Go Back   IceInSpace > General Astronomy > General Chat
Register FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #61  
Old 08-09-2013, 09:49 PM
The_bluester's Avatar
The_bluester (Paul)
Registered User

The_bluester is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Kilmore, Australia
Posts: 3,365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hans Tucker View Post
Originally Posted by Bassnut
According to wikipeadia, there are 7 million odd dwellings in Australia and the NBN all up will cost $44 billion. Generously assuming 90% of householders pay tax, thats $5657 per tax paying house hold .

Really, do you think its worth THAT much over other priorities

Are you happy to pay that much?.
Quote:
You sound surprised...the cost of NBN was all over the media and was the basis for the argument against it.

We will have super fast internet, maybe, but sub-standard hospitals and schools. Governments never get their priorities correct.
I really should respond to that one, if they offered me fibre for that much, I would stump up the cash and ask when I could expect to see the trencher in my drive. But it would not be that much and I am realistic enough to know that at 4KM form the nearest fibre I am totally uneconomic to service with fibre unless perhaps at some point there is a transit network installed across the frontage which might be able to be used to deliver it. We would cost a couple of hundred K to service with fibre.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 08-09-2013, 09:58 PM
noeyedeer (Matt)
Registered User

noeyedeer is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: gold coast
Posts: 553
speaking of roads, I think I read here a while ago about the US proposed to build a freeway from Melbourne to Brisbane with the resources from their army after ww2 with a price tag of a few million dollars.

the government thought it a bit rich so the US scuttled their equipment offshore and took their men home. imagine if we had that back then, our gov no matter who is in position only thinks for 3 years ... least it created nice reefs for fishermen

I'm glad I just don't vote!

Last edited by noeyedeer; 08-09-2013 at 10:05 PM. Reason: fishing update
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 08-09-2013, 10:04 PM
atkinsonr (Rich)
Registered User

atkinsonr is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney
Posts: 54
We're 25k from Sydney CBD as the crow flies yet the best wired Internet we can get is only 2.5mbps.

Am sure 3G/4G would be faster but don't want to pay through the Haagen Daas.

NBN would have been 10+ years away for us. I'm very technical and although I want fast Internet for everyone, NBN wasn't a good allocation of funds.

MTN is even worse.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 08-09-2013, 10:15 PM
noeyedeer (Matt)
Registered User

noeyedeer is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: gold coast
Posts: 553
I also like how everyone is saying the money is spent better elsewhere, with all the slashing of schools and hospitals and everything else ... and mining and carbon tax ... looks like we are in for a roller coaster ride that Malcolm Turnbull wants to take over .. lol I'm over it, can't blame me but I'd rather fibre then the liberals.

poor people get poorer while the rich get richer is what the liberals want. ... no pun intended Rich

Last edited by noeyedeer; 08-09-2013 at 10:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 09-09-2013, 05:52 PM
icytailmark (Mark)
Registered User

icytailmark is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: sydney australia
Posts: 832
i think its time for people to accept that Australia will have 2nd world Internet connections for a very long time. Most people Australia think fast Internet isnt a priority. I was planning on starting up a File storage business but i dont see it happening now.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 09-09-2013, 07:00 PM
strongmanmike's Avatar
strongmanmike (Michael)
Highest Observatory in Oz

strongmanmike is offline
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 17,689
It's a real shame, we have the opportunity here to build a world class piece of infrastructure, it is well under way the hard work has been done The new govermnet has little to do but they seem to think it is much better to pay mothers earning $150 000 pa their full salary for 6 months to stay home with their new babies I mean reeeaallly....?

Hopefully Malcolm will wake up to himself and realise that just like the reality of climate change and the importance of putting a price on carbon (that he fully agrees with!) he largely ditches the nodes idea

That was no comment, my lip is bitten again

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 09-09-2013, 07:07 PM
Astro_Bot's Avatar
Astro_Bot
Registered User

Astro_Bot is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,605
Vote 1 for the full NBN. Not fussed with who implements it (or claims it as theirs).
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 09-09-2013, 07:37 PM
acropolite's Avatar
acropolite (Phil)
Registered User

acropolite is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Launceston Tasmania
Posts: 9,021
I work in the telecommunications industry and I've always believed that the NBN was an ill conceived plan.

