howdy loons!

contrary to the drivel espoused by the anti-FTTN crown on here I now have FTTN and have had it for a month. The result? 90Mbs downloads and 40Mbs uploads. I downloaded a 330MB file in under 40 seconds and uploaded a 1Gb file in under 5 minutes.

And it has never dropped out nor suffered slowdowns.

So much for all the doom-and-gloom predictions!

Welcome back Longy -

I missed you.

I have Optus cable & I get 30 Mbps any time of the night or day.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 21^st, 2016 at 6:37pm:

I have Optus cable & I get 30 Mbps any time of the night or day.

I get 90Mbs any time and it is very hard to ever get a download to use all that bandwidth. When a 100Mb app on the phone takes mere seconds, why all the angst?

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21^st, 2016 at 6:46pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 21st, 2016 at 6:37pm: I have Optus cable & I get 30 Mbps any time of the night or day. I get 90Mbs any time and it is very hard to ever get a download to use all that bandwidth. When a 100Mb app on the phone takes mere seconds, why all the angst?

How much does FTTN cost you per month?

Bobby. wrote on Jul 21^st, 2016 at 6:59pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21st, 2016 at 6:46pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 21st, 2016 at 6:37pm: I have Optus cable & I get 30 Mbps any time of the night or day. I get 90Mbs any time and it is very hard to ever get a download to use all that bandwidth. When a 100Mb app on the phone takes mere seconds, why all the angst? How much does FTTN cost you per month?

$99 including phone calls. Given I was paying $149/mth for ADSL and phone, it is more than simply a bargain, it is amazingly good.

All brought to you over the supposedly rusting copper and in nodes that supposedly overheat all the time. Except of course, none of those problems are real.


That includes 1.2TB of data.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21^st, 2016 at 7:08pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 21st, 2016 at 6:59pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21st, 2016 at 6:46pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 21st, 2016 at 6:37pm: I have Optus cable & I get 30 Mbps any time of the night or day. I get 90Mbs any time and it is very hard to ever get a download to use all that bandwidth. When a 100Mb app on the phone takes mere seconds, why all the angst? How much does FTTN cost you per month? $99 including phone calls. Given I was paying $149/mth for ADSL and phone, it is more than simply a bargain, it is amazingly good. All brought to you over the supposedly rusting copper and in nodes that supposedly overheat all the time. Except of course, none of those problems are real. That includes 1.2TB of data.

well you'll be able to sell more pirate movies down the market as I can't see you using it for anything constructive.

Sir lastnail wrote on Jul 21^st, 2016 at 7:24pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21st, 2016 at 7:08pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 21st, 2016 at 6:59pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21st, 2016 at 6:46pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 21st, 2016 at 6:37pm: I have Optus cable & I get 30 Mbps any time of the night or day. I get 90Mbs any time and it is very hard to ever get a download to use all that bandwidth. When a 100Mb app on the phone takes mere seconds, why all the angst? How much does FTTN cost you per month? $99 including phone calls. Given I was paying $149/mth for ADSL and phone, it is more than simply a bargain, it is amazingly good. All brought to you over the supposedly rusting copper and in nodes that supposedly overheat all the time. Except of course, none of those problems are real. That includes 1.2TB of data. well you'll be able to sell more pirate movies down the market as I can't see you using it for anything constructive.

poor toenail... upset that the FTTN is working so well and being put in place much faster than FTTH?

Ironically, your point is exactly the same one as I made long ago. I have had preceisely ONE moment when uploading a 1Gb file for work that made the FTTN valuable. The rest of the time the lightning-fast downloads are nice but hardly worth the $50B we are paying for it.

only longie would be surprised that it works great whilst new and before every other tom, dick and harry jumps on board.

My Samsung fridge worked great when new too .... on the 13th month, it died in the arse.

Can you see the cabinet from your house?

... wrote on Jul 21^st, 2016 at 7:35pm:

Can you see the cabinet from your house?

yep. now comes your comment about VDSL and distance.   There are three nodes in my street.

John Smith wrote on Jul 21^st, 2016 at 7:34pm:

only longie would be surprised that it works great whilst new and before every other tom, dick and harry jumps on board. My Samsung fridge worked great when new too .... on the 13th month, it died in the arse.

nice comparison... a single-user fridge and a global internet network.

I see a few more brain cells have died:)

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21^st, 2016 at 7:39pm:

... wrote on Jul 21st, 2016 at 7:35pm: Can you see the cabinet from your house? yep. now comes your comment about VDSL and distance.   There are three nodes in my street.

Wouldn't it be great if everyone were so lucky?

Ah, my favourite nut has returned!  How've you been, Maria? 

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21^st, 2016 at 7:40pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 21st, 2016 at 7:34pm: only longie would be surprised that it works great whilst new and before every other tom, dick and harry jumps on board. My Samsung fridge worked great when new too .... on the 13th month, it died in the arse. nice comparison... a single-user fridge and a global internet network. I see a few more brain cells have died:)

trust you to miss the point i was making completely .... you've lost more than a few more brain cells.

Welcome back Longy!!!

Without optic fibre the NBN could not improve the current network....It is the optic fibre that allows for increased speed....Just sayin!!!

:-? :-? :-?

John Smith wrote on Jul 21^st, 2016 at 7:43pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21st, 2016 at 7:40pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 21st, 2016 at 7:34pm: only longie would be surprised that it works great whilst new and before every other tom, dick and harry jumps on board. My Samsung fridge worked great when new too .... on the 13th month, it died in the arse. nice comparison... a single-user fridge and a global internet network. I see a few more brain cells have died:) trust you to miss the point i was making completely .... you've lost more than a few more brain cells.

comprehension-challenged I see.  Some thing never change.

The initial problems with undersupply of internet services by ISPs seems to be resolved by - guess what - buying more internet services. This a problem completely independent of the network and is exactly the same in FTTH areas. and so far...  FTTN is sweet, fast and mine. I dont need it of course even though i run a business from home. But the NBN was never about a needs-based or productivity issue. It was about faster porn and gaming. Alas, I do neither.

and pointedly, this site is no faster because... a fast connection is no guarantee of fast service.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21^st, 2016 at 7:49pm:

comprehension-challenged I see.  Some thing never change.

I know ... you thought the point of my example was the fridge  ... how retard can you get


longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21^st, 2016 at 7:49pm:

The initial problems with undersupply of internet services by ISPs seems to be resolved by - guess what - buying more internet services. This a problem completely independent of the network and is exactly the same in FTTH areas. and so far...  FTTN is sweet, fast and mine. I dont need it of course even though i run a business from home. But the NBN was never about a needs-based or productivity issue. It was about faster porn and gaming. Alas, I do neither.

still you miss the point  :D :D

John Smith wrote on Jul 21^st, 2016 at 7:51pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21st, 2016 at 7:49pm: comprehension-challenged I see.  Some thing never change. I know ... you thought the point of my example was the fridge  ... how retard can you get longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21st, 2016 at 7:49pm: The initial problems with undersupply of internet services by ISPs seems to be resolved by - guess what - buying more internet services. This a problem completely independent of the network and is exactly the same in FTTH areas. and so far...  FTTN is sweet, fast and mine. I dont need it of course even though i run a business from home. But the NBN was never about a needs-based or productivity issue. It was about faster porn and gaming. Alas, I do neither. still you miss the point  :D :D

If you want to use stupid analogies then I refer you to my 32year old chest freezer which has never skipped a beat in all that time. Your point? (should you choose to actually make a coherent one?)

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21^st, 2016 at 7:58pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 21st, 2016 at 7:51pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21st, 2016 at 7:49pm: comprehension-challenged I see.  Some thing never change. I know ... you thought the point of my example was the fridge  ... how retard can you get longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21st, 2016 at 7:49pm: The initial problems with undersupply of internet services by ISPs seems to be resolved by - guess what - buying more internet services. This a problem completely independent of the network and is exactly the same in FTTH areas. and so far...  FTTN is sweet, fast and mine. I dont need it of course even though i run a business from home. But the NBN was never about a needs-based or productivity issue. It was about faster porn and gaming. Alas, I do neither. still you miss the point  :D :D If you want to use stupid analogies then I refer you to my 32year old chest freezer which has never skipped a beat in all that time. Your point? (should you choose to actually make a coherent one?)

My point was that of course it works great when new ... 

but the NBN isn't supposed to be about here and now, it's supposed to service us for another 100 years. Instead we get this crap that will need to be replaced in another 10 yrs, if it even lasts that long.

Hey longie, do you still wear high heels?

I was told today that I am NBN ready even though the rollout website says it is not available.

Now I have to choose a plan.

I have NBN satellite and download times are not measured in seconds or minutes, but days

John Smith wrote on Jul 21^st, 2016 at 8:06pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21st, 2016 at 7:58pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 21st, 2016 at 7:51pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21st, 2016 at 7:49pm: comprehension-challenged I see.  Some thing never change. I know ... you thought the point of my example was the fridge  ... how retard can you get longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21st, 2016 at 7:49pm: The initial problems with undersupply of internet services by ISPs seems to be resolved by - guess what - buying more internet services. This a problem completely independent of the network and is exactly the same in FTTH areas. and so far...  FTTN is sweet, fast and mine. I dont need it of course even though i run a business from home. But the NBN was never about a needs-based or productivity issue. It was about faster porn and gaming. Alas, I do neither. still you miss the point  :D :D If you want to use stupid analogies then I refer you to my 32year old chest freezer which has never skipped a beat in all that time. Your point? (should you choose to actually make a coherent one?) My point was that of course it works great when new ...  but the NBN isn't supposed to be about here and now, it's supposed to service us for another 100 years. Instead we get this crap that will need to be replaced in another 10 yrs, if it even lasts that long.

I love it when a boofhead like you thinks a current technology will not be surpassed for 100 years. 100 years ago, passenger air travel did not exist. nor TV nor anything electronic.

fibre wil be bypassed long before 100 years goes by. neutrino-based data transfer will destroy ANY data transmission technology.

Longie returns... we are truly blessed....

