30 years ago.  Adelaide hasnbt built a single reservoir in 30 years while its population doubled. that story is repeated nationwide. so instead... we build  desal plants..  dumb as! when they built Sydney's cataract dam, they built it whilst Sydney had a population of half what todays population is ... if they had built it to service ONLY that number, Sydney would be out of water .... I don't care when they built the dam, the fact remains that when they build it they build it so as so satisfy future predicted demand and not simply to satisfy todays demand.

so we add water security and infrastructure to the long list of subject about which you know next to nothing.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 7:39pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 7:37pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 7:34pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 7:31pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 4:59pm: # wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 11:32am: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 8:54am: ... Im trying to work out why you think that dams are built on any OTHER criteria. ... So, you believe that demand projections aren't significant? Can't substantiate your assertion then? As a rule, rainfall doesn't change for a particular area but remains effectively constant over centuries.  it was perhaps the worst possible example you could use for internet traffic. But they don't build dams based on the rainfall do they? The amount of rainfall merely determines where they build them, but what determines how big they make it is the usage .... and they don't go on todays usage, they go on predictions of future usage. Now tell me, where do they get future usage from? you wish... as do I.  water infrastructure building in Australia ground to a halt about 30 years ago.  Adelaide hasnbt built a single reservoir in 30 years while its population doubled. that story is repeated nationwide. so instead... we build  desal plants..  dumb as! when they built Sydney's cataract dam, they built it whilst Sydney had a population of half what todays population is ... if they had built it to service ONLY that number, Sydney would be out of water .... I don't care when they built the dam, the fact remains that when they build it they build it so as so satisfy future predicted demand and not simply to satisfy todays demand. so we add water security and infrastructure to the long list of subject about which you know next to nothing.

bravo .... great argument .... the argument you have when you've got no argument ... you should have been a politician.

red baron wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 5:10pm:

The sky is the limit for the Wireless Network, I predict that within 5 years the technology for wireless will be so advanced it will make copper networks look like Jurrassic Park.

I predict that within 5 years time scientists will be warning us of a link between living our lives in a world bathed in radiation and a global cancer epidemic. I'm also not sure if wireless is even very secure or private. I imagine it's a lot more vulnerable to Chinese hackers than fixed line.

Winston Smith wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 7:45pm:

red baron wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 5:10pm: The sky is the limit for the Wireless Network, I predict that within 5 years the technology for wireless will be so advanced it will make copper networks look like Jurrassic Park. I predict that within 5 years time scientists will be warning us of a link between living our lives in a world bathed in radiation and a global cancer epidemic. I'm also not sure if wireless is even very secure or private. I imagine it's a lot more vulnerable to Chinese hackers than fixed line.

I saw a documentary once, a hacker merely sat in his car driving around with a laptop which was searching for wireless signals, once he found one it took him 2 minutes to get past the security programme, crack the passwords and extract all sorts of private information including bank account numbers and passwords ... he then moved onto the next house and did it again.... in one hour he had about 15 id's complete with photo's, bank account numbers and passwords. 

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 5:08pm:

... do you care to support you embarrassing foolishness ...

It's irrelevant to the topic at hand.

So, where are we at? You've tacitly acknowledged:
[list bull-blackcheck]

potential residential applications that are well beyond the capacity of copper;

the rise in demand for bandwidth will continue and;

demand projections are integral to infrastructure planning.
It looks like the Coalition's fibre to the node will be obsolete before it can be completed, if it isn't already.

red baron wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 5:10pm:

The sky is the limit for the Wireless Network, I predict that within 5 years the technology for wireless will be so advanced it will make copper networks look like Jurrassic Park.

Copper, perhaps, but not fibre.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2012/11/9/technology/killing-nbn-wireless-myth

Quote:

Killing the NBN wireless myth Paul Wallbank 9 Nov 2012, 10:35 AM The transformative powers of wireless technology is one misconception commonly touted by the opponents of the Labor NBN but improvements in the wireless space are unlikely to render optic fibre networks redundant any time soon. If anything, recent announcements by Japan’s NTT and UK university researchers show that fibre networks are zooming even further ahead of their wireless cousins when it comes to capacity. Telecommunications companies have used fibre for three decades to provide backbone connections and in that time the capacity growth has been impressive. In 1977, the first commercial use of fibre optics in Southern California delivered a 6Mbps connection. Today’s backbone fibre connections which connect cities and telephone exchanges are 2,000 times faster. Fibre faster than ever While it’s established that fibre is a key part of any modern network, with the NBN much of the argument has centred on whether the delivery side would be more ‘future proof’ if it were wireless rather than fibre. Dispelling this view, researchers at the UK’s Bangor University in Northern Wales this week announced their OCEAN Project had been able to push the barriers on home fibre connections to 20Gbps by using existing technology. Currently those links have a maximum speed of around 1Gbps, as opposed to claimed maximum speeds of 40Mbps on 4G networks. While NBN Co’s chief technology officer ,Gary McLaren, sees promise in the Bangor University research, the capacity increases we’ll see in the street will come from evolving the network’s neighbourhood hubs to the 10GPON standard with four time more capacity as demand grows. Down the track, NBN Co’s plans include investment in upgrading both the GPON technologies and the backbone network which carries the data between cities and towns. Backbone fibre networks are seeing even greater capacity improvements with Japan’s NTT recently announcing they’d been able to push 85 Tbps down a single fibre – weaving together 12 of these fibres gave NTT a Petabyte per second connection (1,000,000 Gbps), nearly 80,000 times more capacity than current fibre networks.' Project VIP These improvement in technologies mean NBN Co is not alone in their upgrade plans. In the United States this week, AT&T announced their Project VIP which will move most of their customers onto Internet Protocol (IP) based systems. Project VIP will involve rolling out fibre to the node for most residential customers while businesses in office blocks and industrial parks – Multi-Tenant Business Buildings in AT&T’s terminology – will get fibre directly to their premises. AT&T expect the project will cost them $14 billion over three years which includes upgrading their mobile network to 4G. At these rates the far more comprehensive NBN looks reasonably priced with $12 billion expected to be spent over the same period. It's all about capacity An interesting side note with AT&T’s Project VIP are the markets the telco expects to address with its new network with home automation, mobile wallets and connected cars all mentioned in their announcement. These technologies, which are also being explored by Australian providers, means telcos and agencies like NBN Co are going to need the increased capacity on both fibre and wireless networks. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) reporting that data downloads increased 50 per cent  last year alone, with fixed connections growing fast than mobile. As our appetite for data grows, the need for these faster technologies in both fixed fibre connections and mobile networks are going to become more critical. This is why both public investment like the NBN and private projects like AT&T’s are essential in providing the capacity needed to meet our demands. While wireless networks are an important part of the broadband future, it’s the growth in fibre capacity that is going to be critical in meeting those demands.

