PorkBarrel.net ....

The Australian

Its basically a leaked internal memo from the minister to the public servants getting them prepare documents for 40 government-held marginal seats.

Nothing new about that really. I mean it sucks that they are using tax dollars for essentially a Liberal political ad (and yes the ALP probably would be doing it to if they were in power).

And when Rudd asked the PM in question timePrime Minister, isn’t it a fact that this email demonstrates that your broadband policy has been prepared primarily as a pre-election bandaid to protect coalition marginal seats? (hansard), Howard basically lied, and said no. I mean surely if it wasn't to protect marginal seats but to educate/advise people generally, more then those 40 seats would be getting targeted ?

He ignored the environment... now he's all green, because its politically important.
He ignored technological infrastructure... now its being pushed and advertised, because its politically important.

Note, I said politically important. Those issues were important before then, just not to him being re-elected.

Not that you can blame him. At the end of the day, I guess democracy is about good politics not good government.


Maybe they need to have direct elections for the PM and limit them to 1 term, but double that term (or something). Maybe then the political leaders be interested in good government because there is no hope for re-election ?

How do you guarantee to provide high-speed broadband to 99% of the population and provide $2750 subsidies to the other 1% and yet only be assisting 40 seats?

This has been done to death, the broadband plan DOES NOT favour anyone... Obviously.

How do you guarantee to provide high-speed broadband to 99% of the population and provide $2750 subsidies to the other 1% and yet only be assisting 40 seats?

by not guaranteeing the same speed to everyone?...Idiot

It sucks that the media is harping over this being a government issue when it now should be a commercial issue. That's what happens when you privatise industry. They become market driven.

Note, I said politically important. Those issues were important before then, just not to him being re-elected.

These issues are politically important now because Labour, like douchebags, have popped out of nowhere with a retarded $4 billion dollar plan to improve broadband and the media jumped all over it, so Howard is forced to play the political game instead of getting some stones and saying "it's the telcos job now to improve their infrastructure".

Telstra could build a $4 billion dollar network with the PROFITS from a single year. Yes, they make two billion dollars (with a B) every half year (source).

How do you guarantee to provide high-speed broadband to 99% of the population and provide $2750 subsidies to the other 1% and yet only be assisting 40 seats?

Sorry... let me correct myself.

How do you guarantee to provide 12Mbit high-speed broadband to 99% of the population and provide $2750 subsidies to the other 1% and yet only be assisting 40 seats?

Happy?

The labour idea of providing $4.7bn along with a similar input from the private sector is ridiculous, for one, it has been shown that this is a completely unrealistic price estimate, it would be more likely to cost $20bn. Secondly, what is the point of building fibre to the node in rural and regional areas. As someone said on this forum, there is always going to be technological inequality between the cities and the bush, its just inevitable.

I'm personally happy that we now get a open-tender fttn, where hopefully, the best proposal gets the go-ahead, and I don't have to foot the bill. I just really hope its not Telstra.

I wonder trog with Bigpond/Telstra being your source of revenue there might be some conflict of interest on this subject for you.

Telstra could build a $4 billion dollar network with the PROFITS from a single year. Yes, they make two billion dollars (with a B) every half year (source).

Considering it's that 2billion profit (and associated dividends) that underpins Telstra's share price that is pretty unrealistic.

I find it funny we're talking about FTTN when in America Fiber to the Premises (i.e. home) is being rolled out in some areas.

I actually don't really have a problem with what the Governments doing about broadband (now - that is, they should have done something about 5 years ago) but I do have a problem with them interfering with the ACCC in any way, shape or form. The reality is that the Govt hold 30% of telstra in the Future Fund (which underpins their future pension payouts) this means that any involvement in ACCC decision making is a HUGE conflict of interest as far as I'm concerned.

Plus the fact that Telstra seem to be in constant douchebag mode. Any see the comments they were making about how the Tender shouldn't go to the Singaporeans (reference to Optus owners Singtel). A bit rich from a company currently run by f***ing Americans

Wasn't it revealed that if Tosstra rolled out their FTTN that 512kbps was going to be wholesaled at $59 per month. Value+.

I wonder trog with Bigpond/Telstra being your source of revenue there might be some conflict of interest on this subject for you.

That's because you're not thinking. What I'm saying is, no government money should be going to Telstra. That theoretically would put me in a worse position if what you're saying is true. You're doing the media/mass market thing of just picking up on keywords and randomly applying them to things without actually thinking about how they relate or what you're saying!

last edited by trog at 09:31:14 20/Jun/07

Not really trog, if Tosstra had the monopoly on FTTN and the minimum wholesale price was $59 for 512kb that would make it a very lucrative business and thus more revenue, thus more to spend on those incidentals like GameArena/GameOn.

The again trog have you thought this might encourage Tosstra to actually come up with their FTTN rollout as they certainly wouldn't like the competition overrunning them. Wouldn't this then create competition in the market where under Tosstra's plan as a monopoly there'd be none?

Tel$tra has never been interested in anything but making profit.

Not really trog, if Tosstra had the monopoly on FTTN and the minimum wholesale price was $59 for 512kb that would make it a very lucrative business and thus more revenue, thus more to spend on those incidentals like GameArena/GameOn.

That's up to the ACCC to decide - again, that's just part of the deregulation of the industry. Telstra, one way or another, are f***ed - they'll get forced to share their equipment with everyone under the current system, and they know it. That's one of their quoted reasons for not just dropping billions and building the network in the first place - they don't want to have to share it with anyone.

AND WHY SHOULD THEY?

The again trog have you thought this might encourage Tosstra to actually come up with their FTTN rollout as they certainly wouldn't like the competition overrunning them. Wouldn't this then create competition in the market where under Tosstra's plan as a monopoly there'd be none?

I'm all for competition, but it should be fair. That other mob of ISPs should stop their whining and invest in their own network if they're sure its such a great idea. Then Telstra can build one two, and we can have two awesome networks, and everyone wins.

Mongie, learn to read.

How do you guarantee to provide high-speed broadband to 99% of the population and provide $2750 subsidies to the other 1% and yet only be assisting 40 seats?