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21^st, 2016 at 11:12pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 21st, 2016 at 8:06pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21st, 2016 at 7:58pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 21st, 2016 at 7:51pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21st, 2016 at 7:49pm: comprehension-challenged I see.  Some thing never change. I know ... you thought the point of my example was the fridge  ... how retard can you get longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21st, 2016 at 7:49pm: The initial problems with undersupply of internet services by ISPs seems to be resolved by - guess what - buying more internet services. This a problem completely independent of the network and is exactly the same in FTTH areas. and so far...  FTTN is sweet, fast and mine. I dont need it of course even though i run a business from home. But the NBN was never about a needs-based or productivity issue. It was about faster porn and gaming. Alas, I do neither. still you miss the point  :D :D If you want to use stupid analogies then I refer you to my 32year old chest freezer which has never skipped a beat in all that time. Your point? (should you choose to actually make a coherent one?) My point was that of course it works great when new ...  but the NBN isn't supposed to be about here and now, it's supposed to service us for another 100 years. Instead we get this crap that will need to be replaced in another 10 yrs, if it even lasts that long. I love it when a boofhead like you thinks a current technology will not be surpassed for 100 years. 100 years ago, passenger air travel did not exist. nor TV nor anything electronic. fibre wil be bypassed long before 100 years goes by. neutrino-based data transfer will destroy ANY data transmission technology.

Why bother building a network that is inferior when the best technology available is optic fibre....Perhaps we should wait for this new technology you speak of???

:-? :-? :-?

Bobby. wrote on Jul 21^st, 2016 at 6:37pm:

I have Optus cable & I get 30 Mbps any time of the night or day.

yes, private companies were laying cable up and down the country before rudd said 'the tax payer will foot the bill'

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2016 at 12:17am:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 21st, 2016 at 6:37pm: I have Optus cable & I get 30 Mbps any time of the night or day. yes, private companies were laying cable up and down the country before rudd said 'the tax payer will foot the bill'

HFC not optic fibre!!!

::) ::) ::)

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21^st, 2016 at 6:33pm:

howdy loons! contrary to the drivel espoused by the anti-FTTN crown on here I now have FTTN and have had it for a month. The result? 90Mbs downloads and 40Mbs uploads. I downloaded a 330MB file in under 40 seconds and uploaded a 1Gb file in under 5 minutes. And it has never dropped out nor suffered slowdowns. So much for all the doom-and-gloom predictions!

;D How silly can you get longy?

The argument against FTTN is that your speed is entirely dependent on the bottleneck between the node and your house. This depends on the distance from the node as well as the condition of your copper wiring to the house. It just so happens that you seem to be lucky enough to have a good connection to the node - good for you. But for a lot of people this is going to be a huge issue, and a system that is so reliant on an outdated copper-connection, is not a system you can possibly guarantee across the board fast internet. And thats the whole point of a "national broadband network" - that it connects everyone (that is the ~95% of people who would have been connected) at guaranteed high speeds - reliably fast.

Longy and his usual unverifiable, unsubstantiated crap.

I, too, have had the NBN for about a month and see almost NO difference.

There's a node about 500m up the road, but has NO fibre connected to it.

Buffering is about the same and connection to third party links, even between pages here on Ozpol, is way slower....

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21^st, 2016 at 11:12pm:

I love it when a boofhead like you thinks a current technology will not be surpassed for 100 years. 100 years ago, passenger air travel did not exist. nor TV nor anything electronic. fibre wil be bypassed long before 100 years goes by. neutrino-based data transfer will destroy ANY data transmission technology

neutrino?   ;D ;D ;D ;D

why don't we just wait for the technology to teleport

... wrote on Jul 21^st, 2016 at 7:42pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21st, 2016 at 7:39pm: ... wrote on Jul 21st, 2016 at 7:35pm: Can you see the cabinet from your house? yep. now comes your comment about VDSL and distance.   There are three nodes in my street. Wouldn't it be great if everyone were so lucky?

Ultimately, everyone will be. I am not the first FTTN installation int he country after all.

John Smith wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2016 at 8:05am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21st, 2016 at 11:12pm: I love it when a boofhead like you thinks a current technology will not be surpassed for 100 years. 100 years ago, passenger air travel did not exist. nor TV nor anything electronic. fibre wil be bypassed long before 100 years goes by. neutrino-based data transfer will destroy ANY data transmission technology neutrino?   ;D ;D ;D ;D why don't we just wait for the technology to teleport

FTTN is here now and coming to a hovel near you.

Lucky you for living <400 m from a node, with no other subscribers (yet).  But... you see, 100/40 is all you are ever going to get. 

tickleandrose wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2016 at 2:44pm:

Lucky you for living <400 m from a node, with no other subscribers (yet).  But... you see, 100/40 is all you are ever going to get.

I rounded mine up, just for longy....

24/5......

That's with a node approx. 500m away.
No fibre to the node.
And 43 year old copper....

Tony Abbott 2013 election promise...."All Australians would have 25 Mbps or higher by the end of 2016"!!!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-01/manning-what-went-wrong-with-the-nbn/7210408

:-? :-? :-?

tickleandrose wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2016 at 2:44pm:

Lucky you for living <400 m from a node, with no other subscribers (yet).  But... you see, 100/40 is all you are ever going to get.

no other subscribers? you know this because....?  and do you think fibre is able to avoid over-subscription because it is some kind of magic technology that can deliver more internet services at the end of the line than is put in at the beginning?

100/40 is already way more than I need. But if I ever need more, I can simply run fibre to the node from my house. Of course I will ahve to actually PAY for it - a concept that losers like you cant cope with.

Lobo wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2016 at 4:55pm:

tickleandrose wrote on Jul 22nd, 2016 at 2:44pm: Lucky you for living <400 m from a node, with no other subscribers (yet).  But... you see, 100/40 is all you are ever going to get.  I rounded mine up, just for longy.... 24/5...... That's with a node approx. 500m away. No fibre to the node. And 43 year old copper....

poor diddums... when you get FTTN you too can get 100/40

philperth2010 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2016 at 5:34pm:

Tony Abbott 2013 election promise...."All Australians would have 25 Mbps or higher by the end of 2016"!!! http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-01/manning-what-went-wrong-with-the-nbn/7210408 :-? :-? :-?

and the original promise of the FTTH NBN was....??  thats right./ utterly unachievable and utterly failed. It is a massive task that no one has been able to get on schedule.

Turnbull NBN a absolute winner!!!!

Nice to see Longy all excited to finally have what half the third world has had for a decade. There is another topic talking about 4 year terms and future planning. Here we have a claim that we should be pleased to have spent billions to catch up to the bottom of the pack.

We are finally only 15 years behind with our internet technology, That is correct we lag the world by around 15 years and our country is not going to be competitive in the technical market place .

Dnarever wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2016 at 9:16am:

Turnbull NBN a absolute winner!!!! Nice to see Longy all excited to finally have what half the third world has had for a decade. There is another topic talking about 4 year terms and future planning. Here we have a claim that we should be pleased to have spent billions to catch up to the bottom of the pack. We are finally only 15 years behind with our internet technology, That is correct we lag the world by around 15 years and our country is not going to be competitive in the technical market place .

please point me to the list of THIRD WORLD countries that had 100/40 internet in 2006. 

And the basic failure of your argument is the notion that economic output is dependent on RESIDENTIAL internet.  How much economic activity is generated int he family home?  PRECIOUS LITTLE.  And if you think medium to large business has been operating on ADSL for the past ten years then you are delusional. They have had fibre connections for a very long time. They paid for them.

And now actually having superfast internet it is 'fun', but getting my android apps in 5 seconds instead of 2 minutes means what exactly? My emails are no faster - since they were already fast. Sites like this are still relatively slow. piratebay is much faster and presumably, porn is faster too. And if I used netflix that would probably be faster as well.  so what?

The irony is that FTTN is delivering virtually the exact same speed that FTTH was and yet you criticse the former and laud the latter.

your political persuasions are overwhelming your ability to think.

philperth2010 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2016 at 5:34pm:

Tony Abbott 2013 election promise...."All Australians would have 25 Mbps or higher by the end of 2016"!!! http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-01/manning-what-went-wrong-with-the-nbn/7210408 :-? :-? :-?

That promise was never possible, virtually nobody has a 25 M connection on the NBN.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2016 at 9:24am:

philperth2010 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2016 at 5:34pm: Tony Abbott 2013 election promise...."All Australians would have 25 Mbps or higher by the end of 2016"!!! http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-01/manning-what-went-wrong-with-the-nbn/7210408 :-? :-? :-? That promise was never possible, virtually nobody has a 25 M connection on the NBN.

nobody??  you mean when I was offered 12/25/50/100 internet that was all a lie?  the measured 90Mbps connection i currently have is all a lie and imaginary?

The fact is that a majority choose 12 because most people dont need more especially since in a dual income house they are only home a few hours a day in which to use it.

try again. Your hysteria got in the say of truth.  again.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2016 at 9:22am:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 9:16am: Turnbull NBN a absolute winner!!!! Nice to see Longy all excited to finally have what half the third world has had for a decade. There is another topic talking about 4 year terms and future planning. Here we have a claim that we should be pleased to have spent billions to catch up to the bottom of the pack. We are finally only 15 years behind with our internet technology, That is correct we lag the world by around 15 years and our country is not going to be competitive in the technical market place . please point me to the list of THIRD WORLD countries that had 100/40 internet in 2006.  And the basic failure of your argument is the notion that economic output is dependent on RESIDENTIAL internet.  How much economic activity is generated int he family home?  PRECIOUS LITTLE.  And if you think medium to large business has been operating on ADSL for the past ten years then you are delusional. They have had fibre connections for a very long time. They paid for them. And now actually having superfast internet it is 'fun', but getting my android apps in 5 seconds instead of 2 minutes means what exactly? My emails are no faster - since they were already fast. Sites like this are still relatively slow. piratebay is much faster and presumably, porn is faster too. And if I used netflix that would probably be faster as well.  so what? The irony is that FTTN is delivering virtually the exact same speed that FTTH was and yet you criticse the former and laud the latter. your political persuasions are overwhelming your ability to think.

10% of what you say is correct in a narrow minded sort of short sighted way.