John Smith wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 7:50pm:

Winston Smith wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 7:45pm: red baron wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 5:10pm: The sky is the limit for the Wireless Network, I predict that within 5 years the technology for wireless will be so advanced it will make copper networks look like Jurrassic Park. I predict that within 5 years time scientists will be warning us of a link between living our lives in a world bathed in radiation and a global cancer epidemic. I'm also not sure if wireless is even very secure or private. I imagine it's a lot more vulnerable to Chinese hackers than fixed line. I saw a documentary once, a hacker merely sat in his car driving around with a laptop which was searching for wireless signals, once he found one it took him 2 minutes to get past the security programme, crack the passwords and extract all sorts of private information including bank account numbers and passwords ... he then moved onto the next house and did it again.... in one hour he had about 15 id's complete with photo's, bank account numbers and passwords.

Older WiFi security protocols were easily hacked. There have been a couple of upgrades since then. If you're using WEP, you're vulnerable. Unfortunately, some older hardware doesn't support anything better. There are some good tips at: http://compnetworking.about.com/od/wirelesssecurity/tp/wifisecurity.htm. Even though most modern hardware offers reasonable security, many residential users neglect to set it up.

The radiation thing has been raised repeatedly over the past couple of decades. To date, studies have found no reason for concern at the frequencies and power levels involved in telecommunications. That said, don't go putting your head at the focus of a microwave dish.

As far as Chinese hackers, the only observation I can make that's relevant to the NBN is that Huawei hardware was disqualified because of concerns over the company's links with the Chinese government. There are suspicions that Huawei hardware has built-in back doors that could be used to compromise the network.

# wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 9:18pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 7:50pm: Winston Smith wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 7:45pm: red baron wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 5:10pm: The sky is the limit for the Wireless Network, I predict that within 5 years the technology for wireless will be so advanced it will make copper networks look like Jurrassic Park. I predict that within 5 years time scientists will be warning us of a link between living our lives in a world bathed in radiation and a global cancer epidemic. I'm also not sure if wireless is even very secure or private. I imagine it's a lot more vulnerable to Chinese hackers than fixed line. I saw a documentary once, a hacker merely sat in his car driving around with a laptop which was searching for wireless signals, once he found one it took him 2 minutes to get past the security programme, crack the passwords and extract all sorts of private information including bank account numbers and passwords ... he then moved onto the next house and did it again.... in one hour he had about 15 id's complete with photo's, bank account numbers and passwords.  Older WiFi security protocols were easily hacked. There have been a couple of upgrades since then. If you're using WEP, you're vulnerable. Unfortunately, some older hardware doesn't support anything better. There are some good tips at: link. Even though most modern hardware offers reasonable security, many residential users neglect to set it up. The radiation thing has been raised repeatedly over the past couple of decades. To date, studies have found no reason for concern at the frequencies and power levels involved in telecommunications. That said, don't go putting your head at the focus of a microwave dish. As far as Chinese hackers, the only observation I can make that's relevant to the NBN is that Huawei hardware was disqualified because of concerns over the company's links with the Chinese government. There are suspicions that Huawei hardware has built-in back doors that could be used to compromise the network.

By Chinese hackers, I mean any type of hacker with an agenda. As far as radiation in our evironment goes, there will always be people who are willing to accept 'just a little bit more', on top of everything else. From a wholistic approach, fibre is better because it's safer than wireless, faster than wireless, more secure than wireless and has better capacity than wireless.

Edit: The inability of new posters to quote posts with links in them is highly smacking annoying.

John Smith wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 7:50pm:

Winston Smith wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 7:45pm: red baron wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 5:10pm: The sky is the limit for the Wireless Network, I predict that within 5 years the technology for wireless will be so advanced it will make copper networks look like Jurrassic Park. I predict that within 5 years time scientists will be warning us of a link between living our lives in a world bathed in radiation and a global cancer epidemic. I'm also not sure if wireless is even very secure or private. I imagine it's a lot more vulnerable to Chinese hackers than fixed line. I saw a documentary once, a hacker merely sat in his car driving around with a laptop which was searching for wireless signals, once he found one it took him 2 minutes to get past the security programme, crack the passwords and extract all sorts of private information including bank account numbers and passwords ... he then moved onto the next house and did it again.... in one hour he had about 15 id's complete with photo's, bank account numbers and passwords.

sounds likea TT story (ie made-up).  do you keep your passwords on your computer? 

# wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 11:36am:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 8:53am: ... so you are telling me that at some stage, the tv network which can be viewed anywhere on a TV will only be able to be viewed when plugged into the NBN?  ... It has been mooted, I'm told. longweekend58 wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 8:53am: ... And I guess you think this is some improvement?  Evidently, someone thinks so. I don't pretend to know enough to have an opinion either way.

The more I think about this, the fewer objections I see. I once bought a battery-powered TV. It was black & white, which gives some idea of when I bought it. I rarely used it and didn't buy a replacement.

In short, for decades I haven't used a TV that wasn't plugged into a power socket. If a TV is already going to be tied to a wall socket, what difference does another cable make?

These days, we have so-called "smart TVs" that are pretty useless without an Internet connection. That connection can be wireless, but wireless tends to fail on HD content.

My home TV is far from smart. Even so, a couple of years ago, I had a couple of network sockets installed behind it. Two sockets proved inadequate, so I added a four-port switch. Components attached to the TV that need network access include:[list bull-blacksq]

PVR with online schedule;

media player (my media is stored on devices on my home network);

Android dongle (which came with WiFi that proved inadequate) and

an old PC that has been pressed into service as a tuner/PVR/server.
I guess it comes down to the best value use of the spectrum. Given a free fibre connection to the vast majority of premises, is there a higher value use for the spectrum?

# wrote on Aug 21^st, 2013 at 12:08pm:

# wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 11:36am: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 8:53am: ... so you are telling me that at some stage, the tv network which can be viewed anywhere on a TV will only be able to be viewed when plugged into the NBN?  ... It has been mooted, I'm told. longweekend58 wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 8:53am: ... And I guess you think this is some improvement?  Evidently, someone thinks so. I don't pretend to know enough to have an opinion either way. The more I think about this, the fewer objections I see. I once bought a battery-powered TV. It was black & white, which gives some idea of when I bought it. I rarely used it and didn't buy a replacement. In short, for decades I haven't used a TV that wasn't plugged into a power socket. If a TV is already going to be tied to a wall socket, what difference does another cable make? These days, we have so-called "smart TVs" that are pretty useless without an Internet connection. That connection can be wireless, but wireless tends to fail on HD content. My home TV is far from smart. Even so, a couple of years ago, I had a couple of network sockets installed behind it. Two sockets proved inadequate, so I added a four-port switch. Components attached to the TV that need network access include:[list bull-blacksq] PVR with online schedule; media player (my media is stored on devices on my home network); Android dongle (which came with WiFi that proved inadequate) and an old PC that has been pressed into service as a tuner/PVR/server. I guess it comes down to the best value use of the spectrum. Given a free fibre connection to the vast majority of premises, is there a higher value use for the spectrum?

what a silly response.  does every powerpopint In your house where you might choose to plug-in a TV is there a Ethernet internet connection right next to it?  Your comments about smart-TVs make you look rather silly.  Since when was a smart-tv useless without internet????  do u even own one???

free-to-air TV will never be on cable.  that defeats the purpose of it. 

Your belief that TV will go tot he NBN is one of the stupidest and most idiotic suggestions Ive heard yet.  I think tho that the title of stupidest definitely goes to conroy and Gillard thinking that the NBN will empty hospital beds because health care can be delivered over the internet.  that was THE DUD of the NBN argument.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 9:53am:

John Smith wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 7:50pm: Winston Smith wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 7:45pm: red baron wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 5:10pm: The sky is the limit for the Wireless Network, I predict that within 5 years the technology for wireless will be so advanced it will make copper networks look like Jurrassic Park. I predict that within 5 years time scientists will be warning us of a link between living our lives in a world bathed in radiation and a global cancer epidemic. I'm also not sure if wireless is even very secure or private. I imagine it's a lot more vulnerable to Chinese hackers than fixed line. I saw a documentary once, a hacker merely sat in his car driving around with a laptop which was searching for wireless signals, once he found one it took him 2 minutes to get past the security programme, crack the passwords and extract all sorts of private information including bank account numbers and passwords ... he then moved onto the next house and did it again.... in one hour he had about 15 id's complete with photo's, bank account numbers and passwords.  sounds likea TT story (ie made-up).  do you keep your passwords on your computer?

Not my area of expertise longy, but I believe you can even download programmes that crack passwords. And yes, some passwords are kept on the computer

John Smith wrote on Aug 21^st, 2013 at 12:37pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 9:53am: John Smith wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 7:50pm: Winston Smith wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 7:45pm: red baron wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 5:10pm: The sky is the limit for the Wireless Network, I predict that within 5 years the technology for wireless will be so advanced it will make copper networks look like Jurrassic Park. I predict that within 5 years time scientists will be warning us of a link between living our lives in a world bathed in radiation and a global cancer epidemic. I'm also not sure if wireless is even very secure or private. I imagine it's a lot more vulnerable to Chinese hackers than fixed line. I saw a documentary once, a hacker merely sat in his car driving around with a laptop which was searching for wireless signals, once he found one it took him 2 minutes to get past the security programme, crack the passwords and extract all sorts of private information including bank account numbers and passwords ... he then moved onto the next house and did it again.... in one hour he had about 15 id's complete with photo's, bank account numbers and passwords.  sounds likea TT story (ie made-up).  do you keep your passwords on your computer?  Not my area of expertise longy, but I believe you can even download programmes that crack passwords. And yes, some passwords are kept on the computer