To even dream of replacing a copper network that was built over a century, with fibre in just a few years, is just plain stupid and shows a lack of understanding and logic by the decision makers of the time.

The NBN isn't a bad thing nor is it a waste of money, don't forget the investment will generate massive amounts of revenue and open up lots of opportunities, I'd expect that with revenue from phone and data plus the massively reduced maintenance costs payback would probably be less than 10 years.

Don't forget also that a big proportion of the cost and use will be by business and their continuation will help lower the cost.

As for wireless and satellite technology taking up the slack, forget it, shared spectrum is just that, very limited and unreliable.

More bandwith on copper is a pipe dream, the higher the bandwidth, the less the distance, I see poorly performing ADSL every day, it's prone to even minor cable faults and interference so reliability will always be an issue. Money poured in to trying to extract better service from the copper network is money wasted IMO.

In my Telstra days I saw a fibre cable that had a fire lit underneath it, there was nothing left of the cable but the original half a dozen glass fibres hanging in mid air, the entire sheath and protective system gone. We were alerted hours before as the copper cable disintegrated with the heat, the fibre maintained it's operation, remained fully functional and was still burning when we found the problem.

Fibre is immune to lightning, electrical interference, corrosion etc, the only thing that will affect it is vermin, I've seen rabbit and rat damage but only rarely.

Look at the money the government pours in to unsustainable industries, the forest and motor vehicle industries for example, tens of billions of dollars for no return.

To borrow an old TV ad line ... It won't not happen overnight, but it will happen......
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 09-09-2013, 07:58 PM
Astro_Bot's Avatar
Astro_Bot
Registered User

Astro_Bot is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by acropolite View Post
To even dream of replacing a copper network that was built over a century, with fibre in just a few years, is just plain stupid ...
IMHO "stupid" might be a bit strong, but I'd agree it could have been better planned and executed. For instance, not all of the copper network is going to fail in the next 5-8 years (or whatever the NBN rollout schdule was). "We" ought to have a pretty good idea of the life expectency of the copper - at least suburb-by-suburb if not pit-by-pit. It might have been better to phase in FTTH prioritised by the age of the copper it was replacing.

Of course, "we" mainly means Telstra, and they had/have a vested interest in not being as straight with that information as they might have been/could be.

Agree with everything else you say about satellite, wireless, etc. Fibre has such a dramatic capacity and speed advantage that there is nothing close to it in the race.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 09-09-2013, 09:21 PM
icytailmark (Mark)
Registered User

icytailmark is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: sydney australia
Posts: 832
If the government does decide to not do FTTH im sure Telstra will do it later on *fingers cross*
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 09-09-2013, 09:30 PM
gary
Registered User

gary is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Mt. Kuring-Gai
Posts: 5,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassnut View Post
According to wikipeadia, there are 7 million odd dwellings in Australia and the NBN all up will cost $44 billion. Generously assuming 90% of householders pay tax, thats $5657 per tax paying house hold .

Really, do you think its worth THAT much over other priorities

Are you happy to pay that much?.
Hi Fred,

The construction of the NBN uses an equity funding model.

Initially a loan from the government (for example, $2.6 billion in 2012-13, $5.1 billion
in 2013-14 and so on) and later private equity.

Governments can source cash for equity funding in various ways, but one
common way is by the issue of bonds.

For example, they might issue AAA rated bonds at, say, 4.1% which institutional
and personal investors buy. They use the cash raised to invest in NBN and
as NBN begins to generate revenue, it pays back the loan plus, say, 7.1%.

Plus the government (i.e. the Australian people) then still retains ownership of NBN Co.

This is a totally different model to where you use taxation revenue to build,
say, a hospital.