I know a bit about fibre as do you so I know you business comments are founded but you fail to consider future business models. For example I currently support 200 plus employees working from home. There business related home internet speed requirements are genuine. This may well be the way of the future for many people and that is just one example.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2016 at 9:31am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 9:22am: Dnarever wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 9:16am: Turnbull NBN a absolute winner!!!! Nice to see Longy all excited to finally have what half the third world has had for a decade. There is another topic talking about 4 year terms and future planning. Here we have a claim that we should be pleased to have spent billions to catch up to the bottom of the pack. We are finally only 15 years behind with our internet technology, That is correct we lag the world by around 15 years and our country is not going to be competitive in the technical market place . please point me to the list of THIRD WORLD countries that had 100/40 internet in 2006.  And the basic failure of your argument is the notion that economic output is dependent on RESIDENTIAL internet.  How much economic activity is generated int he family home?  PRECIOUS LITTLE.  And if you think medium to large business has been operating on ADSL for the past ten years then you are delusional. They have had fibre connections for a very long time. They paid for them. And now actually having superfast internet it is 'fun', but getting my android apps in 5 seconds instead of 2 minutes means what exactly? My emails are no faster - since they were already fast. Sites like this are still relatively slow. piratebay is much faster and presumably, porn is faster too. And if I used netflix that would probably be faster as well.  so what? The irony is that FTTN is delivering virtually the exact same speed that FTTH was and yet you criticse the former and laud the latter. your political persuasions are overwhelming your ability to think. 10% of what you say is correct in a narrow minded sort of short sighted way. I know a bit about fibre as do you so I know you business comments are founded but you fail to consider future business models. For example I currently support 200 plus employees working from home. There business related home internet speed requirements are genuine. This may well be the way of the future for many people and that is just one example.

and if you are working from home, why should the government provide the infrastructure to support that? As someone who has worked from home for most of my career, it is pretty easy to manage things. Imagine what it was like before internet? Yep, we all did it quite fine.

if you 200 employees want to work from home then either they or their employer is responsible for the infrastructure - just as they would be in the office. If the inernet is not fast enough then either pay to get it faster or... WORK IN THE OFFICE.

and why is there this pretence that working from home is an economic boom compared to working the the office?

And there is the other IT phenomenon that 'work increases to fill the current capacity'. Hard drives increase by an order magnitude and suddenly software sizes increase by... an order of magnitude.  when I had dial-up internet, websites still loaded and printer drivers were 2Mb tops. Now, they can be 200-300Mb.

Tell me why FTTN wont serve your stay-at-home workers while FTTH would. the increase in speed id negligible to non-existent.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2016 at 9:30am:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 9:24am: philperth2010 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2016 at 5:34pm: Tony Abbott 2013 election promise...."All Australians would have 25 Mbps or higher by the end of 2016"!!! http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-01/manning-what-went-wrong-with-the-nbn/7210408 :-? :-? :-? That promise was never possible, virtually nobody has a 25 M connection on the NBN. nobody??  you mean when I was offered 12/25/50/100 internet that was all a lie?  the measured 90Mbps connection i currently have is all a lie and imaginary? The fact is that a majority choose 12 because most people dont need more especially since in a dual income house they are only home a few hours a day in which to use it. try again. Your hysteria got in the say of truth.  again.

I doubt that the majority choose 12, I would think they choose 25 which is the default, but like you paying for 100 and getting 90 meg people like me paying for 25 meg find that long term they are getting between 18 and 23. My lowest reading was about 2 meg down

Today it is going ok at 23/4.5

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2016 at 10:02am:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 9:31am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 9:22am: Dnarever wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 9:16am: Turnbull NBN a absolute winner!!!! Nice to see Longy all excited to finally have what half the third world has had for a decade. There is another topic talking about 4 year terms and future planning. Here we have a claim that we should be pleased to have spent billions to catch up to the bottom of the pack. We are finally only 15 years behind with our internet technology, That is correct we lag the world by around 15 years and our country is not going to be competitive in the technical market place . please point me to the list of THIRD WORLD countries that had 100/40 internet in 2006.  And the basic failure of your argument is the notion that economic output is dependent on RESIDENTIAL internet.  How much economic activity is generated int he family home?  PRECIOUS LITTLE.  And if you think medium to large business has been operating on ADSL for the past ten years then you are delusional. They have had fibre connections for a very long time. They paid for them. And now actually having superfast internet it is 'fun', but getting my android apps in 5 seconds instead of 2 minutes means what exactly? My emails are no faster - since they were already fast. Sites like this are still relatively slow. piratebay is much faster and presumably, porn is faster too. And if I used netflix that would probably be faster as well.  so what? The irony is that FTTN is delivering virtually the exact same speed that FTTH was and yet you criticse the former and laud the latter. your political persuasions are overwhelming your ability to think. 10% of what you say is correct in a narrow minded sort of short sighted way. I know a bit about fibre as do you so I know you business comments are founded but you fail to consider future business models. For example I currently support 200 plus employees working from home. There business related home internet speed requirements are genuine. This may well be the way of the future for many people and that is just one example. and if you are working from home, why should the government provide the infrastructure to support that? As someone who has worked from home for most of my career, it is pretty easy to manage things. Imagine what it was like before internet? Yep, we all did it quite fine. if you 200 employees want to work from home then either they or their employer is responsible for the infrastructure - just as they would be in the office. If the inernet is not fast enough then either pay to get it faster or... WORK IN THE OFFICE. and why is there this pretence that working from home is an economic boom compared to working the the office? And there is the other IT phenomenon that 'work increases to fill the current capacity'. Hard drives increase by an order magnitude and suddenly software sizes increase by... an order of magnitude.  when I had dial-up internet, websites still loaded and printer drivers were 2Mb tops. Now, they can be 200-300Mb. Tell me why FTTN wont serve your stay-at-home workers while FTTH would. the increase in speed id negligible to non-existent.

Yes it is adequate for today - still short sighted I see.

and if you are working from home, why should the government provide the infrastructure to support that?


Because the went to elections promising that they would ?

Besides telecommunications providers have always provided the necessary infrastructure to the home in support of the service they provide.

These clowns are rolling out a technology that was past its use by date around 2005 and they are in places using infrastructure over head cables which was recognised as being defunct in about 1948 to support it. Most of our competitors around the world have been implementing far superior technology which is the reason that we dropped from about 30th in the world to 60th for internet speed under the Liberal government.

And there is the other IT phenomenon that 'work increases to fill the current capacity'. Hard drives increase by an order magnitude and suddenly software sizes increase by... an order of magnitude

You shoot yourself in the foot here when you understand what this means for Australia. Yes we will find a use for the additional capacity - but the many countries that have a higher speed will find a greater advantage, they will be able to do the things that we can't.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2016 at 10:31am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 9:30am: Dnarever wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 9:24am: philperth2010 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2016 at 5:34pm: Tony Abbott 2013 election promise...."All Australians would have 25 Mbps or higher by the end of 2016"!!! http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-01/manning-what-went-wrong-with-the-nbn/7210408 :-? :-? :-? That promise was never possible, virtually nobody has a 25 M connection on the NBN. nobody??  you mean when I was offered 12/25/50/100 internet that was all a lie?  the measured 90Mbps connection i currently have is all a lie and imaginary? The fact is that a majority choose 12 because most people dont need more especially since in a dual income house they are only home a few hours a day in which to use it. try again. Your hysteria got in the say of truth.  again. I doubt that the majority choose 12, I would think they choose 25 which is the default, but like you paying for 100 and getting 90 meg people like me paying for 25 meg find that long term they are getting between 18 and 23. My lowest reading was about 2 meg down Today it is going ok at 23/4.5

you seem to think that fiber always proved 100% of its rated capacity. you too would be disappointed.

and like it or not, 12Mbps IS the most popular choice because it is the cheapest and a lot of people dont want to paya premium when all they do is facebook and a bit of online shopping.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2016 at 11:02am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 10:02am: Dnarever wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 9:31am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 9:22am: Dnarever wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 9:16am: Turnbull NBN a absolute winner!!!! Nice to see Longy all excited to finally have what half the third world has had for a decade. There is another topic talking about 4 year terms and future planning. Here we have a claim that we should be pleased to have spent billions to catch up to the bottom of the pack. We are finally only 15 years behind with our internet technology, That is correct we lag the world by around 15 years and our country is not going to be competitive in the technical market place . please point me to the list of THIRD WORLD countries that had 100/40 internet in 2006.  And the basic failure of your argument is the notion that economic output is dependent on RESIDENTIAL internet.  How much economic activity is generated int he family home?  PRECIOUS LITTLE.  And if you think medium to large business has been operating on ADSL for the past ten years then you are delusional. They have had fibre connections for a very long time. They paid for them. And now actually having superfast internet it is 'fun', but getting my android apps in 5 seconds instead of 2 minutes means what exactly? My emails are no faster - since they were already fast. Sites like this are still relatively slow. piratebay is much faster and presumably, porn is faster too. And if I used netflix that would probably be faster as well.  so what? The irony is that FTTN is delivering virtually the exact same speed that FTTH was and yet you criticse the former and laud the latter. your political persuasions are overwhelming your ability to think. 10% of what you say is correct in a narrow minded sort of short sighted way. I know a bit about fibre as do you so I know you business comments are founded but you fail to consider future business models. For example I currently support 200 plus employees working from home. There business related home internet speed requirements are genuine. This may well be the way of the future for many people and that is just one example. and if you are working from home, why should the government provide the infrastructure to support that? As someone who has worked from home for most of my career, it is pretty easy to manage things. Imagine what it was like before internet? Yep, we all did it quite fine. if you 200 employees want to work from home then either they or their employer is responsible for the infrastructure - just as they would be in the office. If the inernet is not fast enough then either pay to get it faster or... WORK IN THE OFFICE. and why is there this pretence that working from home is an economic boom compared to working the the office? And there is the other IT phenomenon that 'work increases to fill the current capacity'. Hard drives increase by an order magnitude and suddenly software sizes increase by... an order of magnitude.  when I had dial-up internet, websites still loaded and printer drivers were 2Mb tops. Now, they can be 200-300Mb. Tell me why FTTN wont serve your stay-at-home workers while FTTH would. the increase in speed id negligible to non-existent. Yes it is adequate for today - still short sighted I see. and if you are working from home, why should the government provide the infrastructure to support that? Because the went to elections promising that they would ? Besides telecommunications providers have always provided the necessary infrastructure to the home in support of the service they provide. These clowns are rolling out a technology that was past its use by date around 2005 and they are in places using infrastructure over head cables which was recognised as being defunct in about 1948 to support it. Most of our competitors around the world have been implementing far superior technology which is the reason that we dropped from about 30th in the world to 60th for internet speed under the Liberal government. And there is the other IT phenomenon that 'work increases to fill the current capacity'. Hard drives increase by an order magnitude and suddenly software sizes increase by... an order of magnitude You shoot yourself in the foot here when you understand what this means for Australia. Yes we will fins a use for the additional capacity - but the many countries that have a higher speed will find a greater advantage, they will be able to do the things that we can't.

