Do you support the Government's upgrade of Australia's broadband infrastructure (1 Viewer)

[kokodamonkey]

just let telstra build it

 

[ZaraKu]

pretty sure there are better things to spend the money on... the only thing I see good out of this is that it will benefit rural areas. Fixing fucking phone reception would be a better thing to spend money on.

 

[Riet]

I dreamt that Telstra told the Rudd government to get fucked and used the real-estate of their copper network to lay down their own optic fibre one.

 

[physicslover]

It doesn't matter whether or not we support it, the question is do we really need to go a further $43 BILLION INTO DEBT? If people don't like it Rudd will just throw money at them to get his votes back.

 

[Riet]

THIS FIAT CURRENCY IS MEANINGLESS ANYWAY. ALL MY MONEY IS STORED AS JEW GOLD, I SUGGEST YOU DO THE SAME.

kthx

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

THIS FIAT CURRENCY IS MEANINGLESS ANYWAY. ALL MY MONEY IS STORED AS JEW GOLD, I SUGGEST YOU DO THE SAME.

kthx

lol.

 

[sb.neethu]

I have experienced the broadband of three different countries and out of those, Australian broadband isn't the best, but surely not the worst either. I do believe that making improvements will be a worthwhile action, however, not in this economic climate. People re loosing their homes and their savings and many many more are becoming unemployed. I just don't think this is the right point to issue those changes.

 

[moll.]

I have experienced the broadband of three different countries and out of those, Australian broadband isn't the best, but surely not the worst either. I do believe that making improvements will be a worthwhile action, however, not in this economic climate. People re loosing their homes and their savings and many many more are becoming unemployed. I just don't think this is the right point to issue those changes.

Uhhh... Actually this current economic climate is probably the best possible climate in which it could happen.

 

[drowning_pocoyo]

our internet speed i crap compared to world standards ><"

 

[Riet]

I have experienced the broadband of three different countries and out of those, Australian broadband isn't the best, but surely not the worst either. I do believe that making improvements will be a worthwhile action, however, not in this economic climate. People re loosing their homes and their savings and many many more are becoming unemployed. I just don't think this is the right point to issue those changes.

My internet is faster than world average, and that's why I wont be happy unless I get atleast 20+ mbit/s and 50 gigs a month for the same price I'm paying now.

 

[tichondrius]

My internet is faster than world average, and that's why I wont be happy unless I get atleast 20+ mbit/s and 50 gigs a month for the same price I'm paying now.

Unfortunately it's nowhere near a majority of the population that can get ADSL2+, and even if they could - most of them wouldn't enjoy speeds of 20mbit+ (too far from the exchange).

That and I think this fibre network will future-proof Australia for a hell of a long time to come - the Government is going all the way and giving us FTTH instead of the original FTTN plan. Our copper network is way out of date.

Also, Telstra needs a kick in the butt - this is another chance to correct the stupid mistake of privatizing Telstra, and fix the original mistake of having a retail and a wholesale arm of the monopoly telecommunications infrastructure provider.

"It doesn't matter whether or not we support it, the question is do we really need to go a further $43 BILLION INTO DEBT? If people don't like it Rudd will just throw money at them to get his votes back."

This is the rhetoric of the [conservative] liberal (yeah it is an oxymoron) party. I don't get why people still believe that a budget deficit is a bad thing - continued budget surpluses during a recession are a sign of a chicken government and nothing more. This is the time for large-scale investments that will support Australian jobs over a long period of time (25,000 jobs per year over the 8 year life of the project), and invest in Australia's future so that when this recession is over Australia's economy will be in an even better position.

 

[Charizard]

or just ban anyone disagreeing with you.

who the fuck cares where they form their opinions from, you don't have to respond.

 

[duckcowhybrid]

Lol Rudd just wants his goddamn internet filter and this way he can make sure he gets it. It's all a big cover for the compulsory internet filter. So no, I don't support it.

 

[moll.]

This is the rhetoric of the [conservative] liberal (yeah it is an oxymoron) party. I don't get why people still believe that a budget deficit is a bad thing - continued budget surpluses during a recession are a sign of a chicken government and nothing more. This is the time for large-scale investments that will support Australian jobs over a long period of time (25,000 jobs per year over the 8 year life of the project), and invest in Australia's future so that when this recession is over Australia's economy will be in an even better position.

The point is the size of the deficit, not the fact it exists.
$35b is over 2% of GDP. You don't just look at that kind of figure and shrug your shoulders.

 

[moll.]

Uh, Schroe, apparently he finished his HSC in 2007. Not '09.