if you want to know anything about passwords and encryption DONT watch american TV where cops 'crack' encryption in 30 secs or 'really hard stuff' in 5 minutes.  properly randomised passwords are IMPOSSIBLE to predict and commonly used encryption software available on the net is unbreakable to anyone without a super-computer and anything from days to months to run it on.  We aren't talking an MS WORD password which is hackable with relative easy.  but proper PGP or other encryption is virtual unbreakable.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21^st, 2013 at 12:56pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 21st, 2013 at 12:37pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 9:53am: John Smith wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 7:50pm: Winston Smith wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 7:45pm: red baron wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 5:10pm: The sky is the limit for the Wireless Network, I predict that within 5 years the technology for wireless will be so advanced it will make copper networks look like Jurrassic Park. I predict that within 5 years time scientists will be warning us of a link between living our lives in a world bathed in radiation and a global cancer epidemic. I'm also not sure if wireless is even very secure or private. I imagine it's a lot more vulnerable to Chinese hackers than fixed line. I saw a documentary once, a hacker merely sat in his car driving around with a laptop which was searching for wireless signals, once he found one it took him 2 minutes to get past the security programme, crack the passwords and extract all sorts of private information including bank account numbers and passwords ... he then moved onto the next house and did it again.... in one hour he had about 15 id's complete with photo's, bank account numbers and passwords.  sounds likea TT story (ie made-up).  do you keep your passwords on your computer?  Not my area of expertise longy, but I believe you can even download programmes that crack passwords. And yes, some passwords are kept on the computer if you want to know anything about passwords and encryption DONT watch american TV where cops 'crack' encryption in 30 secs or 'really hard stuff' in 5 minutes.  properly randomised passwords are IMPOSSIBLE to predict and commonly used encryption software available on the net is unbreakable to anyone without a super-computer and anything from days to months to run it on.  We aren't talking an MS WORD password which is hackable with relative easy.  but proper PGP or other encryption is virtual unbreakable.

do you think most people use randomised passwords?  Many businesses may have the stuff you are referring to, and even they get hacked.  didn't some 15yr kid hack $10 million from a bank in the US a few years ago? they only reason they caught him was because he tried to withdraw it in cash .... most peoples passwords are simple and  have some sort of sequence or logic so as to make them easy to remember. There are many hacker programmes that can run through 100 million possibles  in mere minutes ... sure, they won't get into all, but I'll bet they get into most personal PC's.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21^st, 2013 at 12:28pm:

# wrote on Aug 21st, 2013 at 12:08pm: # wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 11:36am: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 8:53am: ... so you are telling me that at some stage, the tv network which can be viewed anywhere on a TV will only be able to be viewed when plugged into the NBN?  ... It has been mooted, I'm told. longweekend58 wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 8:53am: ... And I guess you think this is some improvement?  Evidently, someone thinks so. I don't pretend to know enough to have an opinion either way. The more I think about this, the fewer objections I see. I once bought a battery-powered TV. It was black & white, which gives some idea of when I bought it. I rarely used it and didn't buy a replacement. In short, for decades I haven't used a TV that wasn't plugged into a power socket. If a TV is already going to be tied to a wall socket, what difference does another cable make? These days, we have so-called "smart TVs" that are pretty useless without an Internet connection. That connection can be wireless, but wireless tends to fail on HD content. My home TV is far from smart. Even so, a couple of years ago, I had a couple of network sockets installed behind it. Two sockets proved inadequate, so I added a four-port switch. Components attached to the TV that need network access include:[list bull-blacksq] PVR with online schedule; media player (my media is stored on devices on my home network); Android dongle (which came with WiFi that proved inadequate) and an old PC that has been pressed into service as a tuner/PVR/server. I guess it comes down to the best value use of the spectrum. Given a free fibre connection to the vast majority of premises, is there a higher value use for the spectrum? what a silly response.  does every powerpopint In your house where you might choose to plug-in a TV is there a Ethernet internet connection right next to it?

Is there an antenna socket next to every power point in your house? 


longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21^st, 2013 at 12:28pm:

Your comments about smart-TVs make you look rather silly.  Since when was a smart-tv useless without internet????  do u even own one???

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_TV
Quote:

A smart TV, sometimes referred to as connected TV or hybrid TV, (not to be confused with IPTV, Internet TV, or with Web TV), describes a trend of integration of the Internet and Web 2.0 features into television sets and set-top boxes, as well as the technological convergence between computers and these television sets / set-top boxes. The devices have a higher focus on online interactive media, Internet TV, over-the-top content, as well as on-demand streaming media, and less focus on traditional broadcast media ...

El58, you've made a fool of yourself again.


longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21^st, 2013 at 12:28pm:

free-to-air TV will never be on cable.  that defeats the purpose of it.

What is that purpose? Would transmitting free TV by cable really defeat it?


longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21^st, 2013 at 12:28pm:

Your belief that TV will go tot he NBN is one of the stupidest and most idiotic suggestions Ive heard yet.  I think tho that the title of stupidest definitely goes to conroy and Gillard thinking that the NBN will empty hospital beds because health care can be delivered over the internet.  that was THE DUD of the NBN argument.

I try to avoid belief. This was a possible use to which, at the time, you raised little objection while tacitly acknowledging its validity. I've just been thinking about it and my doubts have decreased.

