Australian Politics Forum - THE NBN WILL NOT COST $90 BILLION

Lobo

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7407
Sydney
Gender: male

Re: THE NBN WILL NOT COST $90 BILLION
Reply #15 - Feb 27^th, 2014 at 1:27pm

$1.5 billion: The cost of cutting London-Tokyo latency by 60ms
By Sebastian Anthony on March 20, 2012 at 1:04 pm

Starting this summer, a convoy of ice breakers and specially-adapted polar ice-rated cable laying ships will begin to lay the first ever trans-Arctic Ocean submarine fiber optic cables. Two of these cables, called Artic Fibre and Arctic Link, will cross the Northwest Passage which runs through the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. A third cable, the Russian Optical Trans-Arctic Submarine Cable System (ROTACS), will skirt the north coast of Scandinavia and Russia. All three cables will connect the United Kingdom to Japan, with a smattering of branches that will provide high-speed internet access to a handful of Arctic Circle communities. The completed cables are estimated to cost between $600 million and $1.5 billion each.

All three cables are being laid for the same reasons: Redundancy and speed. As it stands, it takes roughly 230 milliseconds for a packet to go from London to Tokyo; the new cables will reduce this by 30% to 170ms. This speed-up will be gained by virtue of a much shorter run: Currently, packets from the UK to Japan either have to traverse Europe, the Middle East, and the Indian Ocean, or the Atlantic, US, and Pacific, both routes racking up around 15,000 miles in the process. It’s only 10,000 miles (16,000km) across the Arctic Ocean, and you don’t have to mess around with any land crossings, either.
---------------

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/122989-1-5-billion-the-cost-of-cutting-london...

Wink

Back to top

"What's in store for me in the direction I don't take?"-Jack Kerouac.

IP Logged

mozzaok

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 6741
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: THE NBN WILL NOT COST $90 BILLION
Reply #16 - Feb 27^th, 2014 at 1:27pm

Grendel wrote on Feb 27^th, 2014 at 12:37pm:

mozzaok wrote on Feb 27^th, 2014 at 12:21pm:

3AW down here in Melbourne caters to the more gullible, Liberal voting section of the population, and promote lots of BS to help dills have their silly beliefs validated.

Just yesterday, I heard Tom Elliot, son of ex Liberal Party President, John Elliot, explaining how bad the NBN is.

He explained that they have spent over 7 billion to run past 3% of the population, so Labor's NBN would cost more than 225 billion.
He also added that a friend of his has it, and it is slower than his old adsl connection, and costs more.

So, lots of lackwits will now believe that load of tripe he dished up to be facts, despite every single aspect of what he said being absolutely incorrect.

It seems very much like AGW denialism, where making up their own facts becomes the way to justify the holding of contrary and obstructionist views.

Really all totally incorrect?
You can refute it then with some facts eh... that would be nice.

Of course I can Grendel, but NBN opponents broadly fall into two categories, those too dull to comprehend, and those too biased to accept, the truth.
I have discussed NBN issues before, and unfortunately, you refuse to accept any facts that do not suit your ideological position.
So I will not bother to point out the idiocy of extrapolating a predicted 226 billion cost projection, from the 7bn figure, so far spent, based upon dividing 7 by claimed percentage of properties passed, then multiplying that by 97, which is what they did.
Does any sane person really need to have explained that initial setup costs divided across the whole 93% coverage of the project, will be a wee bit different from just applying them to 3%, then adding them on again at that ridiculously inflated rate for another 97%.
These liars could not even get that simple sum right.
93% , less 3% leaves 90%.

As for anecdotal, 'my old adsl goes faster than this fiber network, and costs twice as much'.
Just imagine me blowing a raspberry, with two fingers raised in a reverse victory salute, as I suggest a suitable anatomical orifice to insert your Bulltish into.
There is NO technical argument which ever claims that adsl is superior to Fiber, any anecdotal fantasies withstanding.

Back to top

OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma!

IP Logged

Setanta

Gold Member

Offline

\/ Peace man!

Posts: 16625
Northern NSW
Gender: male

Re: THE NBN WILL NOT COST $90 BILLION
Reply #17 - Feb 27^th, 2014 at 6:29pm

mozzaok wrote on Feb 27^th, 2014 at 1:27pm:

Grendel wrote on Feb 27^th, 2014 at 12:37pm:

mozzaok wrote on Feb 27^th, 2014 at 12:21pm:

3AW down here in Melbourne caters to the more gullible, Liberal voting section of the population, and promote lots of BS to help dills have their silly beliefs validated.

Just yesterday, I heard Tom Elliot, son of ex Liberal Party President, John Elliot, explaining how bad the NBN is.

He explained that they have spent over 7 billion to run past 3% of the population, so Labor's NBN would cost more than 225 billion.
He also added that a friend of his has it, and it is slower than his old adsl connection, and costs more.

So, lots of lackwits will now believe that load of tripe he dished up to be facts, despite every single aspect of what he said being absolutely incorrect.

It seems very much like AGW denialism, where making up their own facts becomes the way to justify the holding of contrary and obstructionist views.

Really all totally incorrect?
You can refute it then with some facts eh... that would be nice.

Of course I can Grendel, but NBN opponents broadly fall into two categories, those too dull to comprehend, and those too biased to accept, the truth.
I have discussed NBN issues before, and unfortunately, you refuse to accept any facts that do not suit your ideological position.
So I will not bother to point out the idiocy of extrapolating a predicted 226 billion cost projection, from the 7bn figure, so far spent, based upon dividing 7 by claimed percentage of properties passed, then multiplying that by 97, which is what they did.
Does any sane person really need to have explained that initial setup costs divided across the whole 93% coverage of the project, will be a wee bit different from just applying them to 3%, then adding them on again at that ridiculously inflated rate for another 97%.
These liars could not even get that simple sum right.
93% , less 3% leaves 90%.

As for anecdotal, 'my old adsl goes faster than this fiber network, and costs twice as much'.
Just imagine me blowing a raspberry, with two fingers raised in a reverse victory salute, as I suggest a suitable anatomical orifice to insert your Bulltish into.
There is NO technical argument which ever claims that adsl is superior to Fiber, any anecdotal fantasies withstanding.

Don't be too hard on Grendel, he's fighting with one arm behind his back removed. Not nice to fight the handicapped.

edit: The Libs said it would cost $90 billion and admitted that was a fib. $225 billion! Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

5.56_ NATO

Full Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 123
Gender: male

Re: THE NBN WILL NOT COST $90 BILLION
Reply #18 - Feb 27^th, 2014 at 9:44pm

St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 27^th, 2014 at 12:55pm:

None of them would have read anything authoritative about the NBN—Lib talking points, the Daily Terror etc.

NBN could be finished for about $20Bn in 5 years.

Increase GDP, employment and exports etc etc etc.

Perhaps you should be in charge then, does it hurt when you pull these figures out of your date Roll Eyes

Back to top

IP Logged

St George of the Garden Gold Member Offline http://tinyurl.com/n 3o8m2x Posts: 9809 Gender:	Re: THE NBN WILL NOT COST $90 BILLION Reply #19 - Feb 27^th, 2014 at 10:01pm Typical useless IQ post.
Back to top	I want Muso as GMod. Bring back Muso! IP Logged