 

[tichondrius]

Three years ago we didn't even have ADSL2+. The technology as a whole is getting faster and faster as we squeeze more bandwidth out of copper.

Copper can't last forever. The best time for the government to invest is when other companies won't invest themselves. Not only that - many people don't even have access to proper copper - me being one of them. Telstra, during it's later stage roll outs took to something called 'Pair Gain' - something that allowed them to split copper to service a greater number of households. While people in certain advantaged suburbs may be able to have more and more squeezed out of their copper us Pair Gain'ers are stuck on a maximum of ADSL1+.

Fibre for everyone at grotesque expense with no tender process? That sounds like the best idea ever!

Both the other alternatives collapsed upon themselves. Giving fibre to Telstra would result in the same problem we have now - a monopoly wholesale and retail provider who constantly abuses their position. It's calmed down now but I'm sure you remembered how many times they got slapped by the ACCC a few years ago (all that stuff about price gouging, charging less than the cost of wholesale providers renting the lines etc.)

Young Labor detected.

In spirit, not in substance.

It's a valid point, the government can't just keep printing money out of thin air and leaving young people holding the bag.

The government's printing money to fund this one? I'd have assumed overseas debt instruments.

Why not just pay people to dig holes and fill them in again?

Because the end result is not something productive (w.r.t the multiplier effect)? For someone whose claims have been intelligent thus far I didn't think you'd regress to that one.....

The main reason we're currently so fucked is the government has been acting as an ATM for telstra for the past two decades. If we substantially reduced the regulations on companies rolling out carrier networks, you'd see a seriously massive increase in microcarrier networks popping up in many areas.

Combine those with peering services and you've got a fast growing fibre network.

How many companies are actually geared to this? And even if they are geared to be able to supply these networks - what about in regions where these networks aren't viable. Shouldn't it be the job of the government to bridge the gap - rural Australia is already doing it hard in terms of internet access.

There is already masses of dark fibre throughout Australia. The problem is future bandwidth capacity between Australia and the rest of the world. There's no point giving everyone 100MBit connections when you're only getting 2.4KB/s from the rest of the world.

How much of Australia is actually covered? Stats please - I know my area isn't covered. And what of that 2.4kb/s claim - obviously that's an exaggeration...how much do those deep water pipes actually allow?

Can we ban all HSC economics students from this forum, please?

Actually 2nd year BEc(Financial Economics) at UNSW but what does it matter. HSC Economics students have their opinions too.

 

[withoutaface]

The exchanges in green are where ADSL2+ is enabled.

I'd call that a majority.

EDIT: Also Telstra 'price gouging' is but a fraction of what the taxpayers will be forced to contribute to this plan.

 

[tichondrius]

A greened exchange doesn't mean any one on that exchange can get ADSL2+ - in many cases there is infrastructure between the exchange and housing developments.

Also even if it did mean that anyone on those exchanges can get ADSL2+ - you're only considering Sydney, what about other major cities? And what about rural Australia?


The comment made about Telstra's price gouging went to the disadvantage to business users of Telstra's wholesale network not to the price that consumers were paying.

 

[withoutaface]

A greened exchange doesn't mean any one on that exchange can get ADSL2+ - in many cases there is infrastructure between the exchange and housing developments.

Also even if it did mean that anyone on those exchanges can get ADSL2+ - you're only considering Sydney, what about other major cities? And what about rural Australia?


The comment made about Telstra's price gouging went to the disadvantage to business users of Telstra's wholesale network not to the price that consumers were paying.

Other major cities are similar, and fuck rural Australia, they would cost 100x as much to reach per customer as those in the city and are simply not worth the investment if they continue to insist on living in some retarded backwater.

$200 per month internet sounds worse than anything Telstra could ever conjure.

 

[tichondrius]

fuck rural Australia, they would cost 100x as much to reach per customer as those in the city and are simply not worth the investment if they continue to insist on living in some retarded backwater.

$200 per month internet sounds worse than anything Telstra could ever conjure.

We still depend a lot on agriculture (10.4% of exports in the 06-07 period) and mining (34.7% in the same period) [See here] for our external sector. Most of this business is also conducted rurally so it would be folly to completely neglect them. While there are options like satellite to reach Australia - I personally don't think these to be viable, considering the demand currently placed on high volume data transfers (satellite is freaking expensive on a per/mb basis).

And I really doubt prices will be that expensive to start with and even over the course of the new network's life. The government would be seeking to recover costs over an extremely lengthy period - considering that fibre (right now anyway) is considered as being completely future proof.
--> Not only that I think the government would make prices similar to current plans under the copper network. Remember it is still people's discretion to stay on copper for internet services, I don't think fibre will replace copper per se - it will run as a parallel network.