No need to hyperventilate.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 9:53am:

...  do you keep your passwords on your computer?

Most people do, whether they know it or not. Look closely and you'll probably find some of your own, stored in plain text, where any competent hacker could find them.

Winston Smith wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 9:47pm:

... From a wholistic approach, fibre is better because it's safer ...

That set me off on another train of thought. Over the years, I've lost four land line 'phones to lighting strikes. There used to be a warning in the printed 'phone book (I presume they still exist, though I haven't seen one in years) against using a land line when there's lighting about.

Apparently, a ground strike causes an electromagnetic pulse in the ground. The pulse induces a hefty current in any copper that happens to be close enough. The copper can carry the current for a considerable distance.

From: http://www.snopes.com/horrors/techno/phone.asp
Quote:

Claim:   Lightning strikes have killed people who were talking on the telephone. Status:   True. Origins: Lightning ranks second only to floods in storm-related deaths in the United States. On average, Phone more than 60 people are killed by it each year. Not even tornadoes or hurricanes top it in terms of lives lost. We know not to be outside when electrical storms are flashing through the area, or — if we are caught by surprise — not to seek shelter under trees but instead to crouch and take the wetting until the danger has passed. Yet as aware as we are of the peril posed by summer storms, most of us naively presume we're safe from those errant bolts from the sky when we're indoors. Yet we're not. Not only have lightning strikes into the nearby ground sent massive power flares into the electrical and telecommunications wiring of proximate houses and flung volt-ridden jolts up pipes and into sinks and bath tubs, bolts themselves have come in through windows to fell occupants of domiciles. Although indoors is a far less hazardous place to be than outdoors during a thunderstorm, it is still not safe. ... Even talking on the telephone during a storm is not absolutely safe. On average one person is killed by lightning while talking on the phone each year. Standard telephones (what are coming to be called land lines, meaning handsets that are plugged into outlets within the home or office) can be somewhat of a risky proposition during an electrical storm, as the wires through which telecommunications takes place can be hit by lightning, with the resultant electrical discharge instantly zapped through nearby handsets and data ports. Yet this danger is small and the number of such strikes relatively low. Even so, as thunderstorms approach, some people opt to unplug costly electrical appliances from power outlets (lightning strikes to power lines can send catastrophic discharge into one's TV) as well as uncouple phone lines from computers and modems. These same folk don't dream of answering their phones until the storms have passed.

Fibre doesn't carry electric current.

John Smith wrote on Aug 21^st, 2013 at 1:02pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21st, 2013 at 12:56pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 21st, 2013 at 12:37pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 9:53am: John Smith wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 7:50pm: Winston Smith wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 7:45pm: red baron wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 5:10pm: The sky is the limit for the Wireless Network, I predict that within 5 years the technology for wireless will be so advanced it will make copper networks look like Jurrassic Park. I predict that within 5 years time scientists will be warning us of a link between living our lives in a world bathed in radiation and a global cancer epidemic. I'm also not sure if wireless is even very secure or private. I imagine it's a lot more vulnerable to Chinese hackers than fixed line. I saw a documentary once, a hacker merely sat in his car driving around with a laptop which was searching for wireless signals, once he found one it took him 2 minutes to get past the security programme, crack the passwords and extract all sorts of private information including bank account numbers and passwords ... he then moved onto the next house and did it again.... in one hour he had about 15 id's complete with photo's, bank account numbers and passwords.  sounds likea TT story (ie made-up).  do you keep your passwords on your computer?  Not my area of expertise longy, but I believe you can even download programmes that crack passwords. And yes, some passwords are kept on the computer if you want to know anything about passwords and encryption DONT watch american TV where cops 'crack' encryption in 30 secs or 'really hard stuff' in 5 minutes.  properly randomised passwords are IMPOSSIBLE to predict and commonly used encryption software available on the net is unbreakable to anyone without a super-computer and anything from days to months to run it on.  We aren't talking an MS WORD password which is hackable with relative easy.  but proper PGP or other encryption is virtual unbreakable. do you think most people use randomised passwords?  Many businesses may have the stuff you are referring to, and even they get hacked.  didn't some 15yr kid hack $10 million from a bank in the US a few years ago? they only reason they caught him was because he tried to withdraw it in cash .... most peoples passwords are simple and  have some sort of sequence or logic so as to make them easy to remember. There are many hacker programmes that can run through 100 million possibles  in mere minutes ... sure, they won't get into all, but I'll bet they get into most personal PC's.

the password to your PC is worthless.  if hides nothing whatsoever.  All it does is permit access to the Windows OS.  your data is unencrypted and accessible by any computer you plug the drive into.  If you want security then get real security or don't bother.  Proper encryption products are virtually unbreakable. and unlike the movies and TV shows, they don't allow some external program to enter attempt after attempt until you get it right.  Most will actually lock the data after a certain number of tries assuming that the person attempting to get in is unauthorised.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21^st, 2013 at 2:38pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 21st, 2013 at 1:02pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21st, 2013 at 12:56pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 21st, 2013 at 12:37pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 9:53am: John Smith wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 7:50pm: Winston Smith wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 7:45pm: red baron wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 5:10pm: The sky is the limit for the Wireless Network, I predict that within 5 years the technology for wireless will be so advanced it will make copper networks look like Jurrassic Park. I predict that within 5 years time scientists will be warning us of a link between living our lives in a world bathed in radiation and a global cancer epidemic. I'm also not sure if wireless is even very secure or private. I imagine it's a lot more vulnerable to Chinese hackers than fixed line. I saw a documentary once, a hacker merely sat in his car driving around with a laptop which was searching for wireless signals, once he found one it took him 2 minutes to get past the security programme, crack the passwords and extract all sorts of private information including bank account numbers and passwords ... he then moved onto the next house and did it again.... in one hour he had about 15 id's complete with photo's, bank account numbers and passwords.  sounds likea TT story (ie made-up).  do you keep your passwords on your computer?  Not my area of expertise longy, but I believe you can even download programmes that crack passwords. And yes, some passwords are kept on the computer if you want to know anything about passwords and encryption DONT watch american TV where cops 'crack' encryption in 30 secs or 'really hard stuff' in 5 minutes.  properly randomised passwords are IMPOSSIBLE to predict and commonly used encryption software available on the net is unbreakable to anyone without a super-computer and anything from days to months to run it on.  We aren't talking an MS WORD password which is hackable with relative easy.  but proper PGP or other encryption is virtual unbreakable. do you think most people use randomised passwords?  Many businesses may have the stuff you are referring to, and even they get hacked.  didn't some 15yr kid hack $10 million from a bank in the US a few years ago? they only reason they caught him was because he tried to withdraw it in cash .... most peoples passwords are simple and  have some sort of sequence or logic so as to make them easy to remember. There are many hacker programmes that can run through 100 million possibles  in mere minutes ... sure, they won't get into all, but I'll bet they get into most personal PC's. the password to your PC is worthless.  if hides nothing whatsoever.  All it does is permit access to the Windows OS.  your data is unencrypted and accessible by any computer you plug the drive into.  If you want security then get real security or don't bother.  Proper encryption products are virtually unbreakable. and unlike the movies and TV shows, they don't allow some external program to enter attempt after attempt until you get it right.  Most will actually lock the data after a certain number of tries assuming that the person attempting to get in is unauthorised.

but we weren't talking about proper encryption products, we are talking about how much easier it is to hack into a pc that runs on wireless, as compared to one fixed to a landline.  SO you agree than that putting people onto wireless is a hackers wet dream?

John Smith wrote on Aug 21^st, 2013 at 3:25pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21st, 2013 at 2:38pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 21st, 2013 at 1:02pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21st, 2013 at 12:56pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 21st, 2013 at 12:37pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 9:53am: John Smith wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 7:50pm: Winston Smith wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 7:45pm: red baron wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 5:10pm: The sky is the limit for the Wireless Network, I predict that within 5 years the technology for wireless will be so advanced it will make copper networks look like Jurrassic Park. I predict that within 5 years time scientists will be warning us of a link between living our lives in a world bathed in radiation and a global cancer epidemic. I'm also not sure if wireless is even very secure or private. I imagine it's a lot more vulnerable to Chinese hackers than fixed line. I saw a documentary once, a hacker merely sat in his car driving around with a laptop which was searching for wireless signals, once he found one it took him 2 minutes to get past the security programme, crack the passwords and extract all sorts of private information including bank account numbers and passwords ... he then moved onto the next house and did it again.... in one hour he had about 15 id's complete with photo's, bank account numbers and passwords.  sounds likea TT story (ie made-up).  do you keep your passwords on your computer?  Not my area of expertise longy, but I believe you can even download programmes that crack passwords. And yes, some passwords are kept on the computer if you want to know anything about passwords and encryption DONT watch american TV where cops 'crack' encryption in 30 secs or 'really hard stuff' in 5 minutes.  properly randomised passwords are IMPOSSIBLE to predict and commonly used encryption software available on the net is unbreakable to anyone without a super-computer and anything from days to months to run it on.  We aren't talking an MS WORD password which is hackable with relative easy.  but proper PGP or other encryption is virtual unbreakable. do you think most people use randomised passwords?  Many businesses may have the stuff you are referring to, and even they get hacked.  didn't some 15yr kid hack $10 million from a bank in the US a few years ago? they only reason they caught him was because he tried to withdraw it in cash .... most peoples passwords are simple and  have some sort of sequence or logic so as to make them easy to remember. There are many hacker programmes that can run through 100 million possibles  in mere minutes ... sure, they won't get into all, but I'll bet they get into most personal PC's. the password to your PC is worthless.  if hides nothing whatsoever.  All it does is permit access to the Windows OS.  your data is unencrypted and accessible by any computer you plug the drive into.  If you want security then get real security or don't bother.  Proper encryption products are virtually unbreakable. and unlike the movies and TV shows, they don't allow some external program to enter attempt after attempt until you get it right.  Most will actually lock the data after a certain number of tries assuming that the person attempting to get in is unauthorised. but we weren't talking about proper encryption products, we are talking about how much easier it is to hack into a pc that runs on wireless, as compared to one fixed to a landline.  SO you agree than that putting people onto wireless is a hackers wet dream?

please don't tell me that you think wireless is inherently more likely to be hacked that fibre.  the fibre will connect to a modem with ... yes a wireless connection.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21^st, 2013 at 5:08pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 21st, 2013 at 3:25pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21st, 2013 at 2:38pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 21st, 2013 at 1:02pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21st, 2013 at 12:56pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 21st, 2013 at 12:37pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 9:53am: John Smith wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 7:50pm: Winston Smith wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 7:45pm: red baron wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 5:10pm: The sky is the limit for the Wireless Network, I predict that within 5 years the technology for wireless will be so advanced it will make copper networks look like Jurrassic Park. I predict that within 5 years time scientists will be warning us of a link between living our lives in a world bathed in radiation and a global cancer epidemic. I'm also not sure if wireless is even very secure or private. I imagine it's a lot more vulnerable to Chinese hackers than fixed line. I saw a documentary once, a hacker merely sat in his car driving around with a laptop which was searching for wireless signals, once he found one it took him 2 minutes to get past the security programme, crack the passwords and extract all sorts of private information including bank account numbers and passwords ... he then moved onto the next house and did it again.... in one hour he had about 15 id's complete with photo's, bank account numbers and passwords.  sounds likea TT story (ie made-up).  do you keep your passwords on your computer?  Not my area of expertise longy, but I believe you can even download programmes that crack passwords. And yes, some passwords are kept on the computer if you want to know anything about passwords and encryption DONT watch american TV where cops 'crack' encryption in 30 secs or 'really hard stuff' in 5 minutes.  properly randomised passwords are IMPOSSIBLE to predict and commonly used encryption software available on the net is unbreakable to anyone without a super-computer and anything from days to months to run it on.  We aren't talking an MS WORD password which is hackable with relative easy.  but proper PGP or other encryption is virtual unbreakable. do you think most people use randomised passwords?  Many businesses may have the stuff you are referring to, and even they get hacked.  didn't some 15yr kid hack $10 million from a bank in the US a few years ago? they only reason they caught him was because he tried to withdraw it in cash .... most peoples passwords are simple and  have some sort of sequence or logic so as to make them easy to remember. There are many hacker programmes that can run through 100 million possibles  in mere minutes ... sure, they won't get into all, but I'll bet they get into most personal PC's. the password to your PC is worthless.  if hides nothing whatsoever.  All it does is permit access to the Windows OS.  your data is unencrypted and accessible by any computer you plug the drive into.  If you want security then get real security or don't bother.  Proper encryption products are virtually unbreakable. and unlike the movies and TV shows, they don't allow some external program to enter attempt after attempt until you get it right.  Most will actually lock the data after a certain number of tries assuming that the person attempting to get in is unauthorised. but we weren't talking about proper encryption products, we are talking about how much easier it is to hack into a pc that runs on wireless, as compared to one fixed to a landline.  SO you agree than that putting people onto wireless is a hackers wet dream? please don't tell me that you think wireless is inherently more likely to be hacked that fibre.  the fibre will connect to a modem with ... yes a wireless connection.

I guess that depends on the modem .... I have no wireless at my place.

John Smith wrote on Aug 21^st, 2013 at 5:11pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21st, 2013 at 5:08pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 21st, 2013 at 3:25pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21st, 2013 at 2:38pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 21st, 2013 at 1:02pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21st, 2013 at 12:56pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 21st, 2013 at 12:37pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 9:53am: John Smith wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 7:50pm: Winston Smith wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 7:45pm: red baron wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 5:10pm: The sky is the limit for the Wireless Network, I predict that within 5 years the technology for wireless will be so advanced it will make copper networks look like Jurrassic Park. I predict that within 5 years time scientists will be warning us of a link between living our lives in a world bathed in radiation and a global cancer epidemic. I'm also not sure if wireless is even very secure or private. I imagine it's a lot more vulnerable to Chinese hackers than fixed line. I saw a documentary once, a hacker merely sat in his car driving around with a laptop which was searching for wireless signals, once he found one it took him 2 minutes to get past the security programme, crack the passwords and extract all sorts of private information including bank account numbers and passwords ... he then moved onto the next house and did it again.... in one hour he had about 15 id's complete with photo's, bank account numbers and passwords.  sounds likea TT story (ie made-up).  do you keep your passwords on your computer?  Not my area of expertise longy, but I believe you can even download programmes that crack passwords. And yes, some passwords are kept on the computer if you want to know anything about passwords and encryption DONT watch american TV where cops 'crack' encryption in 30 secs or 'really hard stuff' in 5 minutes.  properly randomised passwords are IMPOSSIBLE to predict and commonly used encryption software available on the net is unbreakable to anyone without a super-computer and anything from days to months to run it on.  We aren't talking an MS WORD password which is hackable with relative easy.  but proper PGP or other encryption is virtual unbreakable. do you think most people use randomised passwords?  Many businesses may have the stuff you are referring to, and even they get hacked.  didn't some 15yr kid hack $10 million from a bank in the US a few years ago? they only reason they caught him was because he tried to withdraw it in cash .... most peoples passwords are simple and  have some sort of sequence or logic so as to make them easy to remember. There are many hacker programmes that can run through 100 million possibles  in mere minutes ... sure, they won't get into all, but I'll bet they get into most personal PC's. the password to your PC is worthless.  if hides nothing whatsoever.  All it does is permit access to the Windows OS.  your data is unencrypted and accessible by any computer you plug the drive into.  If you want security then get real security or don't bother.  Proper encryption products are virtually unbreakable. and unlike the movies and TV shows, they don't allow some external program to enter attempt after attempt until you get it right.  Most will actually lock the data after a certain number of tries assuming that the person attempting to get in is unauthorised. but we weren't talking about proper encryption products, we are talking about how much easier it is to hack into a pc that runs on wireless, as compared to one fixed to a landline.  SO you agree than that putting people onto wireless is a hackers wet dream? please don't tell me that you think wireless is inherently more likely to be hacked that fibre.  the fibre will connect to a modem with ... yes a wireless connection. I guess that depends on the modem .... I have no wireless at my place.

modern ones all have them and automatically switched on.

I set up two wireless accounts: one is POLICE_SURVEILLANCE_UNIT and ASIO

Never had those two hacked!

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21^st, 2013 at 5:31pm:

set up two wireless accounts: one is POLICE_SURVEILLANCE_UNIT and ASIONever had those two hacked

I'm happy for you, how is that relevant?

Winston Smith wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 7:45pm:

... I predict that within 5 years time scientists will be warning us of a link between living our lives in a world bathed in radiation and a global cancer epidemic. ...

This might interest you. http://www.sammilham.com/
Quote:

... the story of Dr. Samuel Milham, the scientist who first alerted the world about the frightening link between occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic pollution, and human disease.

John Smith wrote on Aug 21^st, 2013 at 6:12pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21st, 2013 at 5:31pm: set up two wireless accounts: one is POLICE_SURVEILLANCE_UNIT and ASIONever had those two hacked I'm happy for you, how is that relevant?

longweekend58 has a history of irrelevance. He's also renowned for fabrication. I reckon it's a form of trolling. He's just gratifying himself and wasting time.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21^st, 2013 at 5:08pm:

... please don't tell me that you think wireless is inherently more likely to be hacked that fibre.  the fibre will connect to a modem with ... yes a wireless connection.

Actually, the only need for a modem is when connecting a digital network to an analogue network. The term "modem" is a contraction of "modulator/demodulator"; it modulates an analogue signal for transmission on the analogue network and demodulates it for the digital network.

The NBN being a digital network and a computer being a digital device, the interface is what's technically termed a Network Termination Unit (NTU). The ones provided free with an NBN connection have analogue ports, into which an existing analogue 'phone can be plugged, and digital ports for digital equipment. Installing a WiFi router - or not - is up to the householder. There's no modem involved (though I don't doubt that some users will mistakenly use that term when referring to the NTU).
http://www.nbnco.com.au/content/dam/nbnco/images/outlet-box-200x277.png

The tech's tell me that fibre is much harder to tap than copper.

# wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2013 at 4:21pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21st, 2013 at 5:08pm: ... please don't tell me that you think wireless is inherently more likely to be hacked that fibre.  the fibre will connect to a modem with ... yes a wireless connection. Actually, the only need for a modem is when connecting a digital network to an analogue network. The term "modem" is a contraction of "modulator/demodulator"; it modulates an analogue signal for transmission on the analogue network and demodulates it for the digital network. The NBN being a digital network and a computer being a digital device, the interface is what's technically termed a Network Termination Unit (NTU). The ones provided free with an NBN connection have analogue ports, into which an existing analogue 'phone can be plugged, and digital ports for digital equipment. Installing a WiFi router - or not - is up to the householder. There's no modem involved (though I don't doubt that some users will mistakenly use that term when referring to the NTU). http://www.nbnco.com.au/content/dam/nbnco/images/outlet-box-200x277.png The tech's tell me that fibre is much harder to tap than copper.

blah blah blah.  the term modem is used now to cover NTUs as well.  it may be incorrect but common usage trumps technical accuracy.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2013 at 5:01pm:

# wrote on Aug 22nd, 2013 at 4:21pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21st, 2013 at 5:08pm: ... please don't tell me that you think wireless is inherently more likely to be hacked that fibre.  the fibre will connect to a modem with ... yes a wireless connection. Actually, the only need for a modem is when connecting a digital network to an analogue network. The term "modem" is a contraction of "modulator/demodulator"; it modulates an analogue signal for transmission on the analogue network and demodulates it for the digital network. The NBN being a digital network and a computer being a digital device, the interface is what's technically termed a Network Termination Unit (NTU). The ones provided free with an NBN connection have analogue ports, into which an existing analogue 'phone can be plugged, and digital ports for digital equipment. Installing a WiFi router - or not - is up to the householder. There's no modem involved (though I don't doubt that some users will mistakenly use that term when referring to the NTU). http://www.nbnco.com.au/content/dam/nbnco/images/outlet-box-200x277.png The tech's tell me that fibre is much harder to tap than copper. blah blah blah.  the term modem is used now to cover NTUs as well.  it may be incorrect but common usage trumps technical accuracy.

So you tacitly acknowledge that wireless isn't necessarily involved. Glad we've sorted that out.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2013 at 5:01pm:

# wrote on Aug 22nd, 2013 at 4:21pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21st, 2013 at 5:08pm: ... please don't tell me that you think wireless is inherently more likely to be hacked that fibre.  the fibre will connect to a modem with ... yes a wireless connection. Actually, the only need for a modem is when connecting a digital network to an analogue network. The term "modem" is a contraction of "modulator/demodulator"; it modulates an analogue signal for transmission on the analogue network and demodulates it for the digital network. The NBN being a digital network and a computer being a digital device, the interface is what's technically termed a Network Termination Unit (NTU). The ones provided free with an NBN connection have analogue ports, into which an existing analogue 'phone can be plugged, and digital ports for digital equipment. Installing a WiFi router - or not - is up to the householder. There's no modem involved (though I don't doubt that some users will mistakenly use that term when referring to the NTU). http://www.nbnco.com.au/content/dam/nbnco/images/outlet-box-200x277.png The tech's tell me that fibre is much harder to tap than copper. blah blah blah.  the term modem is used now to cover NTUs as well.  it may be incorrect but common usage trumps technical accuracy.

you always have been a little blazze with the facts.

John Smith wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2013 at 9:48pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2013 at 5:01pm: ... blah blah blah.  ... you always have been a little blazze with the facts.

Not at all. On the evidence, longweekend58 derives great pleasure from making up his own.