I dont recall telecom providers offering to wire up my house and provide a phone for free. Just like power, gas, water and sewerage services, the suppliers run it past your house and YOU pay to be connected to it plus all the wiring or plumbing etc. And in places like gas where it might not even go pat your house, you get to pay for the distance from the main to your house as well.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2016 at 11:02am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 10:02am: Dnarever wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 9:31am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 9:22am: Dnarever wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 9:16am: Turnbull NBN a absolute winner!!!! Nice to see Longy all excited to finally have what half the third world has had for a decade. There is another topic talking about 4 year terms and future planning. Here we have a claim that we should be pleased to have spent billions to catch up to the bottom of the pack. We are finally only 15 years behind with our internet technology, That is correct we lag the world by around 15 years and our country is not going to be competitive in the technical market place . please point me to the list of THIRD WORLD countries that had 100/40 internet in 2006.  And the basic failure of your argument is the notion that economic output is dependent on RESIDENTIAL internet.  How much economic activity is generated int he family home?  PRECIOUS LITTLE.  And if you think medium to large business has been operating on ADSL for the past ten years then you are delusional. They have had fibre connections for a very long time. They paid for them. And now actually having superfast internet it is 'fun', but getting my android apps in 5 seconds instead of 2 minutes means what exactly? My emails are no faster - since they were already fast. Sites like this are still relatively slow. piratebay is much faster and presumably, porn is faster too. And if I used netflix that would probably be faster as well.  so what? The irony is that FTTN is delivering virtually the exact same speed that FTTH was and yet you criticse the former and laud the latter. your political persuasions are overwhelming your ability to think. 10% of what you say is correct in a narrow minded sort of short sighted way. I know a bit about fibre as do you so I know you business comments are founded but you fail to consider future business models. For example I currently support 200 plus employees working from home. There business related home internet speed requirements are genuine. This may well be the way of the future for many people and that is just one example. and if you are working from home, why should the government provide the infrastructure to support that? As someone who has worked from home for most of my career, it is pretty easy to manage things. Imagine what it was like before internet? Yep, we all did it quite fine. if you 200 employees want to work from home then either they or their employer is responsible for the infrastructure - just as they would be in the office. If the inernet is not fast enough then either pay to get it faster or... WORK IN THE OFFICE. and why is there this pretence that working from home is an economic boom compared to working the the office? And there is the other IT phenomenon that 'work increases to fill the current capacity'. Hard drives increase by an order magnitude and suddenly software sizes increase by... an order of magnitude.  when I had dial-up internet, websites still loaded and printer drivers were 2Mb tops. Now, they can be 200-300Mb. Tell me why FTTN wont serve your stay-at-home workers while FTTH would. the increase in speed id negligible to non-existent. Yes it is adequate for today - still short sighted I see. and if you are working from home, why should the government provide the infrastructure to support that? Because the went to elections promising that they would ? Besides telecommunications providers have always provided the necessary infrastructure to the home in support of the service they provide. These clowns are rolling out a technology that was past its use by date around 2005 and they are in places using infrastructure over head cables which was recognised as being defunct in about 1948 to support it. Most of our competitors around the world have been implementing far superior technology which is the reason that we dropped from about 30th in the world to 60th for internet speed under the Liberal government. And there is the other IT phenomenon that 'work increases to fill the current capacity'. Hard drives increase by an order magnitude and suddenly software sizes increase by... an order of magnitude You shoot yourself in the foot here when you understand what this means for Australia. Yes we will fins a use for the additional capacity - but the many countries that have a higher speed will find a greater advantage, they will be able to do the things that we can't.

and do WHAT exactly?  this has been the major debating point all along. The current NBN will have the ability for EVERYONE to have 100/40 internet. Now what cant you do with that which Fibre can since fiber is also 100/40?  please dont disgrace yourself with 'telehealth' or 'online schooling' - discredited concepts for cities and pretty useless for everyone else as well.

If the governmemt facilitates working from home, they save money on roads and congestion issues.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2016 at 11:15am:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 11:02am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 10:02am: Dnarever wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 9:31am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 9:22am: Dnarever wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 9:16am: Turnbull NBN a absolute winner!!!! Nice to see Longy all excited to finally have what half the third world has had for a decade. There is another topic talking about 4 year terms and future planning. Here we have a claim that we should be pleased to have spent billions to catch up to the bottom of the pack. We are finally only 15 years behind with our internet technology, That is correct we lag the world by around 15 years and our country is not going to be competitive in the technical market place . please point me to the list of THIRD WORLD countries that had 100/40 internet in 2006.  And the basic failure of your argument is the notion that economic output is dependent on RESIDENTIAL internet.  How much economic activity is generated int he family home?  PRECIOUS LITTLE.  And if you think medium to large business has been operating on ADSL for the past ten years then you are delusional. They have had fibre connections for a very long time. They paid for them. And now actually having superfast internet it is 'fun', but getting my android apps in 5 seconds instead of 2 minutes means what exactly? My emails are no faster - since they were already fast. Sites like this are still relatively slow. piratebay is much faster and presumably, porn is faster too. And if I used netflix that would probably be faster as well.  so what? The irony is that FTTN is delivering virtually the exact same speed that FTTH was and yet you criticse the former and laud the latter. your political persuasions are overwhelming your ability to think. 10% of what you say is correct in a narrow minded sort of short sighted way. I know a bit about fibre as do you so I know you business comments are founded but you fail to consider future business models. For example I currently support 200 plus employees working from home. There business related home internet speed requirements are genuine. This may well be the way of the future for many people and that is just one example. and if you are working from home, why should the government provide the infrastructure to support that? As someone who has worked from home for most of my career, it is pretty easy to manage things. Imagine what it was like before internet? Yep, we all did it quite fine. if you 200 employees want to work from home then either they or their employer is responsible for the infrastructure - just as they would be in the office. If the inernet is not fast enough then either pay to get it faster or... WORK IN THE OFFICE. and why is there this pretence that working from home is an economic boom compared to working the the office? And there is the other IT phenomenon that 'work increases to fill the current capacity'. Hard drives increase by an order magnitude and suddenly software sizes increase by... an order of magnitude.  when I had dial-up internet, websites still loaded and printer drivers were 2Mb tops. Now, they can be 200-300Mb. Tell me why FTTN wont serve your stay-at-home workers while FTTH would. the increase in speed id negligible to non-existent. Yes it is adequate for today - still short sighted I see. and if you are working from home, why should the government provide the infrastructure to support that? Because the went to elections promising that they would ? Besides telecommunications providers have always provided the necessary infrastructure to the home in support of the service they provide. These clowns are rolling out a technology that was past its use by date around 2005 and they are in places using infrastructure over head cables which was recognised as being defunct in about 1948 to support it. Most of our competitors around the world have been implementing far superior technology which is the reason that we dropped from about 30th in the world to 60th for internet speed under the Liberal government. And there is the other IT phenomenon that 'work increases to fill the current capacity'. Hard drives increase by an order magnitude and suddenly software sizes increase by... an order of magnitude You shoot yourself in the foot here when you understand what this means for Australia. Yes we will fins a use for the additional capacity - but the many countries that have a higher speed will find a greater advantage, they will be able to do the things that we can't. I dont recall telecom providers offering to wire up my house and provide a phone for free. Just like power, gas, water and sewerage services, the suppliers run it past your house and YOU pay to be connected to it plus all the wiring or plumbing etc. And in places like gas where it might not even go pat your house, you get to pay for the distance from the main to your house as well.

well no, thats completely wrong. (again)

... wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2016 at 11:18am:

If the governmemt facilitates working from home, they save money on roads and congestion issues.

You could do the same thing by decentralising OFFICES out of the CBD and staggering work hours.  And this presumes that many jobs can even be done at home. Most cant. I dont see how childcare or surgery can be done from home.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2016 at 11:12am:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 10:31am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 9:30am: Dnarever wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 9:24am: philperth2010 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2016 at 5:34pm: Tony Abbott 2013 election promise...."All Australians would have 25 Mbps or higher by the end of 2016"!!! http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-01/manning-what-went-wrong-with-the-nbn/7210408 :-? :-? :-? That promise was never possible, virtually nobody has a 25 M connection on the NBN. nobody??  you mean when I was offered 12/25/50/100 internet that was all a lie?  the measured 90Mbps connection i currently have is all a lie and imaginary? The fact is that a majority choose 12 because most people dont need more especially since in a dual income house they are only home a few hours a day in which to use it. try again. Your hysteria got in the say of truth.  again. I doubt that the majority choose 12, I would think they choose 25 which is the default, but like you paying for 100 and getting 90 meg people like me paying for 25 meg find that long term they are getting between 18 and 23. My lowest reading was about 2 meg down Today it is going ok at 23/4.5 you seem to think that fiber always proved 100% of its rated capacity. you too would be disappointed. and like it or not, 12Mbps IS the most popular choice because it is the cheapest and a lot of people dont want to paya premium when all they do is facebook and a bit of online shopping.

My comment was only that had he understood what he was promising he could have made a commitment he could deliver.

... wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2016 at 11:18am:

If the governmemt facilitates working from home, they save money on roads and congestion issues.