I am not talking about the plan being biased, I am talking about the advertising for the plan. They are using tax payers dollars to advertise the broadband plan in 40 government-held marginal seats. ie. a Liberal party ad paid by us the people. If it was an important initiative, one all aussie needed to know about why only bombard 40 key seats.

And lets be honest, this would be one of the governments "non-key" election promises that will never be for filled, so its good money being thrown at nothing more then hot air.

Trog, as for your comment about whether or not technology infrastructure is important enough to be a government concern ?

I'd say all key infrastructure should be a concern. Privatised water, power, gas etc doesn't work. Privatised means maximum return for owners/shareholders, where these key infrastructures are important for continued development and growth. ie. it doesn't mean building for the future or ensuring we don't run out of water or power, its all about maximum profits. (That said government run water doesn't seem to work either).

Our water and power bills cost the actual production and supply of it. They don't include provision for expanding the production facilities as demand grows. Hell I'd guess our coal for power is cheaper then the international market price so our electricity prices are probably underpriced. This trend of not planning for future needs is probably why water rates are doubling now ?

So then it becomes, is broadband important for development and growth ?
I'd say yes. You obviously are saying no ?

Now why regional centers ?
Well, we need to stop creating mega-cities, which means making regional centers viable alternatives for businesses to set up in.
.. but that again is just my crazed opinion.


last edited by Obes at 09:47:44 20/Jun/07

But Telstra didn't pay for their copper network, we the public did when they were Government owned. So how is this fair that one side gets a free copper network and the other has to pay?

But Telstra didn't pay for their copper network, we the public did when they were Government owned. So how is this fair that one side gets a free copper network and the other has to pay?

If I paint a pretty painting and sell it to you, whose painting is it

And lets be honest, this would be one of the governments "non-key" election promises that will never be for filled, so its good money being thrown at nothing more then hot air.

Um... its not an election promise dude... Its already started.

The easiest way to explain why Telstra own the network fairly, is that when they were privatised, they were sold with the CAN as one of their assets. ie. The shareholders paid for the CAN.

Trog, The whole issue regarding Telstra and the FTTN is that they reached a stalemate with the ACCC over fair wholesale access prices. Telstra have said that they will REQUIRE a $59 wholesale cost for 512kbit (was also explained as $75 retail) to achieve their ROI targets. If they can not get this, they won't build the network. Since the tender process is now going through a panel, the pricing of the network will most probably be a big issue. It has the potential to go either way... If the panel are c*******s, they recommend a Telstra plan with $59 wholesale access for 512kbit. If they are sensible, they recommend something else with lower wholesale prices.

(The G9 proposal offered $35 wholesale 24mbit ADSL2+ however it also has to charge the ULLS feel to access the Telstra CAN.)

last edited by mongie at 09:56:01 20/Jun/07

I remember hearing Rudd on the radio a few weeks ago talking to a small business owner about what Labour can do for small business, his first response was about building a high speed broadband network because high speed broadband can help small business to grow... what the f***? No it won't, most small businesses I know couldn't give a dick about dialup let alone broadband or high speed broadband, it's seen more as a luxury or for something the boss to go download porn from when business is quiet.

IMO the government should own the infrastructure (hell, we paid for it) and then lease it out to Telstra and all the other ISPs. Additionally they should scrap all these broadband plans and change it into a utility service so that you pay for what you use. I hate the fact the plans are designed around the 80/20 (or 90/10) rule and I'm subsidising some juarez kiddy's p2p.

A bit of a cop out trog. If Telstra was privately owned from the start do you really think the bush would have gotten any copper?

The government price for Telstra wouldn't of reflected the investment in the bush as it has low commercial value and thus wouldn't have been sustainable in the asking price. It would have primarily reflected the commercial value of the cities. Businesses pay for what will produce a return on investment. The bush doesn't therefore would have been relegated to a substantially low value not inidcative of it cost to implement.

The government price for Telstra wouldn't of reflected the investment in the bush as it has low commercial value and thus wouldn't have been sustainable in the asking price. It would have primarily reflected the commercial value of the cities. Businesses pay for what will produce a return on investment. The bush doesn't therefore would have been relegated to a substantially low value not inidcative of it cost to implement.

Maybe that's why it shouldn't have been sold in the first palce

Don't have a problem with that. But with all the public ownership doomsayers they would have been up in arms how Telstra is so costly to the public and ineffecient. What do we have now? Not much better.

IMO the government should own the infrastructure (hell, we paid for it) and then lease it out to Telstra and all the other ISPs.

You've sorta hit the nail on the head... except, its too late. Telstra SHOULD have been split and the retail arm sold. They didn't do this, and the CAN now belongs to Telstra, fair and square.

The funny thing is, the New Zealand government is currently telling NZ Telecom to split into 3 parts...

BT Split

NZ Telecom Split

Telstra should've been sold, it's not a key asset and is a global market (all telecommunications are). What they should've have done is sell the copper network, it should've been a government owned, whole saled AT COST to maintain, network.

Telstra don't want to run a second network and get screwed by being forced to wholesale at a price they don't want? fair enough, the tenders for the whole contract will sort out what they can and can't do.

But the building of copper networks/fibre, now that we own none, should not require goverment money, it should be put to the open market and run accordingly.

The reason we still pay extremely high rates for internet is because of the un-willingness of goverments to turn around and say "it's a free open market, someone wants to cut telstras grass, they're welcome to come in and do it".

With that line of thinkiing then you can kiss the bush goodbye. But then again, why would you care if you don't live in the bush. Oh that's right they represent marginal coalition seats.

and i think that's the bottom line.

i couldn't care less about the bush. they pay f*** all for land for a reason, then expect fast cheap broadband. sorry, i thought the land was worthless for a reason. all the money they don't spend on land they can spend on nextg wireless internets or something. its fast enough for farmers.

Farmers can't afford NextG, they have the drought to worry about (and payments on their brand new F250s).

That BT Split article is so spot on it makes me cry to know that it will never happen due to the goddamned vested interests which run the Government.

Oh you're heartless to the bush. They are worth something, they vote.

Why should a company roll out infrastructure for a service they cannot make money on?

It is up to the market to price the product so high that a company will be attracted to investing in that.