Assuming public hospitals aren't about to start charging patients, public hospitals
don't generate income. So you wouldn't use an equity funding model to build
a hospital, unless in rare circumstances where you might need to build one
quickly, say during wartime.

Say tomorrow there was a knock on the door of the house up the street.
The owner opens the door and an NBN rep says that for zero dollars to the owner
they can get fiber to the home. In the short term, the funding for the parts
and labour to make that connection came from equity funding. For example,
an institutional investor bought a bond from the government. In the longer
term, it was paid for by the subscribers to the network. So even if the owner
never made use of the connection themselves, it would not have cost them
anything in taxation.

Perhaps counterintuitive to some, the owner up the street can actually end up
better off tax-wise over time because of the increased economic activity
and efficiencies that the NBN brings about.

Data usage on networks globally have been growing exponentially. The world isn't
about to slow down its thirst for bandwidth any time soon. With improvements
in bandwidth come new services, increased economic activity and additional
tax revenue as wealth is generated. The additional tax revenue then helps reduce
the tax burden for our owner up the street for the construction of, say, hospitals.

Just to put things into perspective again, in the ten years the government might
provide $36 billion in equity funding for the NBN - that is, they get the money
back, plus interest, plus still own the company - we will have spent as taxpayers
$1.2 trillion on health.

So incredibly massive are our tax expenditures on health, social welfare, etc.
that we need to ensure a strong economy in order to continue to supply funds for
them. As an example, whereas the mining sector currently accounts for about
10% of GDP, the services sector accounts for a whopping 70% and employs
four out of five Australians. We are effectively a "services" country. Things such
as banking and insurance, telecommunications and travel. Lo and behold, many
of these service activities mesh with the digital economy and so the NBN is
exactly the type of infrastructure the nation needs to invest in.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 09-09-2013, 09:46 PM
strongmanmike's Avatar
strongmanmike (Michael)
Highest Observatory in Oz

strongmanmike is offline
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 17,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary View Post
Hi Fred, <snip> the NBN is
exactly the type of infrastructure the nation needs to invest in.
Thank you for once again explaining what many of us think and feel but are either not bothered to or are unable to articulate as well. It is forward and bold thinking such as has gone into the NBN that reaps reward in the long term, not conservative reluctance based on the false and misguided idea of some imaginary small government concept.

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 09-09-2013, 10:47 PM
gary
Registered User

gary is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Mt. Kuring-Gai
Posts: 5,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by strongmanmike View Post
Thank you for once again explaining what many of us think and feel but are either not bothered to or are unable to articulate as well. It is forward and bold thinking such as has gone into the NBN that reaps reward in the long term, not conservative reluctance based on the false and misguided idea of some imaginary small government concept.

Mike
Hi Mike,

In the United States in the 1930's, most of the rural areas didn't have electricity as the
power utilities argued it was too expensive to wire the farms up.

Under the New Deal, Roosevelt created the Rural Electric Administration to bring
electricity to these areas.

Today electricity underpins nearly everything we do.
However, predictably, there were some groups who opposed it at the time.

One of the areas the government brought power generation and distribution to was the
Tennessee Valley.

As an historical footnote, during WWII, the power that was generated by the
Tennessee Valley Authority was used to refine the uranium for the atomic bombs
that played a part in bringing a more rapid end to the war. That in turn also ensured
the United States place as a new superpower.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 09-09-2013, 11:06 PM
AndrewJ
Watch me post!

AndrewJ is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,905
Gday Gary

Quote:
Plus the government (i.e. the Australian people) then still retains ownership of NBN Co.
For how long???
I fully agree that unless the govt subsidises the installation of the NBN, it wont happen properly, other than in a few major cities.
I also agree that doing a proper installation up front will be far more beneficial long term than the fibre to the node ( maybe ),
but not cost effective in the short term.
But once done, i have no trust in out Govt ( of either side ) not to sell it off in order to say they have "balanced a budget".
After that Rafferties rules will rule.
Labour seems to get us into debt based on unfunded socialist ideals,
but the libs tend to tell us how wonderful they are by always balancing the budgets by selling of the "family silver" with the profits going to their mates.
Once the NBN is in place, other than medicare or personal superannuation
it will be the first thing the pollies look at selling or taxing to make themselves look like good financial managers.