The company I am with saved the rental cost on two floors of two buildings.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2016 at 11:28am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 11:12am: Dnarever wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 10:31am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 9:30am: Dnarever wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 9:24am: philperth2010 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2016 at 5:34pm: Tony Abbott 2013 election promise...."All Australians would have 25 Mbps or higher by the end of 2016"!!! http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-01/manning-what-went-wrong-with-the-nbn/7210408 :-? :-? :-? That promise was never possible, virtually nobody has a 25 M connection on the NBN. nobody??  you mean when I was offered 12/25/50/100 internet that was all a lie?  the measured 90Mbps connection i currently have is all a lie and imaginary? The fact is that a majority choose 12 because most people dont need more especially since in a dual income house they are only home a few hours a day in which to use it. try again. Your hysteria got in the say of truth.  again. I doubt that the majority choose 12, I would think they choose 25 which is the default, but like you paying for 100 and getting 90 meg people like me paying for 25 meg find that long term they are getting between 18 and 23. My lowest reading was about 2 meg down Today it is going ok at 23/4.5 you seem to think that fiber always proved 100% of its rated capacity. you too would be disappointed. and like it or not, 12Mbps IS the most popular choice because it is the cheapest and a lot of people dont want to paya premium when all they do is facebook and a bit of online shopping. My comment was only that had he understood what he was promising he could have made a commitment he could deliver.

EVERY promise made regarding the NBN - including the NBN's promises themsevles - have failed to materialise. It is the never-ending project that is doomed to consume huge amounts of money and be hopelessly overdue.

NBn literally promised I would be connected in March (this was February). In the end it was May 30. 

Dnarever wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2016 at 11:31am:

... wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 11:18am: If the governmemt facilitates working from home, they save money on roads and congestion issues. The company I am with saved the rental cost on two floors of two buildings.

and now spends it time complaining that the govt wont pay all the costs of sending employees to work in another location.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2016 at 11:24am:

... wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 11:18am: If the governmemt facilitates working from home, they save money on roads and congestion issues. You could do the same thing by decentralising OFFICES out of the CBD and staggering work hours.  And this presumes that many jobs can even be done at home. Most cant. I dont see how childcare or surgery can be done from home.

yes, but they are private matters.

Is government responsible for providing infrastruc ture or not?  'Cause if they're not, I can't see what I'm paying them for.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2016 at 11:53am:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 11:31am: ... wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 11:18am: If the governmemt facilitates working from home, they save money on roads and congestion issues. The company I am with saved the rental cost on two floors of two buildings. and now spends it time complaining that the govt wont pay all the costs of sending employees to work in another location.

My comments on this have nothing to do with the Liberal poor NBN policy.

It seems that you are happy with your service paying a substantial amount of money to get a service speed that you always claimed could only be needed for porn.

I am also not displeased with the speed of my service (most of the time) However it isn't about us.

The fact remains that we as a country have thrown billions of dollars at an out dated defunct technology that will ultimately see Australia fall way behind the rest of the world and cost much more to fix.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2016 at 11:53am:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 11:31am: ... wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 11:18am: If the governmemt facilitates working from home, they save money on roads and congestion issues. The company I am with saved the rental cost on two floors of two buildings. and now spends it time complaining that the govt wont pay all the costs of sending employees to work in another location.

Not relevant but the more key employees are provided with the infrastructure at company expense, my comment isn't about paying the costs. This was only brought up as one example of the reality of internet usage.

The reality is that today not having adequate internet can effectively lock people out of viable employment opportunities and this will only get worse.

rhino wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2016 at 11:19am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 11:15am: Dnarever wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 11:02am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 10:02am: Dnarever wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 9:31am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 9:22am: Dnarever wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 9:16am: Turnbull NBN a absolute winner!!!! Nice to see Longy all excited to finally have what half the third world has had for a decade. There is another topic talking about 4 year terms and future planning. Here we have a claim that we should be pleased to have spent billions to catch up to the bottom of the pack. We are finally only 15 years behind with our internet technology, That is correct we lag the world by around 15 years and our country is not going to be competitive in the technical market place . please point me to the list of THIRD WORLD countries that had 100/40 internet in 2006.  And the basic failure of your argument is the notion that economic output is dependent on RESIDENTIAL internet.  How much economic activity is generated int he family home?  PRECIOUS LITTLE.  And if you think medium to large business has been operating on ADSL for the past ten years then you are delusional. They have had fibre connections for a very long time. They paid for them. And now actually having superfast internet it is 'fun', but getting my android apps in 5 seconds instead of 2 minutes means what exactly? My emails are no faster - since they were already fast. Sites like this are still relatively slow. piratebay is much faster and presumably, porn is faster too. And if I used netflix that would probably be faster as well.  so what? The irony is that FTTN is delivering virtually the exact same speed that FTTH was and yet you criticse the former and laud the latter. your political persuasions are overwhelming your ability to think. 10% of what you say is correct in a narrow minded sort of short sighted way. I know a bit about fibre as do you so I know you business comments are founded but you fail to consider future business models. For example I currently support 200 plus employees working from home. There business related home internet speed requirements are genuine. This may well be the way of the future for many people and that is just one example. and if you are working from home, why should the government provide the infrastructure to support that? As someone who has worked from home for most of my career, it is pretty easy to manage things. Imagine what it was like before internet? Yep, we all did it quite fine. if you 200 employees want to work from home then either they or their employer is responsible for the infrastructure - just as they would be in the office. If the inernet is not fast enough then either pay to get it faster or... WORK IN THE OFFICE. and why is there this pretence that working from home is an economic boom compared to working the the office? And there is the other IT phenomenon that 'work increases to fill the current capacity'. Hard drives increase by an order magnitude and suddenly software sizes increase by... an order of magnitude.  when I had dial-up internet, websites still loaded and printer drivers were 2Mb tops. Now, they can be 200-300Mb. Tell me why FTTN wont serve your stay-at-home workers while FTTH would. the increase in speed id negligible to non-existent. Yes it is adequate for today - still short sighted I see. and if you are working from home, why should the government provide the infrastructure to support that? Because the went to elections promising that they would ? Besides telecommunications providers have always provided the necessary infrastructure to the home in support of the service they provide. These clowns are rolling out a technology that was past its use by date around 2005 and they are in places using infrastructure over head cables which was recognised as being defunct in about 1948 to support it. Most of our competitors around the world have been implementing far superior technology which is the reason that we dropped from about 30th in the world to 60th for internet speed under the Liberal government. And there is the other IT phenomenon that 'work increases to fill the current capacity'. Hard drives increase by an order magnitude and suddenly software sizes increase by... an order of magnitude You shoot yourself in the foot here when you understand what this means for Australia. Yes we will fins a use for the additional capacity - but the many countries that have a higher speed will find a greater advantage, they will be able to do the things that we can't. I dont recall telecom providers offering to wire up my house and provide a phone for free. Just like power, gas, water and sewerage services, the suppliers run it past your house and YOU pay to be connected to it plus all the wiring or plumbing etc. And in places like gas where it might not even go pat your house, you get to pay for the distance from the main to your house as well. well no, thats completely wrong. (again)

all without any support or evidence.

Beating you in debate is like debating with a petulant child.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2016 at 12:04pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 11:53am: Dnarever wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 11:31am: ... wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 11:18am: If the governmemt facilitates working from home, they save money on roads and congestion issues. The company I am with saved the rental cost on two floors of two buildings. and now spends it time complaining that the govt wont pay all the costs of sending employees to work in another location. Not relevant but the more key employees are provided with the infrastructure at company expense, my comment isn't about paying the costs. This was only brought up as one example of the reality of internet usage. The reality is that today not having adequate internet can effectively lock people out of viable employment opportunities and this will only get worse.

That is garbage. If you read the spam email you would think that there are millions of work-at-ho sales jobs where all u need is internet and to provide XYZ company with your banking details. The truth is that 99.5% of jobs are done on site. If you aer one of the few with inadequate internet then bad luck. that 0.5% of jobs isnt available to you. But I bet that identical job IS available in the companys office.

Nodes need power which optic fibre does not, Nodes require a greater need for maintenance compared to optic fibre, The copper used in the MTM is prone to corrosion and fails when the pits get flooded which optic fibre is not, the Coalitions NBN requires technicians to be qualified in multiple technologies, The only reason the NBN can deliver higher speed is because of the use of optic fibre and the Coalitions NBN will be obsolete before it is finished!!!

The argument that new technology will make optic fibre obsolete is a false premise because even if the technology is available in the future optic fibre would not need to be replaced any where near as soon as the much inferior copper, HFC network....Optic fibre will deliver the best available network for many decades and will not need to be replaced even if a better technology is available....You do not build a network to accommodate the present needs of consumers you built it to accommodate the future needs of consumers so its upgrade can be prolonged as long as possible....In every respect the Coalitions NBN is inferior and will require much higher costs to maintain and operate....We have been sold a dog!!!

>:( >:( >:(

PS - Your title should read "Turnbull NBN an absolute winner" not very good from someone who claims to be a writer....Just sayin!!!

;) ;) ;)

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2016 at 12:40pm:

rhino wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 11:19am: well no, thats completely wrong. (again) all without any support or evidence. Beating you in debate is like debating with a petulant child

But he is in fact correct.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2016 at 12:45pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 12:04pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 11:53am: Dnarever wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 11:31am: ... wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 11:18am: If the governmemt facilitates working from home, they save money on roads and congestion issues. The company I am with saved the rental cost on two floors of two buildings. and now spends it time complaining that the govt wont pay all the costs of sending employees to work in another location. Not relevant but the more key employees are provided with the infrastructure at company expense, my comment isn't about paying the costs. This was only brought up as one example of the reality of internet usage. The reality is that today not having adequate internet can effectively lock people out of viable employment opportunities and this will only get worse. That is garbage. If you read the spam email you would think that there are millions of work-at-ho sales jobs where all u need is internet and to provide XYZ company with your banking details. The truth is that 99.5% of jobs are done on site. If you aer one of the few with inadequate internet then bad luck. that 0.5% of jobs isnt available to you. But I bet that identical job IS available in the companys office.

You seem to point blank refuse to consider the future = You know the changes that this is meant to encourage and are probably unavoidable.

Becoming the worlds technological backwater is not a position to aspire too.

philperth2010 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2016 at 1:01pm:

Nodes need power which optic fibre does not, Nodes require a greater need for maintenance compared to optic fibre, The copper used in the MTM is prone to corrosion and fails when the pits get flooded which optic fibre is not, the Coalitions NBN requires technicians to be qualified in multiple technologies, The only reason the NBN can deliver higher speed is because of the use of optic fibre and the Coalitions NBN will be obsolete before it is finished!!! The argument that new technology will make optic fibre obsolete is a false premise because even if the technology is available in the future optic fibre would not need to be replaced any where near as soon as the much inferior copper, HFC network....Optic fibre will deliver the best available network for many decades and will not need to be replaced even if a better technology is available....You do not build a network to accommodate the present needs of consumers you built it to accommodate the future needs of consumers so its upgrade can be prolonged as long as possible....In every respect the Coalitions NBN is inferior and will require much higher costs to maintain and operate....We have been sold a dog!!! >:( >:( >:( PS - Your title should read "Turnbull NBN an absolute winner" not very good from someone who claims to be a writer....Just sayin!!! ;) ;) ;)

The difference is the FTTN is cheaper and actually exists.  FTTH was getting bogged down and so slow that it would be 203 before some got it.

But I love how the old argument was that FTTN simply WOULD NOT WORK. It was impossible for it to work. and the copper was all rotted so it couldnt work and yet... it works and works remarkably well.

Given the record of every criticism being wrong, why should anyone trust the rest of your argument?  Personally I am waiting for 5G which is faster than both and doesnt need a wire/cable of any kind.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2016 at 3:07pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 12:45pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 12:04pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 11:53am: Dnarever wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 11:31am: ... wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 11:18am: If the governmemt facilitates working from home, they save money on roads and congestion issues. The company I am with saved the rental cost on two floors of two buildings. and now spends it time complaining that the govt wont pay all the costs of sending employees to work in another location. Not relevant but the more key employees are provided with the infrastructure at company expense, my comment isn't about paying the costs. This was only brought up as one example of the reality of internet usage. The reality is that today not having adequate internet can effectively lock people out of viable employment opportunities and this will only get worse. That is garbage. If you read the spam email you would think that there are millions of work-at-ho sales jobs where all u need is internet and to provide XYZ company with your banking details. The truth is that 99.5% of jobs are done on site. If you aer one of the few with inadequate internet then bad luck. that 0.5% of jobs isnt available to you. But I bet that identical job IS available in the companys office. You seem to point blank refuse to consider the future = You know the changes that this is meant to encourage and are probably unavoidable. Becoming the worlds technological backwater is not a position to aspire too.

I consider the future quite often while you trot out a mantra. When wireless internet becomes super fast and super cheap, the NBN will be no more than a stranded asset. Or do you think that the fact that mobile phones have almost replaced land-lines is an unrepeatable experience?

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2016 at 9:07am:

Lobo wrote on Jul 22nd, 2016 at 4:55pm: tickleandrose wrote on Jul 22nd, 2016 at 2:44pm: Lucky you for living <400 m from a node, with no other subscribers (yet).  But... you see, 100/40 is all you are ever going to get.  I rounded mine up, just for longy.... 24/5...... That's with a node approx. 500m away. No fibre to the node. And 43 year old copper.... poor diddums... when you get FTTN you too can get 100/40

Are you just naturally a freaking idiot, or did you study really hard to become one?
There is NO fibre connected to the node from the upstream side and only copper to my residence.
I used to think Macca was the biggest fool I had come across on here, and elsewhere, but you leave him for dead.
If you ever learn to read, and comprehend that which you are reading, get back to me.
In the meantime consider yourself on my 'Ignore List'.
You are not worth the effort.

OK, Andrei, how long have I copped?
No matter, the above just had to be said....

Lobo wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2016 at 7:57pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 9:07am: Lobo wrote on Jul 22nd, 2016 at 4:55pm: tickleandrose wrote on Jul 22nd, 2016 at 2:44pm: Lucky you for living <400 m from a node, with no other subscribers (yet).  But... you see, 100/40 is all you are ever going to get.  I rounded mine up, just for longy.... 24/5...... That's with a node approx. 500m away. No fibre to the node. And 43 year old copper.... poor diddums... when you get FTTN you too can get 100/40 Are you just naturally a freaking idiot, or did you study really hard to become one? There is NO fibre connected to the node from the upstream side and only copper to my residence. I used to think Macca was the biggest fool I had come across on here, and elsewhere, but you leave him for dead. If you ever learn to read, and comprehend that which you are reading, get back to me. In the meantime consider yourself on my 'Ignore List'. You are not worth the effort. OK, Andrei, how long have I copped? No matter, the above just had to be said....

I get 100/40 teamdope. And there is fibre to the node which is why it is called... FIBRE TO THE NODE  I dont really caree if my 100/40 internet comes by carrier pigeon.

Lobo wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2016 at 7:57pm:

Are you just naturally a freaking idiot, or did you study really hard to become one?

with longie it's a little from column A, and a little from column B

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2016 at 4:33pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 3:07pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 12:45pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 12:04pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 11:53am: Dnarever wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 11:31am: ... wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 11:18am: If the governmemt facilitates working from home, they save money on roads and congestion issues. The company I am with saved the rental cost on two floors of two buildings. and now spends it time complaining that the govt wont pay all the costs of sending employees to work in another location. Not relevant but the more key employees are provided with the infrastructure at company expense, my comment isn't about paying the costs. This was only brought up as one example of the reality of internet usage. The reality is that today not having adequate internet can effectively lock people out of viable employment opportunities and this will only get worse. That is garbage. If you read the spam email you would think that there are millions of work-at-ho sales jobs where all u need is internet and to provide XYZ company with your banking details. The truth is that 99.5% of jobs are done on site. If you aer one of the few with inadequate internet then bad luck. that 0.5% of jobs isnt available to you. But I bet that identical job IS available in the companys office. You seem to point blank refuse to consider the future = You know the changes that this is meant to encourage and are probably unavoidable. Becoming the worlds technological backwater is not a position to aspire too. I consider the future quite often while you trot out a mantra. When wireless internet becomes super fast and super cheap, the NBN will be no more than a stranded asset. Or do you think that the fact that mobile phones have almost replaced land-lines is an unrepeatable experience?

When wireless internet becomes super fast and super cheap

Not going to happen before the fibre to the node has to be fixed. wireless internet of anything like that quality is still 15 to 20 years away at best.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2016 at 10:23pm:

Not going to happen before the fibre to the node has to be fixed. wireless internet of anything like that quality is still 15 to 20 years away at best.

Wireless is endpoint because of the lack of spectrum for it to be anything else. You still need fibre as the core.

Setanta wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2016 at 10:34pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 10:23pm: Not going to happen before the fibre to the node has to be fixed. wireless internet of anything like that quality is still 15 to 20 years away at best. Wireless is endpoint because of the lack of spectrum for it to be anything else. You still need fibre as the core.

I would hate to give the dopes any ideas but wireless from the node could probably work.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2016 at 10:39pm:

Setanta wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 10:34pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 10:23pm: Not going to happen before the fibre to the node has to be fixed. wireless internet of anything like that quality is still 15 to 20 years away at best. Wireless is endpoint because of the lack of spectrum for it to be anything else. You still need fibre as the core. I would hate to give the dopes any ideas but wireless from the node could probably work.

Not without severe degradation of service. How would you have 10, 20, 100 people on wireless from a node that has another node nearby? Wireless is endpoint. There is no way around that. There must be bandwidth from congested and outnumbered wireless back to fibre.

John Smith wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2016 at 10:21pm:

Lobo wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 7:57pm: Are you just naturally a freaking idiot, or did you study really hard to become one? with longie it's a little from column A, and a little from column B**

**Inbreeding???

longwank doesn't appear to comprehend written English.

What is so hard to understand about "There is NO fibre connected to the node from the upstream side....?"

And I still believe his 100/40 is a load of bullshit.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2016 at 10:23pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 4:33pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 3:07pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 12:45pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 12:04pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 11:53am: Dnarever wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 11:31am: ... wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 11:18am: If the governmemt facilitates working from home, they save money on roads and congestion issues. The company I am with saved the rental cost on two floors of two buildings. and now spends it time complaining that the govt wont pay all the costs of sending employees to work in another location. Not relevant but the more key employees are provided with the infrastructure at company expense, my comment isn't about paying the costs. This was only brought up as one example of the reality of internet usage. The reality is that today not having adequate internet can effectively lock people out of viable employment opportunities and this will only get worse. That is garbage. If you read the spam email you would think that there are millions of work-at-ho sales jobs where all u need is internet and to provide XYZ company with your banking details. The truth is that 99.5% of jobs are done on site. If you aer one of the few with inadequate internet then bad luck. that 0.5% of jobs isnt available to you. But I bet that identical job IS available in the companys office. You seem to point blank refuse to consider the future = You know the changes that this is meant to encourage and are probably unavoidable. Becoming the worlds technological backwater is not a position to aspire too. I consider the future quite often while you trot out a mantra. When wireless internet becomes super fast and super cheap, the NBN will be no more than a stranded asset. Or do you think that the fact that mobile phones have almost replaced land-lines is an unrepeatable experience? When wireless internet becomes super fast and super cheap Not going to happen before the fibre to the node has to be fixed. wireless internet of anything like that quality is still 15 to 20 years away at best.

you serisuoly think that your technological predictions are worth anything? Even the experts are routinely proven wrong. The laws of physics were supposed to put a downward limit on chip sizes due to electron tunneling and crossover and yet... they are smaller now. 5G was supposed to be virtually impossible and yet it currently exists in the lab.

I would hesitate to say that anything is impossible or a long way aaway. After all, there are now some neutrinos that exceed the speed of light.  This is of course, impossible.

Setanta wrote on Jul 24^th, 2016 at 1:15am:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 10:39pm: Setanta wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 10:34pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 10:23pm: Not going to happen before the fibre to the node has to be fixed. wireless internet of anything like that quality is still 15 to 20 years away at best. Wireless is endpoint because of the lack of spectrum for it to be anything else. You still need fibre as the core. I would hate to give the dopes any ideas but wireless from the node could probably work. Not without severe degradation of service. How would you have 10, 20, 100 people on wireless from a node that has another node nearby? Wireless is endpoint. There is no way around that. There must be bandwidth from congested and outnumbered wireless back to fibre.

With spectrum isolation design separation and directional transmission the same way the cmts works - by reusing the same frequencies across non adjacent cells.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2016 at 9:09am:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 10:23pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 4:33pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 3:07pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 12:45pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 12:04pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 11:53am: Dnarever wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 11:31am: ... wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 11:18am: If the governmemt facilitates working from home, they save money on roads and congestion issues. The company I am with saved the rental cost on two floors of two buildings. and now spends it time complaining that the govt wont pay all the costs of sending employees to work in another location. Not relevant but the more key employees are provided with the infrastructure at company expense, my comment isn't about paying the costs. This was only brought up as one example of the reality of internet usage. The reality is that today not having adequate internet can effectively lock people out of viable employment opportunities and this will only get worse. That is garbage. If you read the spam email you would think that there are millions of work-at-ho sales jobs where all u need is internet and to provide XYZ company with your banking details. The truth is that 99.5% of jobs are done on site. If you aer one of the few with inadequate internet then bad luck. that 0.5% of jobs isnt available to you. But I bet that identical job IS available in the companys office. You seem to point blank refuse to consider the future = You know the changes that this is meant to encourage and are probably unavoidable. Becoming the worlds technological backwater is not a position to aspire too. I consider the future quite often while you trot out a mantra. When wireless internet becomes super fast and super cheap, the NBN will be no more than a stranded asset. Or do you think that the fact that mobile phones have almost replaced land-lines is an unrepeatable experience? When wireless internet becomes super fast and super cheap Not going to happen before the fibre to the node has to be fixed. wireless internet of anything like that quality is still 15 to 20 years away at best. you serisuoly think that your technological predictions are worth anything? Even the experts are routinely proven wrong. The laws of physics were supposed to put a downward limit on chip sizes due to electron tunneling and crossover and yet... they are smaller now. 5G was supposed to be virtually impossible and yet it currently exists in the lab. I would hesitate to say that anything is impossible or a long way aaway. After all, there are now some neutrinos that exceed the speed of light.  This is of course, impossible.

So you excuse for poor decision making today is pie in the sky predictions about future technology being delivered over a decade sooner than expected.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2016 at 4:27pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 1:01pm: Nodes need power which optic fibre does not, Nodes require a greater need for maintenance compared to optic fibre, The copper used in the MTM is prone to corrosion and fails when the pits get flooded which optic fibre is not, the Coalitions NBN requires technicians to be qualified in multiple technologies, The only reason the NBN can deliver higher speed is because of the use of optic fibre and the Coalitions NBN will be obsolete before it is finished!!! The argument that new technology will make optic fibre obsolete is a false premise because even if the technology is available in the future optic fibre would not need to be replaced any where near as soon as the much inferior copper, HFC network....Optic fibre will deliver the best available network for many decades and will not need to be replaced even if a better technology is available....You do not build a network to accommodate the present needs of consumers you built it to accommodate the future needs of consumers so its upgrade can be prolonged as long as possible....In every respect the Coalitions NBN is inferior and will require much higher costs to maintain and operate....We have been sold a dog!!! >:( >:( >:( PS - Your title should read "Turnbull NBN an absolute winner" not very good from someone who claims to be a writer....Just sayin!!! ;) ;) ;) The difference is the FTTN is cheaper and actually exists.  FTTH was getting bogged down and so slow that it would be 203 before some got it. But I love how the old argument was that FTTN simply WOULD NOT WORK. It was impossible for it to work. and the copper was all rotted so it couldnt work and yet... it works and works remarkably well. Given the record of every criticism being wrong, why should anyone trust the rest of your argument?  Personally I am waiting for 5G which is faster than both and doesn't need a wire/cable of any kind.

The contradiction and misrepresentation aside....The network would have still existed with optic fibre and ensured minimal upgrades as well as much lower operating and maintenance costs....The MTM will be better than the current network but it will not accommodate the potential of digital technology optic fibre would have achieved and will not return as much revenue due the unavailability to take advantage of the increased data some consumers will not have access to!!!

>:( >:( >:(

nothing but narrow short shortsightedness from longstupidone that will see us paying twice for what we should have gotten the first time around

Lobo wrote on Jul 24^th, 2016 at 8:35am:

John Smith wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 10:21pm: Lobo wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 7:57pm: Are you just naturally a freaking idiot, or did you study really hard to become one? with longie it's a little from column A, and a little from column B** **Inbreeding??? longwank doesn't appear to comprehend written English. What is so hard to understand about "There is NO fibre connected to the node from the upstream side....?" And I still believe his 100/40 is a load of bullshit.

if you are referring to 'upstream'  as the connection from the node to the backbone, it IS fibre hence the term FIBRE to the node.

and of course you dont believe I have 100/40 internet.  you simply cannot beleive ANYTHING that conflicts with your idotic conspiracy thinking.

idiot

Dnarever wrote on Jul 24^th, 2016 at 10:12am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2016 at 9:09am: Dnarever wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 10:23pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 4:33pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 3:07pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 12:45pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 12:04pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 11:53am: Dnarever wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 11:31am: ... wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 11:18am: If the governmemt facilitates working from home, they save money on roads and congestion issues. The company I am with saved the rental cost on two floors of two buildings. and now spends it time complaining that the govt wont pay all the costs of sending employees to work in another location. Not relevant but the more key employees are provided with the infrastructure at company expense, my comment isn't about paying the costs. This was only brought up as one example of the reality of internet usage. The reality is that today not having adequate internet can effectively lock people out of viable employment opportunities and this will only get worse. That is garbage. If you read the spam email you would think that there are millions of work-at-ho sales jobs where all u need is internet and to provide XYZ company with your banking details. The truth is that 99.5% of jobs are done on site. If you aer one of the few with inadequate internet then bad luck. that 0.5% of jobs isnt available to you. But I bet that identical job IS available in the companys office. You seem to point blank refuse to consider the future = You know the changes that this is meant to encourage and are probably unavoidable. Becoming the worlds technological backwater is not a position to aspire too. I consider the future quite often while you trot out a mantra. When wireless internet becomes super fast and super cheap, the NBN will be no more than a stranded asset. Or do you think that the fact that mobile phones have almost replaced land-lines is an unrepeatable experience? When wireless internet becomes super fast and super cheap Not going to happen before the fibre to the node has to be fixed. wireless internet of anything like that quality is still 15 to 20 years away at best. you serisuoly think that your technological predictions are worth anything? Even the experts are routinely proven wrong. The laws of physics were supposed to put a downward limit on chip sizes due to electron tunneling and crossover and yet... they are smaller now. 5G was supposed to be virtually impossible and yet it currently exists in the lab. I would hesitate to say that anything is impossible or a long way aaway. After all, there are now some neutrinos that exceed the speed of light.  This is of course, impossible. So you excuse for poor decision making today is pie in the sky predictions about future technology being delivered over a decade sooner than expected.

your definition of 'poor decision making' is seemingly dependent on no more than what you want. YOU want fiber, therefore  not getting fiber is a bad decision. No interest whatsoever in the logistics of the entire project nevermind the price.   And if gigabit internet becomes available I can connect fibre to the node and voila... of course I woudl need to have an actual NEED for it before I would spend MY money. But you are happy for the government to spend it for you.  THATS YOUR PROBLEM right there.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2016 at 8:05pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 24th, 2016 at 10:12am: So you excuse for poor decision making today is pie in the sky predictions about future technology being delivered over a decade sooner than expected. your definition of 'poor decision making' is seemingly dependent on no more than what you want. YOU want fiber, therefore  not getting fiber is a bad decision. No interest whatsoever in the logistics of the entire project nevermind the price.   And if gigabit internet becomes available I can connect fibre to the node and voila... of course I woudl need to have an actual NEED for it before I would spend MY money. But you are happy for the government to spend it for you.  THATS YOUR PROBLEM right there.

No as stated it isn't about me and as difficult as it is to believe it isn't about you nor Andrei either. It is a fact that the full path fibre option is far superior and that fibre to the node is a short term option at best a very expensive substandard short term option  for Australia.

The question is are you happy having Australia remaining an internet back water in the world community, a place that will not be competitive in the technological market or most likely anywhere else.

You may be happy to see that happen porn boy but not me.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 24^th, 2016 at 8:11pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2016 at 8:05pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 24th, 2016 at 10:12am: So you excuse for poor decision making today is pie in the sky predictions about future technology being delivered over a decade sooner than expected. your definition of 'poor decision making' is seemingly dependent on no more than what you want. YOU want fiber, therefore  not getting fiber is a bad decision. No interest whatsoever in the logistics of the entire project nevermind the price.   And if gigabit internet becomes available I can connect fibre to the node and voila... of course I woudl need to have an actual NEED for it before I would spend MY money. But you are happy for the government to spend it for you.  THATS YOUR PROBLEM right there. No as stated it isn't about me and as difficult as it is to believe it isn't about you nor Andrei either. It is a fact that the full path fibre option is far superior and that fibre to the node is a short term option at best a very expensive substandard short term option  for Australia. The question is are you happy having Australia remaining an internet back water in the world community, a place that will not be competitive in the technological market or most likely anywhere else. You may be happy to see that happen porn boy but not me.

Why do you think that 'superior' is the only criteria of any value in a govt purchasing choice?  Why buy only 12 subs when 50 would obviously be 'superior'? Why not buy 1000 fighter jets? That is superior than the number we have now or on order?  Why not build an 8 lane highway to every town and city in Australia? That is clearly superior and safer than what we have at present.

A) the cost is horrendous
B) the time to implement is multiple decades or more
C) there isnt a cost/benefit to justify it

Is Fiber superior? obviously. But it is far more expensive, far longer to implement and in then residential situation, unjustifable in terms of economic output.

And as previously stated, despite the IT wannabes on here, moving from FTTN to FTTH is not a case of ripping everything out and starting again. It is largely just connecting homes to the node via fiber and ultimately removeing the node. it is in fact a good way of getting super-fast internet NOW instead of 15 years down the track at double/triple the cost.

I suppose you drive a Bugatti Veyron right? Or a Porsche people mover or perhaps a Rolls Royce? They are all vastly superior than what you drive now. Why dont you own them?  the reason is the exact same one.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2016 at 8:29pm:

But it is far more expensive, far longer to implement

rubbish ... libs 3rd rate FTN is almost as expensive, and not much quicker.

Face it, the libs only opposed FTH because it was labors policy.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 24^th, 2016 at 10:10am:

Setanta wrote on Jul 24th, 2016 at 1:15am: Dnarever wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 10:39pm: Setanta wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 10:34pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 23rd, 2016 at 10:23pm: Not going to happen before the fibre to the node has to be fixed. wireless internet of anything like that quality is still 15 to 20 years away at best. Wireless is endpoint because of the lack of spectrum for it to be anything else. You still need fibre as the core. I would hate to give the dopes any ideas but wireless from the node could probably work. Not without severe degradation of service. How would you have 10, 20, 100 people on wireless from a node that has another node nearby? Wireless is endpoint. There is no way around that. There must be bandwidth from congested and outnumbered wireless back to fibre. With spectrum isolation design separation and directional transmission the same way the cmts works - by reusing the same frequencies across non adjacent cells.

Yes, just as you do for hotspots around a campus for eg. That does not change the limitations on bandwidth, only shares the load, the same thing will happen, the more that use that "spot" the less bandwidth you will get.

Let me put it this way, fibre is capable of full bandwidth, if you need more you lay more fibre. With wireless there is limited spectrum. You cannot add more. You can do tricks like trellis encoding, like we did with modems to get better than 2400 baud but the spectrum is still limited, it's why we don't use modems any more.

Wireless will probably never disappear like modems did simply because is't endpoint tech.

I can get more speed on wireless if I multiplex frequencies or channels, 1 and 3, 2 and 4 etc. The more channels I multiplex, the more data can be transferred but the less channels are available for use. Then you have interference from other spots, using different channels but at some point, you need to reuse, we have 11-13 channels for use. It is endpoint tech.

John Smith wrote on Jul 24^th, 2016 at 8:33pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2016 at 8:29pm: But it is far more expensive, far longer to implement rubbish ... libs 3rd rate FTN is almost as expensive, and not much quicker. Face it, the libs only opposed FTH because it was labors policy.

with ADSL I had 12mbps  Now I have ~100Mbs.  tell me again why it isnt faster sing your tortured mathematics?

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 25^th, 2016 at 9:00am:

John Smith wrote on Jul 24th, 2016 at 8:33pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2016 at 8:29pm: But it is far more expensive, far longer to implement rubbish ... libs 3rd rate FTN is almost as expensive, and not much quicker. Face it, the libs only opposed FTH because it was labors policy. with ADSL I had 12mbps  Now I have ~100Mbs.  tell me again why it isnt faster sing your tortured mathematics?

put up a screen shot of your speed longdopeyone!

21st century economy whilst keeping copper in ground

;D ;D ;D

John Smith wrote on Jul 25^th, 2016 at 9:17am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 25th, 2016 at 9:00am: John Smith wrote on Jul 24th, 2016 at 8:33pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2016 at 8:29pm: But it is far more expensive, far longer to implement rubbish ... libs 3rd rate FTN is almost as expensive, and not much quicker. Face it, the libs only opposed FTH because it was labors policy. with ADSL I had 12mbps  Now I have ~100Mbs.  tell me again why it isnt faster sing your tortured mathematics? put up a screen shot of your speed longdopeyone!

Why would I bother?  You would only say it is doctored anyhow. Why dont I send you a 5Gb file which at my upload speed would take about 25 minutes. At ADSL speeds it would take 24-30 hours.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 25^th, 2016 at 9:38am:

John Smith wrote on Jul 25th, 2016 at 9:17am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 25th, 2016 at 9:00am: John Smith wrote on Jul 24th, 2016 at 8:33pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2016 at 8:29pm: But it is far more expensive, far longer to implement rubbish ... libs 3rd rate FTN is almost as expensive, and not much quicker. Face it, the libs only opposed FTH because it was labors policy. with ADSL I had 12mbps  Now I have ~100Mbs.  tell me again why it isnt faster sing your tortured mathematics? put up a screen shot of your speed longdopeyone! Why would I bother?  You would only say it is doctored anyhow. Why dont I send you a 5Gb file which at my upload speed would take about 25 minutes. At ADSL speeds it would take 24-30 hours.

I knew you were full of sh1t .... go do something constructive like bang your head on a wall

and he's gone....

John Smith wrote on Jul 25^th, 2016 at 9:40am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 25th, 2016 at 9:38am: John Smith wrote on Jul 25th, 2016 at 9:17am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 25th, 2016 at 9:00am: John Smith wrote on Jul 24th, 2016 at 8:33pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2016 at 8:29pm: But it is far more expensive, far longer to implement rubbish ... libs 3rd rate FTN is almost as expensive, and not much quicker. Face it, the libs only opposed FTH because it was labors policy. with ADSL I had 12mbps  Now I have ~100Mbs.  tell me again why it isnt faster sing your tortured mathematics? put up a screen shot of your speed longdopeyone! Why would I bother?  You would only say it is doctored anyhow. Why dont I send you a 5Gb file which at my upload speed would take about 25 minutes. At ADSL speeds it would take 24-30 hours. I knew you were full of sh1t .... go do something constructive like bang your head on a wall

Because actual proof would be too much for you to handle?  As I said. I will send you a 5Gb file over my internet to prove i have 100/40.

but like the coward you are, you dont want to risk being PROVEN wrong.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 25^th, 2016 at 1:49pm:

Because actual proof would be too much for you to handle?  As I said. I will send you a 5Gb file over my internet to prove i have 100/40. but like the coward you are, you dont want to risk being PROVEN wrong.

I'm just not in the habit of giving my email address to dickheads  ...

but you go ahead and prove me wrong if you can ... put up your screen shot. what's the matter, you afraid of what your screen shot will show? DO you need me to send you a link to a test site? Or do you think that perhaps you can manage that on your own

John Smith wrote on Jul 25^th, 2016 at 2:52pm:

I'm just not in the habit of giving my email address to dickheads  ...

You have it don't you?

Fuzzball wrote on Jul 25^th, 2016 at 2:54pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 25th, 2016 at 2:52pm: I'm just not in the habit of giving my email address to dickheads  ... You have it don't you?

Of course I do ...and, as you can see from my previous comment, you on the other hand will never get it.

So longy "wouldnt bother" running a 1 minute speedtest and screen shotting it, but wants to send a 5gb file taking an estimated 25 minutes instead?

Sounds legit.

John Smith wrote on Jul 25^th, 2016 at 2:52pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 25th, 2016 at 1:49pm: Because actual proof would be too much for you to handle?  As I said. I will send you a 5Gb file over my internet to prove i have 100/40. but like the coward you are, you dont want to risk being PROVEN wrong. I'm just not in the habit of giving my email address to dickheads  ... but you go ahead and prove me wrong if you can ... put up your screen shot. what's the matter, you afraid of what your screen shot will show? DO you need me to send you a link to a test site? Or do you think that perhaps you can manage that on your own

I can fake a screenshot just as easily as anyone else. And if i didnt you'd still call it fake so the only test that matters is a demonstration of fact.

I can send you a 2Mb file before 3pm to your email address or any old address. It will be a thrid-party file sending service sicne email cannot handle files that size.

Its real easy to prove. Except you dont want to be proven wrong, do you?

I don't believe you could fake a screenshot.

You could start by telling me what kind of 'measurement' Im supposed to take a screenshot of in the first place. There is a windows 10 app that supposedly measures it but in one setup found a massive 0.5Mbps download rate and another time about 20Mbps.  Not exactly the kind of app that is of any use. But if you want me to make a fake of it....

Speedtest.net is the standard.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 25^th, 2016 at 3:16pm:

I can fake a screenshot just as easily as anyone else. And if i didnt you'd still call it fake so the only test that matters is a demonstration of fact. I can send you a 2Mb file before 3pm to your email address or any old address. It will be a thrid-party file sending service sicne email cannot handle files that size. Its real easy to prove. Except you dont want to be proven wrong, do you?

you couldn't fake a screen shot anymore than you can fake having an IQ above 30 ....

I'm not giving you my email address no matter how much you beg. Sending me an email does not give me your download/upload speed so stop pretending it will.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 25^th, 2016 at 3:28pm:

You could start by telling me what kind of 'measurement' Im supposed to take a screenshot of in the first place. There is a windows 10 app that supposedly measures it but in one setup found a massive 0.5Mbps download rate and another time about 20Mbps.  Not exactly the kind of app that is of any use. But if you want me to make a fake of it....

As the Honkmeister said, this is the one you want to use: http://www.speedtest.net/

I have NBN at home, and I get roughly 25 and 5

Here at work I'm getting 14 and 0.75

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 25^th, 2016 at 3:41pm:

As the Honkmeister said, this is the one you want to use: http://www.speedtest.net/ I have NBN at home, and I get roughly 25 and 5 Here at work I'm getting 14 and 0.75

that's very different to longies claims of getting 90/40  :D :D :D No wonder he didn't want to do a speed test



longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21^st, 2016 at 6:33pm:

. The result? 90Mbs downloads and 40Mbs uploads. I downloaded a 330MB file in under 40 seconds and uploaded a 1Gb file in under 5 minutes. And it has never dropped out nor suffered slowdowns.

This was my speed

10.68 / .77

I didn't see any reason to doubt his speed claims....until he started making excuses.

John Smith wrote on Jul 25^th, 2016 at 3:50pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 25th, 2016 at 3:41pm: As the Honkmeister said, this is the one you want to use: http://www.speedtest.net/ I have NBN at home, and I get roughly 25 and 5 Here at work I'm getting 14 and 0.75 that's very different to longies claims of getting 90/40

I'm on tier 2, which is the default.

I get exactly the speeds they promise.

In order to get 90/40, you'd have to be on tier 5, which promises 100/40.

I'm guessing it's expensive, though.

Speed tiers

... wrote on Jul 25^th, 2016 at 3:56pm:

I didn't see any reason to doubt his speed claims....until he started making excuses.

longie always makes crap up ... he still hasn't figured out that he's going to get asked to prove it, despite being busted lying numerous times

... wrote on Jul 25^th, 2016 at 3:56pm:

I didn't see any reason to doubt his speed claims....until he started making excuses.

mine cam in at 95.31/38.28

the reason gregs NBN is slower is because he subscribed to the lower speed. I would ahve thought that was rather obvious.

does anyone know why attempting to load a 28Kb image comes up with a message saying it is 71MB in size?

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 25^th, 2016 at 4:41pm:

does anyone know why attempting to load a 28Kb image comes up with a message saying it is 71MB in size?

I asked the same question in feedback