I don't blame Telstra for sitting back and waiting to see what some of its competitors are going to do.

I think pretty much anyone with a bit of nouse realizes the government should have kept the infrastructure and sold the retail.

Stupid politicians.

I'm not sure why the bush needs high speed broadband? Surly satalite based broadband is fast enough. Are there any essential reasons? Or is it simply for luxury reasons?

Tel$tra should never have been sold, the fact is that IT HAS. So it is only fair that it be treated like any other business. Hopefully Australia learnt its lesson for the next time it wants to sell off something like it.

What the f*** do the bush people need ultra-fast intarweb for anyway? Anyone who NEEDS super-fast net for business purposes etc lives in the cities anyway.

As long as they can check their email - wtf else they need?

Why should the government own a telco?

How would other telcos compete with the government owned one?

Telstra should have been privatised when they offloaded the Commonwealth Bank and QANTAS.

Next should be Medibank Private and Australia Post.

What the f*** do the bush people need ultra-fast intarweb for anyway?

Because if it appeared the Guberment had left them behind and neglected them they may be inclined to vote Labor. Then again if Labor ignored them they might be inclined to vote for the Guberment.

Infi, sometimes i think you're alright, but other times you remind me of a smarter version of hunter.

Why should the government own a telco?

How would other telcos compete with the government owned one?

Who proposed that the Government should not have sold Telstra? The only complaining I see is that they sold the network as part of the sale. The government should own the only copper phone network in australia and as Giri said, sell access @ cost.

edit i was respopnding to this:

Tel$tra should never have been sold, the fact is that IT HAS.

the government should own nothing. it's like suggesting the government should own the mobile towers too.

last edited by infi at 11:12:05 20/Jun/07

Yeah I reckon whoever came up with the term "The Common Good" was obviously a Satlinist, Communist, Socialist, Red Wagon toting Single cell Amoeba. I reckon we should sell the Public Schools and Public Hospitals and those that can't afford an education get to shovel my s*** and those that are sick but can't afford surgery or the prescriptions should just bloody hurry up and die.

telstra should never have been privatised imo... niether should any essensial service & telecommunications are an essential service. otherwise our 'government' aren't governing.. they are just being accountants. soon the power industry will slide down the s***shute in privatisation & ya have the knobs on tv saying that it will make power cheaper for the average user... what a fukn joke. yeh, coz having the money pass through a few re-sellers hands is really gonna cut those costs!@#!

i predict that in a few years average households will be paying around 3x as much as they currently are for power, if not more. the fact that power companies are tendering for ever more accurate power monitoring equipment sez it all.

apostrophe in government's ffs

the coalitions response to labor's broadband policy is stupid. but so is labor's. it should be left up to the market.

australia has world class internet in the areas that need it, capital city CBDs. nowhere else in australia could possibly justify needing the government to pay for them to get high speed broadband.

the benefits of broadband are overwhelmingly private, not public. and the main beneficiaries are the more wealthy sections of society. so basically we have the poor subsidising the rich so they can gain private benefits from broadband. last time i checked that wasn't too desirable.

people claim we need this broadband network as it will increase productivity with applications in e-health, e-commerce, e-education, whatever they are. that is all completely wishful thinking, they don't exist yet. a paper by an economist called Joshua Gans from the Committee for Economic Development of Australia published a paper last year basically saying this. it pointed out that its main use in South Korea and Japan is for playing computer games and illegal downloads - private benefits that aren't really going to increase productivity.

people argue that with the network in place these applications could develop... so why haven't they developed in other countries with high speed broadband already in place? wouldn't it make more sense to allow these applications to develop first, thus generating demand for high speed broadband and then letting the market and competition provide it much more efficiently and at no tax-payer cost?

also, even with super fast broadband Australia is always going to have download limits. read this for a good explanation why: http://forums.mactalk.com.au/showthread.php?t=32769

why should the tax payer fork out billions so we can use up up our quotas in days rather than weeks?

ps. i love broadband, i couldn't live without my internet connection. but i jsut don't think it's fair that the entire country should pay so I can leech pron faster.

edit: spellinglololol

last edited by taggs at 11:35:25 20/Jun/07

and if for some crazy reason everyone really really thinks the bush needs high speed broadband, localised solutions make much more sense than a 1 size fits all policy.

am I the only person who thinks the speeds are fine?

Seriously, the speeds are fine, I would rather get unlimited quota like the US or Asia etc.

i cbf reading up on the plans, can someone do a quick summary to what is proposed?

how will it effect me?

australia will likely never see unlimited download plans. see the link i posted earlier for a good explanation why.

Agree with obes, the gov should have kept the network and sold off the rest. Right now you have a situation which no-one benefits from. Telstra are private but are restricted by the government. Rest of the ISPS are restricted by telstra. NO-one seriously wants to invest in anything that are forced to give away.

And what does this 4B network buy anyway, copper network alone is worth about 40B. Just seems anything that small would be a bandaid solution at best.

#1 @ Taggs...
Now I can type... There are various reasons why Australia needs FTTN. I appreciate you have a paper that you've read that says we dont, but thats 1 guy versus basically everyone else. The number 1 reason as far as I'm concerned is for Triple-Play services. Keep in mind, the government is not paying for FTTN. Triple-Play is TV+Broadband+Phone through the one line. ADSL2+ @ 20mbit+ is sufficient to support this.

Other reasons for needing a FTTN include, as you said, e-health requirements - which is fairly unchartered territory, we don't know exactly what opportunities will arise in this field in the future.

Businesses being able to connect to the internet more affoardably, and at higher speeds will allow e-business to grow in Australia. Just because YOU don't see the need for faster internet for business, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I won't go on any more, I'm hungry and I want lunch.

#2 @ Eds...
What speeds to do achieve, what service do you use? Considering my work currently has to pay thousands a month to get a 4/4mbit network connection, I don't think that speeds are fine.

last edited by mongie at 12:10:30 20/Jun/07

oh ok, sorry.

There is no way that the current Telstra CAN is worth $40bn.

The $2bn package that has been announced is providing the following...

OPEL said it would roll out a combination of WiMAX and ADSL2+ to cover 638,000 square kilometres, or 3.7 million premises. The network would include 1361 broadband "wireless sites" and activate ADSL2+ in 426 telephone exchanges

It is being carried out by a partnership of Optus and Elders called OpEl. They have committed $900m ($200 cash and $700 in assets) to the project, the Government handed out the entire $600m from the Broadband Connect project + $358 extra funding.

There is also going to be an open tender process for a FTTN. Currently, Telstra and a consortium of companies called the G9 have expressed intrest, however only the G9 have lodged a SAU with the ACCC (due process). The government has decided that they will form a "expert panel" (which comprises 3 regulatory related members, two government employees and two businessmen) who will decide on which is the best proposal. This is happening from now, for the next month or two.

The eventual idea is that 99% of Australia will have access to High Speed Broadband of over 12Mbit. The other 1% will get their access via government subsidised satelite. They have also established a $2bn future fund for network maintenence, which should return $400m every 3 years, to be put directly into network maintenence and upgrades.

last edited by mongie at 12:11:13 20/Jun/07

Too much info there mongie. You might enlighten me too much. Can't have that, I might actually become an informed voter.

Businesses being able to connect to the internet more affoardably, and at higher speeds will allow e-business to grow in Australia. Just because YOU don't see the need for faster internet for business, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I call bollocks! We recently moved our office and had to wait a few weeks to get our MPLS link relocated because of our account manager f***ing up. In the meantime we had a 20Mbit DSL2 link (10x faster than our usual link) and it was absolutely s***. ADSL (note tha A) is not business grade IMO unless you run a Jim's mowing franchise and download porn all day.

So some dslams in pre existing exchanges and access to pre existing mobile towers? Or are they building new towers?

Not really trog, if Tosstra had the monopoly on FTTN and the minimum wholesale price was $59 for 512kb that would make it a very lucrative business and thus more revenue, thus more to spend on those incidentals like GameArena/GameOn.

haha the jig's up trog

Essentially the line in Question Time from the Government is that via a roll-out of ADSL2 DSLAMS and WiMax wirless, the Government plan will achieve 12mb internet to 99% of Australia's population by 2009.

The ALP's plan will achieve 75% by 2013 via a roll out of FTTN.

Believe what you want, they both have no real credibility on this issue imo.

A lot of you are missing the subtlety of my original post.

Regardless of whether the plan it self is good or bad, balanced or not, needed or not. You can see the true reasoning behind the plan ie. BUY THOSE VOTES, by the focus of the public awareness campaigns USING TAX PAYER'S MONEY on marginal government seats.

The value or otherwise of the network is another debate entirely and one I think got flogged to death last time it got raised.

The focus of "everything" being announced seems to be not about good government, but rather about buying votes of swinging voters in marginal seats.

ps. has all you need to know about broadband plans

last edited by Obes at 12:48:28 20/Jun/07

In the end who cares who builds the dam thing just stfu and get on with it. I have no love for Telstra, in fact they make my blood boil just hearing their name but if they can put the goods on the table then why not. As long as the price is kept reasonable ($59 for 512kbit they have gotta be f*&king joking) then who really cares. What someone needs to spend some money on is a new OS link, if every house has ADSL2+ speeds we ain't going to have enough pipe to all watch that hilarious new clip of jim running over obes foot in his 4x4 on youtube.

No I think you are missing the point of your original post and it is about the broadband plans.

As the PM said yesterday, how can the plan be directed at marginal seats if 99% of Australia is getting 12mb internet by 2009?

99% is a lot of people, and a lot of Labor voters.

Why should the government own a telco?

Why shouldn't they? They own a bunch of stuff.

telstra should never have been privatised imo... niether should any essensial service & telecommunications are an essential service. otherwise our 'government' aren't governing.. they are just being accountants. soon the power industry will slide down the s***shute in privatisation & ya have the knobs on tv saying that it will make power cheaper for the average user... what a fukn joke. yeh, coz having the money pass through a few re-sellers hands is really gonna cut those costs!@#!

I agree with demon

the coalitions response to labor's broadband policy is stupid. but so is labor's. it should be left up to the market.

and taggs

am I the only person who thinks the speeds are fine?

and eds

TicMan, why do you think your ADSL2+ connection was s***? Too slow? Unreliable?

So some dslams in pre existing exchanges and access to pre existing mobile towers? Or are they building new towers?

I think I've been unclear. I didn't mention this before. The $2bn fund includes 15,000km of regional backhaul. Including 2 tasmanian fibre links. Part of the $700m worth of infrastructure that Optus are bringing is around 10,000km of backhaul, with another 5,000 to be deployed. Also included is like a thousand new microwave spurs. This has the effect of making regional internet for other providers much cheaper. Everything in the plan is on a wholesale basis only.

WiMax is not an upgrade of a mobile tower. They will install new towers with a range of ~ 20KM on the outskirts of ADSL coverage.

Believe what you want, they both have no real credibility on this issue imo.

I understand Labour having no credibility, their plan is a copy of the original Telstra plan... but I don't understand your dislike of the Government's plan?

In the end who cares who builds the dam thing just stfu and get on with it. I have no love for Telstra, in fact they make my blood boil just hearing their name but if they can put the goods on the table then why not. As long as the price is kept reasonable ($59 for 512kbit they have gotta be f*&king joking) then who really cares. What someone needs to spend some money on is a new OS link, if every house has ADSL2+ speeds we ain't going to have enough pipe to all watch that hilarious new clip of jim running over obes foot in his 4x4 on youtube.

I read yesterday that 10% of all web traffic is youtube. We're lucky though because Telstra are currently building a undersea link between Sydney and the US, and Pipe Networks are planning to build a link between Australia and Guam. The pipe link would be 640Gbit, expandable to 8Tbit. Plus, they're upgrading the Southern Cross at the moment too.

Mass, its all well and good to say "as long as the price is kept reasonable". Telstra are trying to hold the Government to ransome, saying "If you don't give us the prices we want, we won't invest the money.

Its a massive issue.

mongie it seems you are pretty emotional about this issue.

Thanks for your troll paveway.

You're partly right. I just get annoyed because there is so much misinformation on the issue.

they have no credibility because THEY HAVE BOTH JUST JUMPED ON A BANDWAGON.

This should have been left to the private sector and ACCC to figure it out. There is a truckload of profit available and investment required for these projects and the risk should be born by the private sector. Government's are supposed to build things private sector cannot - damns, roads, bridges.

Government's are wasteful, politicised and not customer focussed. They are inefficient.

Trog - that is why Government should not own anything. They are a civil service provider to the people, a regulator and safety net. Not a bloody Harvey Norman, Optus Outlet and ISP.

infi you don't get it... (You are physically incapable of accepting that the Liberals and Johnie in particular can ever be wrong).

Its not about the plan, no one is saying the plan is wrong (the porkbarrel.net comment is wrong but meh). Its about using tax payer funds to run an unannounced election campaign, ie. spending money on advertising the broadband plan in only these marginal seats.

It's not even really a Liberal / Labor issue (cos the ALP would do it too), even tho they are pretending they wouldn't.

I guess its a sign that our current political system is f***ed.
Maybe its because us the voters have the attention span of 30seconds, and we are only thinking of our short term future. And aren't able to see the wastage and stupidity that goes on at the moment.

Stop trying to derail the thread obes and get back to talking about the broadband plans.

its pretty f***ed up, but in no way is it the first time the government has gotten tax payers to pay for ad's which are only getting run in selected areas

I don't see why, particularly in this information and technology age, good network access shouldn't be eligible to be considered a civil service. seems a fairly short-sighted point of view to me

Sorry to burst your bubble Obes but those shell media releases are not taxpayer funded as they are coming out of the MPs offices and their existing staff as part of the ordinary course of promoting the MP, and GMS (Government Members' Service) provides the text which is not new expenditure either.

The only advertising I can see is

the general materials that are already being produced by GA for the national media (e.g. national media release, general TPs, FAQs, coverage map of Australia etc);

assuming it will be nationwide and not limited to the top 40 hit list.

The Government has to prioritise how they are going to roll out the info somehow. Why not to the most marginal seats? These are the battleground. You seem to live in a world where politician's ought not to think of their re-election.

A civil service is like welfare, universal free medical care, going to DOT for driver's license renewal, issuing gambling licenses, registering land titles. Stuff you would never trust private sector with from a perception POV.

Any schmuck can roll out cables and fire up a telco/ISP.

Also some light reading for those interested: http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/06/20/broadband-and-bad-decisions-coming-back-to-bite/

Basically telecommunications deregulation in Australia has been handled awfully first by Beazley's decision to make Telstra a little bit pregnant ("corporatised"), secondly by ALP's blocking of Coalition's mandate to privatise telstra wholly.

The best decision made to date has been the current Government's retention of the remainder of Telstra in the Future Fund so that some of the lost value through fire sale prices can be recouped after Telstra's share price has recovered to T2 levels.

last edited by infi at 13:40:54 20/Jun/07

Why not to the most marginal seats? These are the battleground.

In an ideal world it would be due to the backlash around the rest of the country caused by such cynical electoral tactics (at least some rumblings to that effect can be seen in this thread).

last edited by Chakas at 13:35:55 20/Jun/07

When can we expect to see "Infi's Schmuck ISP Inc"? I'd love to see the pink little uniforms the cable guys will be wearing.

This should have been left to the private sector and ACCC to figure it out. There is a truckload of profit available and investment required for these projects and the risk should be born by the private sector. Government's are supposed to build things private sector cannot - damns, roads, bridges.

You're really pissing me off.

IT IS BEING LEFT TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR. BUT WHERE IS BROADBAND FOR THE BUSH GOING TO COME FROM? OH YEAH, THE $1BN BROADBAND CONNECT FUND. OH MY GOD.

Just because the Government is asking for it to be done, does not mean they are doing it.

2BN is more than a little bit of Government interference imo.

edit: more like 1Bn. Why do we need to hand over $1Bn to big business for something they will be making truckloads of cash from? This is what peeves me.

Australia Connected is a comprehensive and complete broadband solution for Australia that involves:

1. A new national high speed wholesale network: The awarding of a $600 million competitive grant, formerly known as Broadband Connect Infrastructure Program, will deliver a mix of fibre optic, ADSL2+ and wireless broadband platforms to rural and regional areas. This rollout has been boosted with an additional $358 million in funding to ensure coverage to 99 per cent of the population;
2. A new commercial fibre optic network: Facilitating a fibre network build in cities and larger regional centres via a competitive bids process and subsequent enabling legislation;
3. Australian Broadband Guarantee: A safety net that ensures Australians living in the most remote or difficult to reach areas (the remaining one per cent) are entitled to a broadband subsidy of $2750 per household;
4. Creation of BroadbandNow: A new one-stop consumer help centre with telephone and web information to assist consumers understand the technology options available to them and provide ready information about how to get connected will be available on 2 July; and the
5. Preservation of the $2 billion Communications Fund: To ensure the funds are protected in perpetuity by legislation for the benefit of regional and rural Australians and to provide for an income stream for future upgrades.

last edited by infi at 13:45:51 20/Jun/07

TicMan, why do you think your ADSL2+ connection was s***? Too slow? Unreliable?

It was the async aspect, the connection was fine for pulling down data (web browsing, email from our data centre, etc) but when someone went to copy a file to a remote location or send a large email, etc, etc it just died in it's ass.

Also, how come trog didn't agree with me? :(

Please don't flame me but what is wrong with the speed we're getting now? I'm happy getting around 1.2meg a sec downloads thru Optus. Is it mainly business people wanting faster?

If anything I'd rather have more than 60gig a month to use than having faster cable.

Why do we need to hand over $1Bn to big business for something they will be making truckloads of cash from? This is what peeves me.

Companies WILL NOT roll out broadband networks to regional areas. There is currently monopoly backhaul (Telstra) and considering how much easier it is to deploy in the capital cities, why would they bother roll out a network to the bush?

The whole idea is, let the private sector fund the capitals, and throw in some extra encouragement for the bush.

A civil service is like welfare, universal free medical care, going to DOT for driver's license renewal, issuing gambling licenses, registering land titles. Stuff you would never trust private sector with from a perception POV.

Any schmuck can roll out cables and fire up a telco/ISP.

that's just your opinion, which you don't seem prepared to quantify. I'm not saying the ISP role isn't better suited to the private sector or that the govt should be the sole provider of these types of services, I'm talking about the physical network infrastructure - there's no reason at all to say that it shouldn't be another government-provided service. The reason I think your point of view is short sighted there is because you appear to be viewing such an infrastructure as purely luxury/novelty, as opposed to something that could be essentially as useful to society as paved roads.

I'd also love to see how any schmuck could roll out such an infrastructure

What speeds to do achieve, what service do you use? Considering my work currently has to pay thousands a month to get a 4/4mbit network connection, I don't think that speeds are fine.

Your work is probably paying for a tier 1 connection. I am a consumer, the whole thing is more focused at consumers I thought?

I currently have an 8Mb/s plan, when I move in a week, I hope to get a 24Mb/s connection which for me, who downloads TV and plays online games, is heaps. what isnt heaps is the data cap that is in place...

Taggs, thats all good and well, but surely the government can use their 4bill on offsetting some of the cost to the wholesalers that own the big networks data wise.

Well put Jim.

Oh, Rev...

Optus cable covers a particularly small amount of the population. ADSL2+ while becoming widely available, is limited by the fact that speed degrades rapidly over distance from the exchange. The idea of fibre to the node is that "Nodes" (or Sub-Exchanges) are built, a lot closer to houses and linked to the real exchange by fibre. This means that more people can achieve speeds around the 20Mbit mark.

As for the bush, well because of the lower demand and population density, consumers do not have the option of ADSL2+ or Cable, remembering that Telstra have not enabled ADSL2+ in areas where there is no other ISP offering ADSL2+.

For interests sake, where I live, in Mansfield, which is hardly the middle of nowhere, I can get Telstra Cable, or 3.6Mbit ADSL2+. Its fine for me, but I could never get Triple Play Services.

I currently have an 8Mb/s plan, when I move in a week, I hope to get a 24Mb/s connection which for me, who downloads TV and plays online games, is heaps. what isnt heaps is the data cap that is in place...

And when you move, if you are 3KM from the exchange, you'll get 10Mbit, if you're 5KM from the exchange, you'll get 1.5mbit if you're lucky. GLHF.

last edited by mongie at 13:58:09 20/Jun/07

Well a private consortium is building this big tunnel under Brisbane - you may have heard of it, the North South Bypass Tunnel. No government money there, run purely on tolls.

It ain't that hard.

I thought we were spending $8billion of combined ratepayers and tax payers money as a contribution to it? You sure Infi? I am happy to concede I am wrong.

Is it mainly business people wanting faster?

I am a consumer, the whole thing is more focused at consumers I thought?

Any business that seriously needs high speed broadband would probably already have it and/or not be using ADSL technology, but both political parties are pitching this FTT[HN] thing as a "good thing" for small business when in reality, all it will do is allow juarez monkeys to saturate our OS links with their P2P shinanigins which in turn will require fatter pipes over the oceans which in turn will raise the price of broadband for us all.

Make it a utility, pay (a low fee) per megabyte and I'd predict a faster network and cheaper prices will occur as all the juarez monkeys realise they can't get everything for free anymore.

Well a private consortium is building this big tunnel under Brisbane - you may have heard of it, the North South Bypass Tunnel. No government money there, run purely on tolls.

I thought you knew what you were talking about. Its a PPP, keep up buddy. PPP There is a substantial government contribution to the project. State, Federal and Local.

last edited by mongie at 14:01:23 20/Jun/07

They don't have to set up extra booths where people can come in and pay a fee so they can resell using the bypass.

No idea what that means

Well a private consortium is building this big tunnel under Brisbane - you may have heard of it, the North South Bypass Tunnel. No government money there, run purely on tolls.

It ain't that hard.

;)

That's about as lame as the lord of the flies reference in that thread the other day.

I suppose if it's as easy or as possible as you insist, we'll see private consortiums digging little tunnels under all our houses for network infrastructure as soon as they're done with the bypass tunnel. And I'll be the first to make a fibre-powered apology post to you on QGL

Massive infrastructure projects are few and far between. Only serious players will obviously step up. The NSBT PPP involves little Council investment apart from that surrounding the project itself and would have been spent by Council in any case.

The vast majority of revenue and risk comes from tolls and certainly no subsidies exist, so in reality River City Motorways is on its own.

Jim, you're lame. :p

build me an isp infi... it's that fukn ez man!#!!@# you got nfi. thx.

Now someone is trying to backtrack fast. Infi, did you drop some breadcrumbs along the way?

Oh yeah, the brisbane city council is paying $500m themselves towards the NSBT. Just fyi.

Didn't we as a State subsidise the Gateway Tolls for ages? Can anyone tell me if we are still subsidising the tolls, like on the Gateway-Ipswich Motorway?

mongie: from River City Motorway's Dec 31, 2006 accounts notes:

Revenue
As the Group is currently in the construction phase of the Project Deed it is not recording any significant revenue streams. The Group’s main source of revenue will be tolling receipts
which will be earned after project construction.
Revenue earned during construction primarily relates to the earning of interest on capital and deferred capital injections (refer Note 1(k)). Revenue is being earned as it accrues.
Deferred revenue relates to the fair value of land to be received by the Group. This land was provided by the Brisbane City Council (BCC) as part of the project deed, and its primary use
is to facilitate access to and from the construction site. This revenue, being the fair value of the land provided by the BCC, is being earned over the construction period (approximately 4
years) which is the period over which the Group is expected to benefit from this land.

Also, demon, you seem to think building an ISP is some form of modern marvel. s***, big stuff there.

the $500m is probably the land valued in to enable access for the construction of the entrances, but that is a necessary cost which only the council can incur they are the resuming power. There is no cash as far as I can see.

In any case the overwhelming commercial risk over the 45 year life of the project is the company's, the only crumbs are what the BCC are contributing to the project.

Please provide the source for your quote.

He questioned where Brisbane City Council would find the $500 million for the North South Bypass Tunnel (NSBT) when it was complete.
Cr de Wit said council had already put aside $120 million for the NSBT in council's reserves.

Brisbane Times

my quote is from rivercity's asic financial reports.

http://echosphere.net/star_trek_insp/insp_sexual_tension_preview.jpg

OH HI OBES

mongie's intellect turns me on.

Babies.

And when you move, if you are 3KM from the exchange, you'll get 10Mbit, if you're 5KM from the exchange, you'll get 1.5mbit if you're lucky. GLHF.

I understand what your saying, but still your not quite accurate :P

http://www.internode.on.net/images/copyright/internode-adsl2-distance.jpg

But yes, I see your point, and no, it doesnt bother me. id rather have 3Mb/s unlimited. Thats just me tho.

Now.

And how do you propose we get 3mbit unlimited? The government subsidises backhaul? and internet peering for all the isp's?

Also, that graph is just that. A graph. I'm 3.2KM from the exchange (or so iiNet told me) and I get 3.6Mbit through Internode...

but then it comes down to your copper from the exchange to your house. Chances are its s***, or your modem is, or your line filter is. If I was only 3k from the exchange and getting that speed on 24Mb/s I would pissed because there is a fault somewhere. If your on an 8Mb/s plan, your exchange has probably been capped like mine has and just like telstra promised.

but then it comes down to your copper from the exchange to your house. Chances are its s***, or your modem is, or your line filter is. If I was only 3k from the exchange and getting that speed on 24Mb/s I would pissed because there is a fault somewhere. If your on an 8Mb/s plan, your exchange has probably been capped like mine has and just like telstra promised.

I'm on ADSL2+. This is the entire reason we are getting a FTTN. So that people are able to access the full speed of ADSL2+.

If my node is 800M away from my house, I'm going to get a lot better speed than i am now.

*shrug* the only time iv seen speeds like that have been when there is faults.

much <3 mongie, anytime

the only time ive seen speeds like that is when im at mongies house.

I'm on ADSL2+. This is the entire reason we are getting a FTTN. So that people are able to access the full speed of ADSL2+.

Oh really? Good, because i'm in one of the priority electorates and on adsl2+ so if they could hurry up, i'd like my full speed thanks!

I spend a lot of time in rural Queensland where there is no broadband infastructure.

The adults I've spoken to don't honestly give 1 hoot about it, over 50% of the people I have queried don't even have any internet connection at all.

This is in town centres that populations of 3000 - 5000, which is quite significant for a rural community.

stabby stab stab

Well out of my family tree, only my dad came to Brisbane, the other 7 siblings + their offspring + hundreds of their friends are all farmers and rural business owners.

I have a pretty good idea for a few area's that broadband is not needed.

we'll never need those fandangled motor veehickles

I hope the kids in the bush dont want to play games over their new wifi broadband. Wouldn't the latency stuff them?

no

farmers dont need the internets. they are too busy pulling knives on people

not if chub beats them to it.

Where do I begin.

Oh really? Good, because i'm in one of the priority electorates and on adsl2+ so if they could hurry up, i'd like my full speed thanks!

The so called "priority electorates" are receiving the OpEl network, which is not FTTN. If you already have ADSL2+ you will get nothing.

OHSNAP.

The adults I've spoken to don't honestly give 1 hoot about it, over 50% of the people I have queried don't even have any internet connection at all.

a) Maybe if it was more affoardable they would be interested.
b) In 1998, around 10% of Ex-metropolitan households had internet access. In 2005/2006, that number had increased to over 50%. This is in comparison to just under 20% of Metropolitan households having access in 98 and around 62% having access in 2005/2006. While growth has slowed from the initial boom, Australian household use is still growing strongly
c) Nice1 Jim.

Wouldn't the latency stuff them?

No. WiMax will have higher latency than ADSL, but you're only looking at around 40-50msec. Which I'm sure they can deal with, and if they cant, they can go back to ADSL (if it was available) or Dialup.

last edited by mongie at 09:32:44 21/Jun/07

a) Maybe if it was more affoardable they would be interested.

Or maybe, I don't know, NOT EVERYONE WANTS TO PIRATE MOVIES AT 100000 MBIT or video conference or download linux ISOs?

heh you're so naive trog

You got something against Johnny Depp trogj0r?

HOLD THE PHONE.

Clicky

Deutsche Telekom might be joining in the FTTN bidding.

1) everyone invests billions of dollars in high speed network to combat exponential rise in data usage
2) corporate media manages to criminalise file sharing and use of file sharing applications
3) p2p applications are blocked on ISP firewalls
4) network traffic drops by 95%
5) the bubble bursts, again

Just one of many possible scenarios!

10% of all internet use is YouTube.

Why are you such a negative nancy Trog?

cos I'm not doing his tickets in my queue

10% of all internet use is YouTube.

95% of my youtube use is copyrighted content that shouldn't be there in the first place. See above post.

Why are you such a negative nancy Trog?

Because it annoys the s*** out of me when people whine about not having ultra fast cable in such a massive country with such a tiny population when most of them really, at the end of the day, just want to pirate s*** faster

Wait... is there ANY need for high speed broadband besides pirating s***?

I agree with the trog, there's currently an epic thread in my ISPs forum on whingepool about them shaping P2P and all these faghats saying they will churn off to another provider because of it.

GG I say, get those juarez monkeys off my network so I don't have to suffer while others are getting the latest episode of or or illegally.

Flash back 10yrs to 1997 when we still had dial up paying $30-40/mth for a limited number of hours or megabytes per month, todays youth (yes I blame teenagers because I'm older than them and they are to blame for everything) for wanting 100% uptime, 1250981298Gb download quota and 1bjbps (bajillion bits per second) links at home.

1bjbps is too slow. need 100bjBps.

cry more tic and trog

I can't cry anymore, I've shed my last tears..

You know, for the first time in 3 or 4 years, The internet sees more HTTP traffic than P2P?

I don't mind particularly if you're against FTTN, or whatever, cause in the end it doesn't make any difference... but still, your e-values are f***ed up. Both of you.

You know, for the first time in 3 or 4 years, The internet sees more HTTP traffic than P2P?

Got a source for this or just making it up?

I don't mind particularly if you're against FTTN, or whatever, cause in the end it doesn't make any difference... but still, your e-values are f***ed up. Both of you.

FTT[HN] is a great idea but let me get this straight - you think my e-values are f***ed because I believe people sharing copyrighted material illegal is wrong and should be stomped?

It seems to be getting pretty emotional in here right now.

Its also where i got the Youtube makes up 10% of all internet traffic claim from <3.

Source


Legitimate reasons for wanting faster internet.
- Downloading files faster (Game demos, movie trailers etc.)
--- This adds to the general internet experience.

- Web 2.0 sites
--- Stickam, YouTube etc...

- Internet based IPTV
---Joost

- Network delivered Pay-TV.

- Streaming televison episodes
--- EG. ABC hosting Lost / Desperate Housewives eps the day after they air.

There are a few examples for you, its hard to list many because as the internet develops, the bandwidth requirements increase, so in 4 years time when we actually have FTTN built, who knows what might be possible over the internet?

last edited by mongie at 15:54:23 21/Jun/07

last edited by mongie at 15:55:16 21/Jun/07

http://blog.dreamhost.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/serious.jpg

educational information for educational institutions, medical prognosis, diagnosis data and other information, video for vast numbers of real-time applications where fat bandwidth and decent audio/video apperatus can make it about as close as you can get to 'talking face to face' over long distances

video is incredibly useful - there's nothing like seeing something with your eyes. even in our tiny corner of the universe it'd be crazily handy trog, with our offsite staff


and what about when they invent TELEPORTERS

its pretty stupid to think that the only people who want fast internets only want it for warez :S sure faster warez is good, but so is streaming decent quality tv eps from legit sources legally

and what about when they invent TELEPORTERS

That's some phat bandwidth right there! When you're average game demo is now around the 1Gb mark, I think faster net is a no brainer. Also, if we had fibre to peoples homes, that's one connection for everything, voice, video, TV, interactive entertainment (VR s3x0rs like Bones has been after all these years) the list goes on.

Generalising about juarez monkeys is a bit blinkered I think.

Yeah... but should streaming fast TV episodes for country folk be an important federal election issue.

like that's what we're talking about now
the thread has evolved, keep up!

Sorry Jim :(

You IT workers have different agenda's to me :(

now go to your room and think about what you've done

its pretty stupid to think that the only people who want fast internets only want it for warez :S sure faster warez is good, but so is streaming decent quality tv eps from legit sources legally

I already stream TV from legitimate sources with no problems at all (THX COMEDY CENTRAL!!). I was doing it fine when I had 1500kbit connection.

Fiber is a real bitch to locate in the field, so plan on more downtime from Work crew's digging up your Optics cables.

And as Chub said (wow) Faster Nets really shouldn't be a big Political issue.
I'd choose Drinking water over the internet. Invest the Billions in better/cleaner power, water stuff or better federal roads.

asif we dont all want faster internets

thang kodness trog isnt in charge of anything important

he can sit in his room with his poxy 1500/256 connection and live happily ever after

ive got adsl2 now (well, when it was working), and its not nearly fast enough (i dont ever want to see the word "buffering", or even have to wait, much, for any media i dl)

i will quite happily pay for my extra speeds

we want faster internets but are we prepared to pay for it? it would be an interesting poll.

we want faster internets but are we prepared to pay for it? it would be an interesting poll.

nah, what game we want to play at the next qgl lan is for more interesting.

that would be useful if any of those games were played any more.

edit: sorry forgot cs.

last edited by infi at 18:04:45 21/Jun/07

I think the thing that everyone is overlooking here, is how the dongs did that emoticon get in my post up there

Yeah... but should streaming fast TV episodes for country folk be an important federal election issue.

Do you realise we're talking about FTTN?

I've tried to explain it as well as I could.

FTTN for city.

WiMax + ADSL2+ for the country.

THAT IS WHAT WAS PROPOSED.

Its not "faster broadband" for the country, its "any broadband".

mmmkay.

How is adsl2+ not faster broadband.

I think Mongie was implying that as it stands that the country doesn't have 'any' broadband.

So they aren't getting 'faster' because they never had it in the first place.

my cable is broadband, at least down :)

The Country as in the Bush.

this is now the mongie thread

CEO of Primus on Telstra, Phil Burgess, OpEl and FTTN.

Excellent read there, that dude sounds like he knows what hes talking a bout

I especially liked this part.

Burgess has been critical of the Government's decision to award Optus and Elders the task of bringing genuine broadband to regional, rural and remote Australia. It's sad to see such sour grapes from Telstra. I think your typical Australian executive would pick himself up and go on to win the next one.

Burgess seems to continue to show his ignorance whenever he gets an opportunity. According to Burgess, WiMAX cannot penetrate buildings. The ability to penetrate buildings is a function of frequency used for transmission, not technology. For my part I wish Opel good luck. I'm sure the people involved will grow the business despite Telstra, and it will be the rural consumers that will benefit.

I read the article where he talked about WiMax not penetrating buildings earlier today, I thought it was a bit strange...

Wireless can be hit and miss. Can be in the cbd and get no signal in a black spot or have no signal and walk outside and have full strength. Then again if you were in the bush its just as easy to stick an antenna on your roof that can attach to the wireless devices.

If you're refering to my post, you've missed the point. The ability of wireless signal to penetrate buildings is based upon the frequency it uses, not the fact that its WiMax. WiMax can use a variety of different frequencies.

The bad thing about the OpEl plan is the fact they plan to use the 5.8Ghz frequency, its like "Open Access". Maybe the government can release some more spectrum for them to buy?

Unwired and Austar own the 2.3 and 3.5Ghz bands, which are evidently what you would use for WiMax.

Just after some clarification:

The so called "priority electorates" are receiving the OpEl network, which is not FTTN. If you already have ADSL2+ you will get nothing.

FTTN for city.

WiMax + ADSL2+ for the country.

THAT IS WHAT WAS PROPOSED.

So is OpEl a wireless network? because i'm only 15 minutes drive from the city.

Just talking about the limitations of wireless networks in general. My hatred of wireless broadband is based on the fact that I have to support it.