Andrew
( am i sounding a bit cynical ??? )
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 09-09-2013, 11:36 PM
noeyedeer (Matt)
Registered User

noeyedeer is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: gold coast
Posts: 553
I'm glad labor was in for the global financial crisis. we are the only country to come out on top. no recession... lowest intrest rates in history .. highest American dollar in history etc ... that can't be that bad.

I could imagine where we would be if others were in charge, now we will see.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 09-09-2013, 11:42 PM
noeyedeer (Matt)
Registered User

noeyedeer is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: gold coast
Posts: 553
the libs will sell their souls ... ie Telstra andany other companies .. to balance the books ....
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 09-09-2013, 11:42 PM
gary
Registered User

gary is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Mt. Kuring-Gai
Posts: 5,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewJ View Post
Gday Gary
For how long???
I fully agree that unless the govt subsidises the installation of the NBN, it wont happen properly, other than in a few major cities.
I also agree that doing a proper installation up front will be far more beneficial long term than the fibre to the node ( maybe ),
but not cost effective in the short term.
But once done, i have no trust in out Govt ( of either side ) not to sell it off in order to say they have "balanced a budget".
Hi Andrew,

Thanks for the post.

When I wrote that sentence I meant it in a transactional sense rather than
in the sense that the government would necessarily own it forever and forever.

It had already been signaled some years ago that the plan was eventually
to sell it. Whether it will remain public or become private will obviously be
a decision that will be made by the powers that be in the future.

Whether it is eventually sold for political expediency to make the bottom line look
good is certainly not without precedent.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 10-09-2013, 12:16 AM
AndrewJ
Watch me post!

AndrewJ is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,905
Gday Gary

Quote:
Whether it is eventually sold for political expediency to make the bottom line look
good is certainly not without precedent.
I give it less than five years after implementation before the govt sells it
( unless they can up the GST to cover the looming lack of cash flow )
After selling it, just for info, how long do you reckon it will be
before the "non profitable" sections of it ( ie not in a major city )
get dropped or ignored???? ( for commercial reasons )

Andrew
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 10-09-2013, 12:51 AM
gary
Registered User

gary is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Mt. Kuring-Gai
Posts: 5,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewJ View Post
Gday Gary

After selling it, just for info, how long do you reckon it will be
before the "non profitable" sections of it ( ie not in a major city )
get dropped or ignored???? ( for commercial reasons )

Andrew
Hi Andrew,

The previous government had already tendered for and ordered the two new
purpose built NBN satellites that were to service those parts of the
country that didn't get fibre or the LTE fixed wireless service.

These are being constructed by Loral in the US and are
scheduled to be launched in early and mid 2015.

These would provide enormous benefits to people living and working in
the most remote parts of the country as well as Norfolk Island,
Christmas Island, Macquarie Island and the Cocos Islands.
They were to service about 200,000 premises.

Of course these very remote areas that are to be serviced by satellite and
the other rural areas that were to be serviced by the high-speed fixed
wireless LTE service are the types of areas that have been of little interest
to the private sector and hence one of the reasons why the previous government
stepped in and created NBN Co.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 10-09-2013, 01:07 AM
AndrewJ
Watch me post!

AndrewJ is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,905
Gday Gary

Im talking of people less than 30 to 40km or more from the centre of Sydney/Melb/Brissy/Perth.
Even now, i am about 11km from the melb GPO, but have crappy service,
( and i have piccies of the copper rotting in the pits due to maintenance by failure that is favoured by private industry )
that doesnt look like being upgraded for a long while.
If they sell it off, anyone not within a few Km of a city centre will be "collateral damage" as they arent "cost effective".
Some things shouldnt be privatised.

Andrew
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 12:54 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Astrophotography Prize
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement