Axia have made a suprise move in the "NBN Saga" by revealing that FTTH was a part of their proposal.

Australian IT

"In Singapore, on a fibre-to-the-premise network, we can offer an access price of $15 per resident per month. You could do this with similar pricing in any major metropolitan city, including Sydney," Axia NetMedia chief executive and chairman Art Price told The Australian.

Telstra currently charges between $17 and $30 pre service each month in most of Australia to access its copper network, which at best is only capable of providing internet speeds up to 24Mbps.

“It's a very basic question. If you can have fibre to the premise in a metropolitan centre for $15 a month, then who is justifying $15 for the local copper loop? How are people debating $20, $30 for just the local copper loop?” Mr Price said.

+1 hopefully!!!

won't this just upset the farmers even more?

farmers need to HTFU imo

IMO they need better coverage in area's "JUST" outside 'metro' areas.

I had optus cable.. 10 min drive away i will probably have 1mg adsl :<

that's pretty insightful - fibre to the home is a better option for a next-generation network than, say, not having fibre to the home.

I know this isn't exactly NBN related, but i saw this article on Brisbane Times.

Has anyone heard about this? Seems a bit dubious considering the women they are quoting confuses a gigabyte for a gigabit and says something else which makes no sense in the article.

IMO they need better coverage in area's "JUST" outside 'metro' areas.

Yeah, this. Aren't there still places that can only get dialup?

that's pretty insightful - fibre to the home is a better option for a next-generation network than, say, not having fibre to the home.

What on earth are you talking about?

Axia are saying that there is no point to rolling out FTTN... it should be FTTP or nothing. I didn't find it hard to understand at all?

jakeg maybe you should move to a 'less s***' area

outside ipswich isn't exactly 'just outside' metro brisbane

that's pretty insightful - fibre to the home is a better option for a next-generation network than, say, not having fibre to the home.

What on earth are you talking about?

Axia are saying that there is no point to rolling out FTTN... it should be FTTP or nothing. I didn't find it hard to understand at all?

A company whose business is laying fibre angling for tax dollars to build a nation wide fibre network on the taxpayer dollars by saying "hey, don't do that fibre to the node thing, that'd be lame! it'd be way better if you, like, put fibre EVERYWHERE!"

It's not hard to understand - that's my point.

I think its a dumb idea anyway; our main links to the "nodes" need more upgrading than our links to the homes. Everything being able to get ADSL2 within the next few years would be a much better goal.

I think its a dumb idea anyway; our main links to the "nodes" need more upgrading than our links to the homes. Everything being able to get ADSL2 within the next few years would be a much better goal.

Once the 5 year build of the NBN is complete, we will be in 2014. Do you really thin that FTTN is going to cut it in 5 years time? The reason why its a great idea is that they won't have to worry about leasing lines from Telstra. Optus / Acacia / Whoever else are still going to have to organise with Telstra to use their copper.

Once the 5 year build of the NBN is complete, we will be in 2014. Do you really thin that FTTN is going to cut it in 5 years time? The reason why its a great idea is that they won't have to worry about leasing lines from Telstra. Optus / Acacia / Whoever else are still going to have to organise with Telstra to use their copper.

Oh, ok - so FTTN is not going to cut it in 5 years, but we can magically forget about FTTH possibly not being able to cope?

Also, what do you think people are going to want to do with their shiny new fibre cables? Download stuff really quickly. The infrastructure both local and international won't be enough to keep up with it. It's already barely coping with what we have NOW, which is a) the majority of people still not yet on broadband and b) the majority of Internet users that ARE on broadband are on 12-20gb low-speed plans.

I don't want MY taxpayer dollars going to giving me a fibre cable in my PC that is still going to only give me 500kbyte/s download speed from international sites. I can already do that.

Actually, I don't want MY taxpayer dollars going into ANYTHING that companies are going to make money off and I'm still going to get f***ED on pricing for, period. The government can promote improved broadband by offering tax breaks or something to companies that want to invest instead of handing out my money to make giant telco consortiums more money.

Also, what do you think people are going to want to do with their shiny new fibre cables? Download stuff really quickly. The infrastructure both local and international won't be enough to keep up with it. It's already barely coping with what we have NOW, which is a) the majority of people still not yet on broadband and b) the majority of Internet users that ARE on broadband are on 12-20gb low-speed plans.

Why would they just open the floodgates and allow maximum bandwidth to everyone?

The idea is to provide infrastructure that can cope as those local and overseas links increase in bandwidth. Not continue to have a bottleneck that is still controlled by 1 company that leverages that ownership for shareholder profits.

Actually, I don't want MY taxpayer dollars going into ANYTHING that companies are going to make money off and I'm still going to get f***ED on pricing for, period.

No offense but your viewpoint here is a little ironic re: Telstra.

edit: Man I've been itching to use the I word around here.


last edited by Azaria at 10:53:32 11/Dec/08

I like the idea better in principle myself.

- I think that poor overseas connectivity is no reason to spend more money on poor local connectivity instead of far superior local connectivity

- I _really_ like the idea of another entity having an independant in-ground nation-wide network in place (if that's what it'll really amount to)


I'd rather it was an aussie company doing it though, and I hate the use of the term 'future-proof' in this industry, cos nothing ever really is.

Why would they just open the floodgates and allow maximum bandwidth to everyone?

So I'll get fibre, but it will be artificially limited to some arbitrary speed while the rest of the network gets upgraded to deal with it? How long will that take? By the time its finished, will fibre be too slow??!?

The idea is to provide infrastructure that can cope as those local and overseas links increase in bandwidth

I know what the idea is. I just think its a completely unnecessary waste of taxpayer dollars when there's people that still can't even get ADSL who live in CITIES because they're too far from the exchange, on pair gain, blah blah blah blah.

Here's my idea: How bout we get everyone up to speed on some base level of broadband, upgrade our core infrastructure (city->city links, international links, etc) as we go along, and then make a decision about what the next generation should be? That is - let's actually get the FIRST generation complete before moving on.

I like fast Internets as much as the next guy but I'm happy with ADSL2 and don't think its unreasonable for people to be "stuck" with that for a bit longer. Yes, I know you all want to download HD movies in 1/16th of a nanosecond, and watch HD youtubez, and all that stuff, but frankly, I'd rather my tax dollars go to something more useful (like building massive tunnels under the Brisbane river AHAHAHAHAH)

Not continue to have a bottleneck that is still controlled by 1 company that leverages that ownership for shareholder profits.

It's amazing what happens when public services are privatised. If that pisses you off, and you're a voter, remember that the next time the polling booths are open.

I actually voted for the privatisation of Telstra because I thought it would be a good thing. In retrospect, I wish I hadn't - I now think that telcos (like power, water, etc) are basic services and should be managed by the government in a way that is best for the people (Old Telstra clearly wasn't being run like that, but it wouldn't have been hard to make changes so it was more useful for Australians)

No offense but your viewpoint here is a little ironic re: Telstra.

explain to me why its ironic

- I think that poor overseas connectivity is no reason to spend more money on poor local connectivity instead of far superior local connectivity

- I _really_ like the idea of another entity having an independant in-ground nation-wide network in place (if that's what it'll really amount to)

I 100% agree with these things, except I don't want taxpayer money funding it

By the time its finished, will fibre be too slow??!?

Can't claim to know much technically, but from my basic understanding of the different mediums and their physical properties it seems pretty obvious that fiber has s***loads more future potential for speed and bandwidth increases than copper.

replying to the OP.

While I do think FTTH/FTTP should be the endgame for this project, I don't see it as an initial requirement.

I would rather they roll out FTTN now and have a much greater coverage catchment and/or spend less money doing it than deploy FTTH/FTTP now and have a smaller catchment window and/or spend additional money.

In my mind, once FTTN is in place, it should be able to be upgraded at a later day, perhaps even at the customers expense via a 12-24month contract type arrangement. That way the people who want/need fibre can get it and the others are not required to subsidies their requirements.

I know what the idea is. I just think its a completely unnecessary waste of taxpayer dollars when there's people that still can't even get ADSL who live in CITIES because they're too far from the exchange, on pair gain, blah blah blah blah.

What is this supposed to mean? The whole point of FTTP is that there will be no pair gain or too far from the exchange because everyone will be connected with fibre?

Axia plan to use Fibre to the Premises in the cities, and Wireless / FTTN (of some description) in the bush.

So I'll get fibre, but it will be artificially limited to some arbitrary speed while the rest of the network gets upgraded to deal with it? How long will that take? By the time its finished, will fibre be too slow??!?

Whats faster than light? Fibre has pretty much limitless potential. Pretty sure they're rolling out 10Gbit connections over fibre in Japan.

Actually, I don't want MY taxpayer dollars going into ANYTHING that companies are going to make money off and I'm still going to get f***ED on pricing for, period.

Your taxpayer money is going to go into A broadband network, $4.7bn worth to be exact, and at this point, your options are to...

a) Let Telstra add to their existing network (and bring broadband coverage up to 90%) and set their own pricing terms and conditions.

b) Let Optus build a FTTN/Wireless/Sat network that will be structurally separated and have regulated pricing (by the ACCC).

c) Let Acacia roll out FTTN/Sat that will be structurally separated and expect utility returns (also regulated by the ACCC).

or

d) Let Axia build a Metro FTTH / Regional Wireless network (OPEL ANYONE) that will be structurally separated. (They have mentioned $15/month for basic access).



If it were me choosing, 1 would definately be the first out. Mainly because they will not separate the network, also because they insist on unregulated pricing.

2 and 3 are okay to the consumer as far as I'm concerned. The problem is that they rely on the Telstra copper which will allow Telstra to cause a s***fight should either of them win the tender. (Not to mention its old).

4 is a completely independent network. No idea whether pricing would be regulated (and it should be) but the biggest thing would be that it is a no-competion network. ie. Axia don't sell retail services, so they have no incentive to bend the rules to suit themselves.

I would rather they roll out FTTN now and have a much greater coverage catchment and/or spend less money doing it than deploy FTTH/FTTP now and have a smaller catchment window and/or spend additional money.

Assuming their wireless backhaul is fibre, what would be stopping them from upgrading the rural networks to fibre at a later date?

Obviously we know nothing about the plan at this stage but surely the biggest hurdle for any of the non-telstra bidders going forward will be the legal nightmare that awaits if they want to cut-over the Telstra PSTN network onto their nodes? At least with FTTP that headache can be bypassed.

I like fast Internets as much as the next guy but I'm happy with ADSL2 and don't think its unreasonable for people to be "stuck" with that for a bit longer. Yes, I know you all want to download HD movies in 1/16th of a nanosecond, and watch HD youtubez, and all that stuff, but frankly, I'd rather my tax dollars go to something more useful (like building massive tunnels under the Brisbane river AHAHAHAHAH)

damn straight

f*** your internet mongie

hows about hospitals and road infrastructure, aka. s*** that really matters

cause at the end of the day it really is all about 'how fast can i get my movies'

last edited by paveway at 12:13:17 11/Dec/08

What is this supposed to mean? The whole point of FTTP is that there will be no pair gain or too far from the exchange because everyone will be connected with fibre?

Analogy: putting FTTH in so "everyone" can have Internet access is like buying everyone a Ferrarri so they all have cars.

Whats faster than light? Fibre has pretty much limitless potential. Pretty sure they're rolling out 10Gbit connections over fibre in Japan.

Well, I dunno enough about the hardware but can't comment. I do know that people keep inventing new s*** like crazy though! Imagine the hilarity that would ensue if someone figured out how to get fibre speeds over copper! Or over power lines! Or all the other s*** people are researching now specifically so they don't have to spend billions of dollars installing new equipment.

Your taxpayer money is going to go into A broadband network, $4.7bn worth to be exact, and at this point, your options are to...

I'll believe it when it happens. Goverments have a history of breaking promises left right and centre when they realise things they promised are too hard/too stupid/too expensive. They've already broken one promise on this network thing.. with the global credit crisis and people slashing costs left right and centre, I suspect plans to give everyone high speed porno downloads might drop down the list a little bit.

So I'll get fibre, but it will be artificially limited to some arbitrary speed while the rest of the network gets upgraded to deal with it? How long will that take? By the time its finished, will fibre be too slow??!?

That seems like an irrational argument. If fibre was too slow once it was finished then wouldnt that make a copper network even more redundant? The idea is to lay infastructure that can be taken advantage of if and when new technology emmerges as well as takes advantage of current tech advances. People are already artificially limited to arbitrary speeds in certain areas. I don't hear them complaining about it.

I know what the idea is. I just think its a completely unnecessary waste of taxpayer dollars when there's people that still can't even get ADSL who live in CITIES because they're too far from the exchange, on pair gain, blah blah blah blah.

So moving to a fibre network that subverses these problems for some people is a bad thing? You do realise that keeping people on copper for as long as possible is part of Telstra's corporate strategy due to a vested interest in profit margins for both wholesale and retail arms?

I like fast Internets as much as the next guy but I'm happy with ADSL2 and don't think its unreasonable for people to be "stuck" with that for a bit longer. Yes, I know you all want to download HD movies in 1/16th of a nanosecond, and watch HD youtubez, and all that stuff, but frankly, I'd rather my tax dollars go to something more useful (like building massive tunnels under the Brisbane river AHAHAHAHAH)

I am happy with ADSL2 as well and it's not so I can download faster. It's just obvious that the way the government functions is to apportion large amounts of money into various projects 'for the public good' which surprisingly enough become vote winners for different demographics. If you think that they would say, you know adsl2 is good enough for the time being lets fix our f***ed health system instead you're wrong. So the money has been aportioned all we can do is sit back and hope it's spent in the right way, which we will agree to disagree about evidently :)

It's amazing what happens when public services are privatised. If that pisses you off, and you're a voter, remember that the next time the polling booths are open.

I voted democrats in the upper house purely because of the Telstra sale and their campaign promise. I don't need to remind you how that worked out for me, and surprisingly enough for them eventually :) Keep the bastards honest my f***ing arse.

Just wondering Trog, whats your home connection speed, and how much quota do you buy a month?

Personally... 4Mbit, 55GB. I live 4.5KM from the exchange, so without an upgrade, I'm never going to get any better speeds.

You do realise that keeping people on copper for as long as possible is part of Telstra's corporate strategy due to a vested interest in profit margins for both wholesale and retail arms?

Yep. And?

Here's another point of view - if Telstra, or all these other consortiums, weren't going to get $4 billion - do you think they'd bother doing this? I reckon it'd be pretty hugely unlikely, because it's not commercially viable. If it's not commercially viable for Telstra to hook everyone up via an already-existing copper network, what makes you think its worth relaying an entire new network?

I realise that the point of this is to try and encourage 'growth' in our digital services industry, but this is just such an ass-backwards, expensive way of doing it, and since the government decided to get out of the telecoms game they should stay out and let the market sort out demand and supply. (OR, they should buy back Telstra at their massively reduced share price, split it up as everyone wants to, and laugh at the profit they made)

I can't believe it'd end at $4 billion dollars either. How much fibre would that lay? My observations (based on the media, so they're probably all lies) about government projects like this is they end up going massively over budget and the government keeps handing out money.

Just wondering Trog, whats your home connection speed, and how much quota do you buy a month?

I'm back with my parents atm while I find a new place after returning from overseas. I'm on BigPond cable there with 12gb a month (sharing w/ 3 other people). Only been back for a month but haven't hit any limits yet and I haven't changed my behaviour in any way.

Previously I had Internode ADSL(1, I think? can't remember, I usually maxed out at like 600-700kbytes/sec download). I was originally on 20gb but their plans changed and I ended up on 40gb for the same price. Never came close to maxing it out.

Here's another point of view - if Telstra, or all these other consortiums, weren't going to get $4 billion - do you think they'd bother doing this? I reckon it'd be pretty hugely unlikely, because it's not commercially viable. If it's not commercially viable for Telstra to hook everyone up via an already-existing copper network, what makes you think its worth relaying an entire new network?

This isn't really true. Telstra had proposed a FTTN network before the 4.7B Labor announcement came along. The thing that held it up was their desire to get assurance that if they build something with their dollars it wouldn't be regulated by the ACCC.

build FTTN, then user pays to FTTH.

While I worked for a very relevant vendor I saw a figure of around $25B for FTTH.

Protecting a bunch of (albeit, necessary) ISPs for a matter of 20B+ isn't practical.

They will still have the very lucrative inner metro areas prior to the first node (eg. Cities.).

Throw in some VDSL kit + business grade delivery and protect it from the T for some period and that's ongoing bread and butter right there.

Technology changes, personally I can't wait for 50MB+ VDSL.

Hopefully we will move to the point where the net is much more useful for content locally, rather than grabbing the usual stuff from OS. The T have built themselves a highly scalable and access agnostic network, it would be fantastic to see it used, rather than just as an offramp to the net.

FTTH is a wasteful idea. FTTN is perfectly sufficient- put every 20 or so homes on each node and that's plenty of bandwidth.

Wait... I think there might already been a technology that does this kind of thing, Optus@home/Telstra might know something about it.

I still don't understand what residential customers require >24mbps for.

however VDSL only will help you if you live <1.5km from the node....

i stil think FTTH is the way to go and not wasteful.. however what i can see is that will be able to do super high speeds but they will have speed caps and prices in place... because the badwidth costs are still going to cost.. FTTH brings alot new things into play like when building house no need for telephone line and cable... all in 1 line and also IPTV with actual full HD badwidth... i really do like the idea...

last edited by TiT at 13:26:10 11/Dec/08

Actually, I don't want MY taxpayer dollars going into ANYTHING that companies are going to make money off and I'm still going to get f***ED on pricing for, period.

Unfortunately Labor got elected back in and you can bet your tax $'s are going to be spent on a whole myriad of retarded initiatives.

You obviously agree with the Telstra point of view... but Telstra Velocity is a FTTH product that they are rolling out to any new greenfields estate they can!

Obviously fibre is the future...

You obviously agree with the Telstra point of view... but Telstra Velocity is a FTTH product that they are rolling out to any new greenfields estate they can!

Obviously fibre is the future...

no problems with Telstra rolling out fibre to new developments - that makes sense, assuming they're doing it off their own backs

Actually, I don't want MY taxpayer dollars going into ANYTHING that companies are going to make money off and I'm still going to get f***ED on pricing for, period.

Unfortunately Labor got elected back in and you can bet your tax $'s are going to be spent on a whole myriad of retarded initiatives.

I should add... I too am against public monies being spent on a broadband network. I voted liberal, and I thought that the OPEL / FTTN system would have worked a treat, however... Labor won the election with their broadband policy... so obviously they "majority" of voters support the idea that the Government contribute towards the network.

Personally, I think if they had just left OPEL alone and had a tender for metro FTTN networks, we'd be much further along. I think that FTTN where copper is the last mile in regional areas is retarded, and unfortunately, people should understand that by living in the bush, you limit your technological capabilities.

THATS WHY BIG BUSINESSES POSITION THEMSELVES IN THE MAJOR CAPITALS.

Labor won the election with their broadband policy... so obviously they "majority" of voters support the idea that the Government contribute towards the network.

...like the "majority" support Internet filtering?

Analogy: putting FTTH in so "everyone" can have Internet access is like buying everyone a Ferrarri so they all have cars.

Despite the fact that you're going to burn for misspelling Ferrari, I love that idea. Can we specify our preferred model?

Despite the fact that you're going to burn for misspelling Ferrari, I love that idea. Can we specify our preferred model?

Oops. And no. Testarossas for all!!@# Bring back 80s Ferraris!

Labor won the election with their broadband policy... so obviously they "majority" of voters support the idea that the Government contribute towards the network.

this is one of the dumbest conclusions you have ever made on this forum.

Labor won on a campaign based largely around anti-work choices and the need for change of leadership but not change of fiscal policy. I would not say that the Education Revolution they touted would not have been the deciding factor for the "majority" of Australian voters who voted for them.


last edited by ara at 16:18:49 11/Dec/08

You obviously agree with the Telstra point of view... but Telstra Velocity is a FTTH product that they are rolling out to any new greenfields estate they can!

Greenfields are typically co-funded by the site developers themselves and Telstra, because they are doing the work right then and there, and it makes a great sales pitch when selling the lot to potential buyers.

The cost lies in the other 99% of existing residential sites..

Greenfields are typically co-funded by the site developers themselves and Telstra, because they are doing the work right then and there, and it makes a great sales pitch when selling the lot to potential buyers.

Yep, and from what I hear, I wouldn't want to be living in one. Apparently the Telstra Volocity plans aren't much/any better than their metro DSL prices and to top it all off, because you're on fibre for everything with no copper line, Telstra is your only option for Internet, you're completely at their mercy with no hope of competition.

I for one don't want that to happen on a national scale, which from my point of view is what it seems would happen were telstra to win the NBN contract.

I for one don't want that to happen on a national scale, which from my point of view is what it seems would happen were telstra to win the NBN contract.

Holy s***... Dan and I agree on something.

Telstra are out

http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,24800767-15306,00.html


http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/communications/soa/Govt-kicks-Telstra-out-of-NBN-tender/0,130061791,339293798,00.htm

FTA, Telstra say:

“The Commonwealth could hardly have dreamed up a more trivial reason to exclude Telstra from the NBN. This is a process that seemingly excludes bidders on such trivial and legally questionable technicalities, but doesn’t take any action on material issues such as financing and having the technical capability to build the network.”

From the article it sounds like they were excluded because they didn't fill out the application form correctly! Will be interesting to hear what Conroy has to say about it in their press conference this afternoon. Certainly at this stage sounds like they've been excluded for bulls*** reasons.

Sif Conroy didn't have a hand in it.

I foresee legal action. It is how Telstra deal with rejection.

Apparently, the auditor general had commented that they would have to adjust the terms of the RFP for non-compliant bids to be accepted, but Conroy always said that the expert panel would rule on whether bids were compliant.

They left out an SME involvement plan or something.

Looks like a way to get them out of the process. To be honest, their bid should have never been considered in its current form.

This whole process just gets funnier and funnier.

He also said the proposed internet filter would be opt-outable. You can't trust the s*** that spews out of his mouth.

They've got nobody to blame but themselves if they want to cry and throw a tantrum by not submitting a decent proposal as requested, and then cry more when their proposal is rejected for non-compliance. Learn2Business.

oh right, i forgot about this thread

I can understand the role of a Federal Government in upgrading our national highway system. Everyone uses it, even the poorest person. It is used to transport their food and medicine. it is in the nation's interest and a proper use of taxpayer funds to continue upgrading this highway system.

(Not to mention the fact that government has a specific revenue source from transport through national rego system and fuel excise.)

On the other hand, broadband is a luxury we have as a developed country for e-business and entertainment. it has limited penetration and limited necessity. It clusters around metropolitan areas an d those in remote and rural areas have a limited requirement for broadband. As a business enabler, if you require broadband you goto where the broadband is.

Rolling broadband infrastructure out to everyone makes no sense. because it does not have a universal application like a national highway system.

I can totally understand Telstra's perspective. This is a viability decision for individual operators. telstra have a perfectly good copper system which can deliver up to ADSL2+ and that should satisfy the broadband needs of a vast majority of the people.

And as if anyone voted for Labor based on their broadband policy.

edit:

Telstra chairman Donald McGauchie said the reason for its exclusion was “trivial”.

you can say that again.

last edited by infi at 13:01:07 15/Dec/08

and that should satisfy the broadband needs of a vast majority of the people.

not mongie, he needs his porn even faster. which a 'more responsible' government can organise for him later on.

On the other hand, broadband is a luxury we have as a developed country for e-business and entertainment. it has limited penetration and limited necessity.

is this true any more? can it noticeably improve health care and education opportunities for people who don't live in a city? if it can, maybe it's not just a luxury any more

is 10mbit broadband required for these purposes?

I have no idea but the faster the better, to some degree right? particularly when you're talking high-res visual data such as images and video. I have no idea what practices and technology are actually in place but I'd have thought that decent medical diagnosis could be done remotely via video hookup given the bandwidth was adequate

sure thing, but does this justify rolling out fibre to every home in australia?

probably not? I dunno
all I'm questioning, is the idea that it's purely a luxury. I'm asking:

- 'is it?'
- 'can it be used to greatly improve things like health and education for people not close to cities?'

Telstra and Optus built the first fibre network and gave us crap products at crappy prices.
Im glad one half of these clowns wont be given the chance to screw us twice.
Lets hope Optus stays away too.

Best solution is a new player.
Someone who has 'done it before' and has a proven record.

Would be nice to finally get some PayTV competition happening.

oh wouldn't it!

I can totally understand Telstra's perspective. This is a viability decision for individual operators. telstra have a perfectly good copper system which can deliver up to ADSL2+ and that should satisfy the broadband needs of a vast majority of the people.

I didn't disagree with you up until this sentence...

Telstra are the ones who originally put the FTTN on the table? Their only position as far as reach goes is that it is too costly to justify rolling out to the last 8% of what was requested (or 10% of the population).

They chose not to properly participate in the process by lodging an incomplete bid, and whether they thought they were within their rights or not, they were trying to hold the Government to ransom over the pricing conditions (which was clearly their choice to make) and it has backfired on them.

They want to roll out this network just as much as the next group, and while they may not get the 4.7 billion in funding (and I still think they could weasel their way back in somehow) they will certainly build some sort of network to compete.

It’s all good to say that I just want my porn faster... and if you are too short sighted to see the big picture, that’s cool. I don't look at it from the perspective of whether we need the network or not. I would have been happier with the liberal plan for a metro network with no Government funding. The Government instead put forward a plan for higher coverage that included funding as an incentive in the less profitable areas, and companies have responded in different ways. I just dislike the Telstra response.

last edited by mongie at 14:53:25 15/Dec/08

Telstra and Optus built the first fibre network and gave us crap products at crappy prices.
Im glad one half of these clowns wont be given the chance to screw us twice.
Lets hope Optus stays away too.

I'm sure most people feel the same way about it all as you. A few things you might like to think about though. Telstra and Optus differ greatly on their plans for this network.

The Optus proposal would involve the Network being owned by a completely separate entity (in this case Optus Network Investments) who would be structurally separated from Optus as a retailer on the network. A lot of people see structural separation as the only way to ensure fair competition in the industry.

Telstra do not agree that Structural Separation is vital to the networks success, mainly because it has worked for them in the past. The whole point of Structural Separation is that Telstra would have no incentive (and probably no way) of favouring their own retail customers.

The cost of connecting a Bigpond retail customer to the Telstra NBN would be the same as the cost of connecting an Optus, Internode, retail customer, and they would have the same non-price conditions.

Many ISP's currently complain that Telstra retail customers receive preferential treatment from Telstra wholesale. By making them separate companies, and regulating the industry more, it would be possible to remove that favouritism and make it a level playing field for all resellers.

one thing we can agree on mingie is: f*** telstra

great more wires dangling low on powerlines...

The cost of connecting a Bigpond retail customer to the Telstra NBN would be the same as the cost of connecting an Optus, Internode, retail customer, and they would have the same non-price conditions.

Probably - but its dumb to expect that a company that is going to put billions of its own dollars on the line should have to share its massive investment with its investors

reminds me of this story I saw a while back - as I understand it (note, haven't researched heavily, just read a few abc stories), BHP and Rio built their own private rail line to some mining areas which they've been monopolising. Now some other mob has come along and wants access and the government is forcing them to provide access.

So, what incentive now to businesses have then to build their own rail lines - or any other infrastructure - if they have to share it with anyone? It'd just be pissing away shareholder money if there's even a small chance they're not going to get to exploit it for their own use.

Trog, you seem to forget that they will receive a regulated income from the company who are leasing the use of the line.

Thats how it works.

I can see what you're saying, but thats what Unconditioned Local Loop Service and Line Sharing Service are. They are a regulated product that the party involved HAVE to provide, where by competitiors are able to access the monopoly assets at a regulated price.

Telstra are more than happy to claim the fees, but tend to favor themselves when it comes to providing the services.


last edited by mongie at 15:16:00 15/Dec/08

So, what incentive now to businesses have then to build their own rail lines - or any other infrastructure - if they have to share it with anyone? It'd just be pissing away shareholder money if there's even a small chance they're not going to get to exploit it for their own use.

That's not necessarily a good outcome. What they should have 3 rail lines going to the same location?

Essential infrastructure can and must be shared for the greater utilitarian benefit otherwise its just a wasteful duplication of resources. BUT the original builder should be able to recover a commercial rate for that access. Not some of the bulls*** rates being dreamed up by the ACCC.

infi, what does it matter whether they have 1 or 3 lines to there if they're still only for private use?

Why should Rio/BHP foot the bill to build that line only to have someone else get access to it for far less than it would have cost that other company to build their own (which Rio/BHP had to do in the first place)? Makes no sense.

Telstra are one of the biggest problems with this country. No wonder inflation rates are high when basic services are so expensive.

That's not necessarily a good outcome. What they should have 3 rail lines going to the same location?

That'd probably be dumb in this instance because of the nature of the line - but in other circumstances it might be fine because it means more competition. As long as the companies are adequately compensated for their investment and able to set the price for which other entities can access their services then that's fair, surely?

Essential infrastructure can and must be shared for the greater utilitarian benefit otherwise its just a wasteful duplication of resources. BUT the original builder should be able to recover a commercial rate for that access. Not some of the bulls*** rates being dreamed up by the ACCC.

yep

Telstra are one of the biggest problems with this country. No wonder inflation rates are high when basic services are so expensive.

australians sold telstra, so by extrapolation, australians are one of the biggest problems with this country.... Democrazy just doesn't work!

This would never have been an issue if the 2 previous governments had not sold off the infrastructure with the rest of telstra.

The rates aren't dreamed up by the ACCC. Telstra make a submission showing their costs etc. and the ACCC evaluate the costs and make a resolution.

This sort of covers ULLS disputes between Telstra and ACCC

I seem to remember Optus@home being an awesome product at an awesome price, I'm not sure if you are old enough to recall that offering from Optus. Thing was, it wasn't sustainable and the company fell to bits.

If you are of the belief that broadband services are a need than that is your prerogative, but I do not believe that home internet access is a need on society today and I definitely do not believe that broadband is.

It is all good and well to say that online diagnosis of heath issues and education could be a great use of broadband for those in remote areas, but until the government puts these kind of services into place, there is no need for bumbf***idaho to have a fibre link running past all 67 of their townsfolk's houses.

ULLS and LSS are declared services, the ACCC/Government decided that it should be regulated to encourage competition in the industry (admitedly, i'm not sure why they decided this, or on what authority) since then, Telstra and the ACCC have arbitrated over a pricing structure.

That's not necessarily a good outcome. What they should have 3 rail lines going to the same location?

FMG should have thought about that before they bought up the rights to that area of the Pilbara. In that instance, BHP and RIO had both invested heavily in rail infrastructure so that they wouldn't have to compete with each other for rail space.

For FMG to then come along and demand slots on their rail network is pretty f***ed up. What is more f***ed up is that they got it.

i remember optus@home, closest thing this country has probably ever come to unlimited internet. it was rad

agreeing with ara

You guys need to decide who you're pissed off at.

On one hand, you're complaining because the Government has a policy that will contribute $4.7bn to a private company. If you dislike it so much, complain to your federal member of parliament and do something about it.

On the other, you're complaing about the regulation in the industry, the reason why Telstra are compelled to sell wholesale access to their network. For one, without this the pricing we now enjoy through resellers like iiNet, Internode, TPG etc would not exist. If ULLS was not declared, Telstra would not be selling unconditioned access to their lines, so we would be stuck with paying Telstra for line rental.

I pose the question... Why are you so against this regulation, when clearly every other bidder in the whole NBN process is happy for the ACCC to determine pricing, should they be the ones to build the network

If its so bad to be stuck with regulated pricing, why would Optus be waving to the Government waiting to be regulated?

Just on the Telstra proposal specifically...

Conroy:

"The RFP was specifically designed to give proponents flexibility in preparing their proposals, and there are very few mandatory requirements", he said. "There was nothing to stop Telstra from submitting a complete proposal and competing vigorously with other proponents in this process.

"The rules for the NBN process were set down eight months ago. The rules are publicly available and are exactly the same for all parties. Telstra's Board will have to explain to its shareholders why it has decided to sideline itself from a process that will shape the Australian communications sector for the next decade."

Snap.

What if running fibre to regional areas reduced centralisation and hence pressure on capital city infrastructure and housing shortages ? "Bumbf***idaho" remains "Bumbf***idaho" because of this crazy lets only put infrastructure in the capitals mentality. We'd be far better off with more, smaller states or no states at all.

Also trying to say Optus cable is proof this sort of stuff can't work is a bad arguement... the problem with the cable rollout in Australia was the retarded "lets run 2 cables down every street" approach that Telstra inflicted on us. Even high density cities in the US don't do stupid s*** like that.

home internet access is a need

But won't business and government get benefit from it too?

If fits in well with the Digital Education Revalution.

Cars are a luxury yet the government provides infrastructure for them ? So's electricity. Even sewage (septic tanks work). Curbing and channeling ... its only water and we only have it cos we have roads which are part of our car luxury.

I just don't think the government should be in the business of providing finance to private companies.

Furthermore, I don't think the government should be regulating private company assets and in addition to that, I think that if private companies want to build their own infrastructure with their own money (or money borrowed from a third party) to compete with each other they should be allowed to and should be able to expect that infrastructure be free from regulation.

This whole NBN process if f***ed. First, government shouldn't be wasting money on this, private enterprise should be doing it. Second, when one of these companies builds it and falls over who do you think is going to pick up the bill? Third, the idea that these guys will build it on the proviso that they 1) get access to Telstra assets/resources and 2) get assurances that no one can compete with them, is crap.

That is pretty much my feelings on this whole process.

I just don't think the government should be in the business of providing finance to private companies.

This has been going on for CENTURIES for public projects.

Cars are a luxury yet the government provides infrastructure for them ? So's electricity. Even sewage (septic tanks work). Curbing and channeling ... its only water and we only have it cos we have roads which are part of our car luxury.

your analogy falls to pieces yet again.

Roads are not build exclusively for private cars. Taxis, buses, trucks all use them. Curb and channeling is provided so the roads we build for these things doing degrade after weather.

Electricity, get serious Obes. Catch the vision or catch the bus.

I actually think that every person who's submitted a proposal would actually like to be able to set the price if it were them who got the deal, but should it be anyone else to get the contract they don't want them setting the price. Therefore they have to publicly take the stance that they (or the company) shouldn't be setting the price or access, a third-party do that. Means the message gets beat in when someone else wins the contract.

it's spelt kerb, fyi

Electricity, get serious Obes. Catch the vision or catch the bus.

Oh come on, he has a point. Look how well Iraq did when they were without power for ages. Any Palestinian can tell you life's perfectly fine without power.

For public infrastructure cable internet is more like a toll road. Certain people are happy to travel public roads for free. Then others prefer to travel on the superfast toll-road and pay a toll.

The toll operator/builder has to negotiate a price with the Government which is permitting them to build it. This is done on a commercial and consensual basis, with long-term contractual agreements about future price increases.

Now if the Federal Government followed that model, then I'd be all for it.

Give provider $Xb to build a cable network of ABC specs. And they can charge the $y wholesale rates over the next 30 years.

Everyone knows what they are getting and no one is forcing the end consumer to use it.

I think the real problem in Australia is every time we get a New Government we seem to always get the 'George Bush' kind of Pollie looking after Broadband/Technology.

I suppose anyone with brains would already be earning a ton of money in the Private Sector and wouldnt be interested in Politics.
Shame though.

You do not need electricity to live.
Our society demands electricity.

I hate arguements that some individuals carry on about broadband not being a need.

Connectivity in the information age is as important as electricity. Neither are truely needs, but society expects both.

Roads are not build exclusively for private cars. Taxis, buses, trucks all use them. Curb and channeling is provided so the roads we build for these things doing degrade after weather.

So the government (buses) and business (taxis, trucks) wouldn't use this network (hiway) ? whose arguement is falling apart ?



last edited by Obes at 16:42:01 15/Dec/08

consensual hey

then why do i feel like i'm being raped everytime i go to pay the toll at the gateway bridge and it's gone up another 10c

i bet you go over the gateway multiple times a day because you just like the feeling.

want/need... are they really any different in our crazy capitolistic society!? it's just a matter of where you set the bar or how pendantic you wanna be.

as a side... i hate the fkn gateway bridge toll@!#$!@ surely we've paid that sucker off by now? i came home from the goldcoast last night n there was like 4 different sets of roadworks that had everyone slowed to a stop. you'd get through one set of roadworks n just get upto 100kph n hit the next set n wait for ~15mins to get through. :roadrage: then after you get through all the s***ty roadworks you get charged $3 for the privelidge of using thier 'awesomely fast supa highway' ;p

what was this thread about again?!@?#

last edited by demon at 16:55:53 15/Dec/08

3 times when i'm feeling extra randy

I agree with obes on the last point...

So the government (buses) and business (taxis, trucks) wouldn't use this network (hiway) ? whose arguement is falling apart ?

Building a road so that a courier company can operate is just the same as building a broadband network so that Google / xyz tech company can operate. It is a very touchy subject though and I can see both arguments as valid.

For the sake of the discussion, can we please accept the fact that the wheels are in motion and the Government will spend $4.7bn on a network.

You could have talked about this when I was about 18 months ago (you know... when I made 11ty billion threads right before the election, when this was the labor policy).

This thread became way too long and wordy and I skipped the last half so I don't really expect anyone to read or care, but...

I get over 1 MB/sec with my optus cable, but I only get that to Australian sites, of which there about 3 decent ones.
We're seriously isolated from the rest of the world, and when it comes to the internet (which only exists because everyone is connected together) I think the most urgent thing we need to upgrade are our international connections! I'm sick of getting 300 ping and 30 kb/sec to 95% of the decent content on the internet!

You do not need electricity to live.
Our society demands electricity.

I hate arguements that some individuals carry on about broadband not being a need.

Connectivity in the information age is as important as electricity. Neither are truely needs, but society expects both

really? I just assume our society would crumble without electricity in a matter of weeks, assuming everyone didn't riot and kill each other before then because there's nothing on TV. We depend on it for things like keeping our food edible and pumping our gas and cooking our food and staying warm in winter (well, not in Queensland, though I'm sure without AC we'd have a higher elderly mortality rate probably).

can we please accept the fact that the wheels are in motion and the Government will spend $4.7bn on a network.

if we really must.

You could have talked about this when I was about 18 months ago (you know... when I made 11ty billion threads right before the election, when this was the labor policy).

alls i remember is that you said you'd go & live in the uk & never bother us again if labor got in... but just like a liberal, you reneged & now i just can't believe anything you say :D

uuuhhhhh wtf?

I edited my post and now it looks like it replaced the OP with my post and says I created the thread... there's some funky jazz going on over here...

well, not in Queensland, though I'm sure without AC we'd have a higher elderly mortality rate probably

sidenote: aircon dries older people's skin. most oldies hate it and i would have only maybe 30% take up in my service. but on THE hottest days, yes it can have a contributing effect to mortality, but that is like heatwave conditions which can harm anyone.

uuuhhhhh wtf?

I edited my post and now it looks like it replaced the OP with my post and says I created the thread... there's some funky jazz going on over here...

awesome, will take a look

I think the big G called Telstra's bluff and now the big T is crying about it.

Telstra has no body to blame but themselves for being excluded from their laughable submission. If they're not going to take the process seriously then I don't think they should be crying foul with they get excluded.

For anyone who had written proposal for RFP, if your submission does not satisfy the criteria (as it is in this case by Telstra, they've left out the SME plans) then too bad really, they don't need to cut you any slack if they don't want to.

I'd say to Telstra have one of these and suck it up.

last edited by Opec at 17:08:39 15/Dec/08

mongie, f***ed if I know what happened but I can't find your original post - I've reassigned it for you, if you want to / can re-edit it to add what you had originally that might be helpful/less confusing... all I have is "Just saw this and thought it was too good not to mention... Clicky As the NBN bidding process has unfolded over the past year, Axia has kept out of the spotlight but today the company revealed that..."

I get over 1 MB/sec with my optus cable, but I only get that to Australian sites, of which there about 3 decent ones.
We're seriously isolated from the rest of the world, and when it comes to the internet (which only exists because everyone is connected together) I think the most urgent thing we need to upgrade are our international connections! I'm sick of getting 300 ping and 30 kb/sec to 95% of the decent content on the internet!

A couple of things...

I can quite easily get 400K/s downloads from the US, and I only get 400K/s downloads from Australia too...

You should also note that both Telstra and Pipe Networks are building cabels to the US.

Telstra
Syd -> Hawaii
1.28Tb/s

Pipe
Syd > PNG > Guam
1.92Tb/s (design capacity) - not sure what will be provided initally.

By the end of 2008, SXC was to be upgraded to 860Gb/s and AJC to 240Gb/s.


So, we're about to increase overseas bandwidth by a considerable amount.

Amazingly, it does take a while to build and lay a 7000KM submarine fibre cable.

Can I insert a joke about laying cables now?

PS: TLS is down 11.62% today. Onya Sol. Worth every penny of the $14,000,000.

PS: TLS is down 11.62% today. Onya Sol. Worth every penny of the $14,000,000.

haha

I stand by my previous comments - the Feds should buy back Telstra and laugh all the way to the bank!@#

Its not really that funny... and I agree with you it would almost be worth it.

Telstra had previously used the line that the Government should support Telstra since so many people own shares... the funny thing is, the Government haven't done anything in this case, and Telstra have shot themselves in the foot. Big time.

Well!

The purse strings are well and truly off!

risky business. we still own 30% of the T, at 45B market cap; + god knows how much for FTTH, + Telstra being reliably belligerent.. it gets interesting!

I still don't understand what residential customers require >24mbps for.

Seriously I hate you.

I still don't understand what residential customers require >24mbps for.

- For real time HD web camming with relatives
- For watching many important entertainments on youtube and ninemsn
- For Linux ISOs
- For visiting WebMD style self diagnostic sites where robots examine your body virtually over HD web cams
- For e-learning in HD using powerful bluray technology (e-learning and broadband in the same sentence gets me so hard)
- For lodging BAS with ATO
- Downloading recipes (do you know how many recipes you can download at 24mbs)

These sort of things are now basic human essentials, much like clean water, shelter and sanitation.

really? I just assume our society would crumble without electricity in a matter of weeks, assuming everyone didn't riot and kill each other before then because there's nothing on TV. We depend on it for things like keeping our food edible and pumping our gas and cooking our food and staying warm in winter (well, not in Queensland, though I'm sure without AC we'd have a higher elderly mortality rate probably).

Gas ... lights
Gas ... fridge
Gas ... cooking
LPG IS TEH FUTURE!!!
People do live even today with out regular power supplies ... it can be done.
Modern city based living may need it, but I'd argue modern city based living needs network connectivity.

Turn off the internet ... oh what I can't do my banking. All the overseas call center support gone, so no phone banking either. Oh your work can't pay you ? and the local store ran out of food cos their restocking system couldn't contact base ? And they can't bill you anyways cos the back end to the eftpos system is hanging off a vpn in dehli that needs the internet.

People with voip are completely f***ed they can't dial anyone to whinge.

Uni students have to go to libraries to research! and actually go to uni to submit stuff (generically applies to all education). And the variety of questionably useful distributed computing projects are closed.

Mammoth and all the other internet businesses shutdown.

xboxlive gone, wii gone, mmo's gone ... zomg why have electricity atleast we can still watch the TV and watch shows 2 years after they hit the US?

The hospitals, emergency services, doctors etc have to go back to phones and faxes (and people have to learn doctor scrawl again after a few mistakes are made of course) instead of the online medical system hibiscus or whatever the fek its called.

Sure we'd get it all going again sort of using modems and crap. It was called the 80s, and we didn't stay in the 80s for good reasons.

The speed now is unimportant, but why not try to build a tech that has some growth in it incase some of those fruity techs actually become useful. Biometric secuirty on finacial transactions ? remote court rooms using multiple cameras streaming ? A combination of local doctors or nurse practioners hd cams and specialists in big cities diagnose and or treating problems before they need mercy flights ?

ps. I don't give a f*** about the medium be it fibre, copper, microwave, gerbels on rockets. But I do think going forward broadband should be available "everywhere" (everywhere being towns that rate for a medical and a school).

I can't honestly believe people in this forum who work daily and in fact their jobs rely on the internet existing, can somehow dismiss network connectivity as something that if not essential now, or at the very least will be with in a decade and this sort of project will take 5 to 10 years.

LPG IS TEH FUTURE!!!

Now we're talking

I can't honestly believe people in this forum who work daily and in fact their jobs rely on the internet existing, can somehow dismiss network connectivity as something that if not essential now, or at the very least will be with in a decade and this sort of project will take 5 to 10 years.

I would probably be out of a job if it weren't for the internet. I don't think that computers would be so common in business if we didn't have the internet.

Is WAN included? Cause then i'd definately be f***ed.

I don't know of one business that doesn't use computers/net.

I don't know of one business that doesn't use computers/net.

Cash-only kebab shop. Plenty around.

I can't honestly believe people in this forum who work daily and in fact their jobs rely on the internet existing, can somehow dismiss network connectivity as something that if not essential now, or at the very least will be with in a decade and this sort of project will take 5 to 10 years.

Jobs that rely on the internet existing, that is, people that support/create entertainment services that are provided via the internet doesn't make the internet any more of an essential service. in your little rant about gas you never mentioned out gas is going to power your PC, but do continue.

Also, how are we getting said gas without the non-essential road network you previously mentioned?

I think that was his point

my new job has a sweet internet connection, 2 megabytes a sec or something it seems.

Cash-only kebab shop. Plenty around.

business activity statements.

I think that was his point

Im making the points around here, in Obes world there isn't even a need for power points.

how did we get from not needing 11ty billion MB/s speed to not having any internet at all ?

shutup paveway

nigga plz

how did we get from not needing 11ty billion MB/s speed to not having any internet at all ?

They're trying to justify whether the net is an essential service and whether the Government should be funding it.

I thought this might be interesting reading for those of you who think that we shouldn't worry about FTTH at this point. Comments from a guy named Mark Newton from Internode who posts regularly on Whirlpool. He is responding to comments in the thread regarding the myth that there is an upgrade path from FTTN -> FTTH.

FTTN is the right way to go as a stepping stone to FTTP in the future

FTTN doesn't provide an upgrade path to FTTH that doesn't involve replacing the FTTN infrastructure. (which is what we'd have to do with the CAN infrastructure if we decided we wanted FTTP right now anyway)

FTTN doesn't bring FTTP any closer, but it does push it several billion dollars further away.

The speed of FTTN would improve over time (think dialup modems and ADSL).

The only reason dialup modems became faster is because the achievable speed could be upgraded cheaply by upgrading the endpoints.

Wherever something in the "middle" restrained speed (e.g., an old PABX), upgrading modems had no effect on the speed.

That doesn't apply to broadband, because all of the broadband systems proposed, including the ones we're currently using, require equipment in "the middle" which is locked to a specific generation of technology.

No ADSL1 DSLAM will ever provide a link faster than 8 Mbits/sec without a forklift-upgrade, regardless of how far technology marches. No ADSL2+ DSLAM will ever provide a link faster than 24Mbit/sec (+/- fudge factors) without a forklift upgrade regardless of how far technology marches. If an FTTN network is built and all the cabinets are filled with ADSL2+ DSLAMs, it'll never get faster.

A major part of FTTN (the fibre network) can still be used in future FTTP.

That is simply incorrect. In an FTTP build, the glass fibre in your house goes all the way back to switching hardware at an aggregation point (e.g., telephone exchange building). In the same way that the CAN provides a continuous electron path from the aggregation point to the customer, FTTP provides a continuous photon path.

So the fibre network used to build FTTN will only be useful for FTTP if it's installed with enough cores to connect each house in the neighborhood serviced by the pre-FTTP node.

Which is isn't. It never is. Nobody's pulling high-density cables into RIM cabinets. Usually 12 cores at most.

If someone is going to contrast FTTN against FTTP/FTTH, it's important that they understand that the technical and economic differences between them mean that there's no upgrade path from one to the other. This notion that FTTN is a "stepping stone" to something else is pure fantasy. If an FTTN network is built you'd better like it, because it'll be around for a long, long time to come.

last edited by mongie at 10:14:44 16/Dec/08

last edited by mongie at 10:15:53 16/Dec/08

well i also believe not all business work in the CBD... so therefore business need good broadband for there everyday needs. i have just moved from 1500k to 8mb plan because the 1500k speeds could not handle 2 people using the internet at the same time... if i was playing games my ping would go crazy when my brother went on to myspace or facebook...

I am not saying everyone needs 24mb but only 10-20% of the population can get that because everyone lives to far away from the exchange

Also, how are we getting said gas without the non-essential road network you previously mentioned?

Pipelines ?

So the fibre network used to build FTTN will only be useful for FTTP if it's installed with enough cores to connect each house in the neighborhood serviced by the pre-FTTP node.

i always thought the big advantage of fibre optics is that the huge bandwidth available meant that you didn't need to run multiple strands from exchange to exchange (fttn) due to multi-order multiplexing equipment in the exchanges?

I thought this might be interesting reading for those of you who think that we shouldn't worry about FTTH at this point. Comments from a guy named Mark Newton from Internode who posts regularly on Whirlpool. He is responding to comments in the thread regarding the myth that there is an upgrade path from FTTN -> FTTH.

Good points from him.What is the cost of an FTTN system vs an FTTH system. I can't believe it would be any less than an order of magnitude, if not more.

Good points from him.What is the cost of an FTTN system vs an FTTH system. I can't believe it would be any less than an order of magnitude, if not more.

Axia seem to think its viable (albeit in Metro areas)?

I highly doubt it would be an order of magnitude higher. The cost for FTTN to 98% of the population is $10-15bn. Figures I had seen for FTTP were $20-30bn.

Any company that compares the Australian market to Singapore should just be dropped straight-away. They obviously have no idea.

**ADD RANT**

Also, yes taxpayers should pay because high speed internet is essential for the future.

Any company that compares the Australian market to Singapore should just be dropped straight-away. They obviously have no idea.

What is different between Australian cities and Singapore?

how cute.^

australian MARKET. not CITIES.

What is different between Australian cities and Singapore?

singapore is tiny in area & has ~4million resident population & ~7million transient population & is a global trade hub. australian cities are huge & sprawling in area & average around 3million per city in resident population & have f*** all transient population. pretty big difference imo.

also, broadband internet is about the same price as it is here for the consumer & has very similar data caps.

"In Singapore, on a fibre-to-the-premise network, we can offer an access price of $15 per resident per month. You could do this with similar pricing in any major metropolitan city, including Sydney," Axia NetMedia chief executive and chairman Art Price told The Australian.

Thanks infi, the quote was comparing Singapore with Sydney.

Sydney's population density is ~ 2000 people per square km. Singapore's is ~ 6000 people per square km.

There is a difference, but not as big as you might think.

I thought talking about FTTH meant rolling it outside metropolitan areas at which point the analogy completely fails.

also, broadband internet is about the same price as it is here for the consumer & has very similar data caps.

This shows unlimited 1Mbit broadband for $22.90 per month, all the way to unlimited 10Mbit for $58. Where can you get that (or any unlimited plan for that matter) in Australia?

(for the record... $22.90 in singapore dollars is $21 in AUD, $58 in SGD is $53.50 in AUD)

I thought talking about FTTH meant rolling it outside metropolitan areas at which point the analogy completely fails.

I have no idea what you're talking about?

Axia's plan was for FTTH in the capital cities and a combination of wireless and fttn elsewhere, up to 98% coverage. You're the one who started commenting about Axia again.

Mark Newton, like most telco pundits, presents _perspective_ when arguing.

FTTN is the right way to go as a stepping stone to FTTP in the future

Cores need to be aggregated somewhere, If you can do it the exchange, why not at a node? If there's demand a vendor will build a solution (line card/kit) to fit the requirement. Also, it's completely ludicrous for Telstra to waste money and not allow themselves an upgrade path. It's also *really* stupid for a Vendor to eliminate that upgrade path..

If an FTTN network is built and all the cabinets are filled with ADSL2+ DSLAMs, it'll never get faster.

That's stupid. *if*. I can 1000% guarantee you VDSL line cards will be fitted. A furphy of an argument. Why would you build a network closer to the home and not upgrade it to VDSL? Dynamic Spectrum Management also has a significant hand to play. I don't think it's inconceivable to see 200Mb/s over copper @ FTTN distances. I really can't see any practical demand for access at greater speeds than that.

It doesn't make commercial sense to spend untold (**untold**) billions on a FTTH network. It'd be great to dethrown the T, but, we could use that money in alot of other practical and much more everlasting areas than a really fast white elephant of a network.

YOu know most of us are still on 256k right. Most aussies aren't internerds.

It doesn't make commercial sense to spend untold (**untold**) billions on a FTTH network. It'd be great to dethrown the T, but, we could use that money in alot of other practical and much more everlasting areas than a really fast white elephant of a network.

According to Axia, who have done it before, it wouldn't cost that much more than an FTTN to build FTTH in the capital cities. "Not much more" could be anything, admitedly.

The biggest reason why FTTH is a good idea is that no matter who is selected by the expert panel, they're going to have issues in getting access to the Telstra copper. Perhaps when you factor in the legal nightmare that Telstra will throw down, it would be more worthwhile to bypass the copper altogether?

I'm not saying that we must have FTTH, but it would certainly be a much simpler process if that is the case.

Just for interest's sake, why are Japan, South Korea, even FiOS using FTTH over FTTN?

OH CAUSE ITS BETTER?

Just for interest's sake, why are Japan, South Korea, even FiOS using FTTH over FTTN?

OH CAUSE ITS BETTER?

dude I'll stop reading what you write if you compare Australia to those places:

Australia — Population - Density: 2.6 /KM (224th)
Japan — Population - Density: 337 /KM (30th)
South Korea — Population - Density: 1,274 /SQ MI

If everyone was jumping over a cliff... etc. Just because its right for one place doesn't make it right for another.

Just for interest's sake, why are Japan, South Korea, even FiOS using FTTH over FTTN?

OH CAUSE ITS BETTER?

LOL ... yeah because it's better...that's the only reason.

did axia also do canadian rural?? as this is just like our rural area?
and VDSL only works if you < 1.5km from the exchange

last edited by TiT at 14:00:31 16/Dec/08

dude I'll stop reading what you write if you compare Australia to those places

FTTB is a bit more enticing when everyone lives in a 50 storey apartment complex. If given the choice between a backyard with some grass and a Hill's hoist (and ADSL2+) or 20Gbit intratubes I'd take the backyard and ADSL2+ every time.

Australia — Population - Density: 2.6 /KM (224th)
Japan — Population - Density: 337 /KM (30th)
South Korea — Population - Density: 1,274 /SQ MI

This is a case of stats telling lies.

The vast majority of australians live in towns and cities.
Syndey - Population - Density: 345.7/km
Melbourne — Population - Density: 479.6/km

I don't think anyone is saying lets to run high density dark fibre to anything in the middle of the Nullabour.

*edit love the copy and paste stats without changing the unit of measure*
1 sq mi = 2.58998811 sq Km
South Korea — Population - Density: 1,274 /SQ MI ~= 491 /km

last edited by Obes at 14:31:04 16/Dec/08

I don't think anyone is saying lets to run high density dark fibre to anything in the middle of the Nullabour.

I think that's EXACTLY what EVERYONE is saying

What, you want to listen to country people whine more about not being able to get Internets?! I thought the whole point of this was a NATIONAL broadband network. We already have a network for us leet city dwellers. Well, not all of us, some people still can't get it even though they live in cities. But you know, most of us.

This shows unlimited 1Mbit broadband for $22.90 per month, all the way to unlimited 10Mbit for $58. Where can you get that (or any unlimited plan for that matter) in Australia?

heh. but surely with thier awesome ftth network you can get 24mbps+ for $15 a month? isn't that what you were saying in your original post? not 1mbps down & 256kbps up... that sounds like what we have here, now.

a couple of au guys from work (our parent company is in singapore) are paying $50/month for 10mbps down/up with a 80gb/month cap. they are transients so are not entitled to the cheaper deals that are only available to ppl with perm residency. plus they won't be there long enough to take out 12month contracts.

Trog I think you'll find that "country" is talking about relatively large towns.

eg. telstra nextG claims to cover 99% of the population...
http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/9072/telstra3gmx9.jpg

Seriously trog, I am simply confused by your mind set. You sound like a 70 year old man saying "this internet thing will never catch on". I don't give a stuff about the detail of the technical arguements. Only just that we start to put infrastructure in for the future.

This project is ATLEAST 5 year away.
What will the expectations of our society be in 5 or 10 years ?



last edited by Obes at 14:40:11 16/Dec/08

Also, the government funding remains the same no matter who wins the bid. Saying no to FTTH is like paying full price for two movie tickets when there's a "2 for 1" offer available. You wouldn't be found saying "Movie tickets are only this price in countries where the popluation density is higher".

it's just a massive overinvestment. of course private sector is going to build something even if it is unnecessary because it is not their funds at risk, it is the taxpayer's.

if the infrastructure was profitable and necessary, then there wouldn't be private consortiums asking for handouts.

last edited by infi at 14:55:37 16/Dec/08

if the infrastructure was profitable and necessary, then there wouldn't be private consortiums asking for handouts.

So did you have any publically funded positions in your privately owned and run nursing home ?

I won't even ask any loaded questions about the then minister for aging Senator Santoro.

Seriously trog, I am simply confused by your mind set. You sound like a 70 year old man saying "this internet thing will never catch on". I don't give a stuff about the detail of the technical arguements. Only just that we start to put infrastructure in for the future.

What's confusing about it?

I want it, I just don't want tax dollars to pay for it. If the government pays for it in any capacity, I, as a taxpayer, don't want to be subject to the whims of whatever corporation then takes those tax dollars and figures out the best way to distribute them to their shareholders.

If the government wants to shell up $4 billion, that should be $4 billion of equity that the Australian people own in whatever entity is controlling this network. I don't see why we shouldn't expect this to be different to any other investment, other than taxpayers have this history of just getting used to having billions of dollars lost every year that seems to just get pissed away.

I don't really want to end up exactly where we are now with some company, be it Telstra or some other consortium, owning and controlling the last mile? ACCC regulation is not enough for me to feel confident I, as a taxpayer, would be getting fair value out of it. Plus I can't see any way it'll end at $4 billion; whoever gets it will be like "oh, we just need another few hundred million to finish it" for the next umpteeen years, like what happens with every massive government project.

heh. but surely with thier awesome ftth network you can get 24mbps+ for $15 a month? isn't that what you were saying in your original post? not 1mbps down & 256kbps up... that sounds like what we have here, now.

They haven't build their FTTH network yet. Their tender process has been going for the last 24 months, and a joint venture between Singtel, Axia (and maybe someone else) has been selected to build it.

dude I'll stop reading what you write if you compare Australia to those places:

Australia — Population - Density: 2.6 /KM (224th)
Japan — Population - Density: 337 /KM (30th)
South Korea — Population - Density: 1,274 /SQ MI

Syndey - Population - Density: 345.7/km
Melbourne — Population - Density: 479.6/km

Not sure where your figures came from Obes, but on Wikipedia (ABS stats)...

Australia
Sydney City: 6580/km² (17,042.1/sq mi)
Sydney: 2058/km² (5,330.2/sq mi) (2006)
Melbourne: 1566/km² (4,055.9/sq mi) (2006)
Brisbane: 918/km² (2,377.6/sq mi) (2006)

Japan
Tokyo: 5,796 /km²
Greater Tokyo: 2,388 /km²
Osaka: 11,869 /km² (30,741 /sq mi)
Kyoto: 1,779 /km² (4,608 /sq mi)
Sapporo: 1,686 /km² (4,367 /sq mi)
Kobo: 2,768 /km² (7,169 /sq mi)

South Korea
Busan: 4,791 /km²
Seoul: 17,219/km² (44,597/sq mi)
Daegu: 2,866/km²
Incheon: 2,724.6/km² (7,056.8/sq mi)

USA
Los Angeles: 3,168/km²
Greater Los Angeles: 1,029/km²
New York City: 10,482/km²
New York metro area: 1,077/km²
Greater Boston: 366 /km²

I think that should be enough to show you what I'm talking about.

In the countries I mentioned, there are cities with far higher densities than in Australia. But if you look at the City of Sydney density of 6580/km², compared to Tokyo (5796 /km²) you can see how this can all be misinterpreted.

Unfortunately the australian government doesn't want to pay for the whole thing. Its like toll roads...

It's completely different Obes. I operate under the Aged Care Act 1997. We have operated our service for 29 years long before the current government funding regime existed.

Government chose to fund this sector to standardise and improve the quality of the service. Government decided from a public policy perspective that it wanted to control the care of its ageing and improve the sector's viability at the same time regulating price.

This sector is predominantly occupied by Not For Profits. How many not for profits occupy the telecommunications industry?

This is a case of stats telling lies.

Yeah, gotta agree here. Something like 90% of Australias population live on 2% of the land mass.

if the infrastructure was profitable and necessary, then there wouldn't be private consortiums asking for handouts.

Woah Woah... The infrastructure is profitable in the cities, thats why Telstra was always going to build a FTTN in the capitals. The only reason why there is a need to give out taxpayers money ($4.7Bn) is because this Government chose to "one-up" the Liberals by extending their scheme to be FTTN to 98% of the population.

The liberal policy was for a metro FTTN network + OPEL. Labor cancelled OPEL and decided to spend that money, plus the communications fund to "pay" the companies to build further.

If the government wants to shell up $4 billion, that should be $4 billion of equity that the Australian people own in whatever entity is controlling this network. I don't see why we shouldn't expect this to be different to any other investment, other than taxpayers have this history of just getting used to having billions of dollars lost every year that seems to just get pissed away.

Well, the RFP didn't state how the money was to be provided. In fact, I'm pretty sure the exact wording is that it could be provided as "debt or equity". Thats why there is an expert panel assessing these bids to determine which if any are in the public interest.

It shouldn't be equity either, because then we go back to the Government being an owner in national carrier.

Its not a "a national carrier"... its the owner of the natioanl broadband network.

Yeah, gotta agree here. Something like 90% of Australias population live on 2% of the land mass.

Yeh mos def, but see mongie's post below - one of the major points of this whole idea was to bring broadband to /everyone/ (or so I thought, anyway)

98% coverage was what the RFP was looking for... 98% coverage was what Labor had promised.

All I see is a few negative people with shifting goal posts.

I specifically chose the 99% coverage graph because I knew it was 98% coverage.

And I have barely paid much attention, if you didn't know it was 98% coverage and what that actually means in real terms ... why are you in this thread aadding noise ?

Lost of shifting defences here ... "we aren't dense enough" soon as that starts getting argued.... "internets not important" soon as thats argued its "government wastes money".

Well as infi backed up if they don't waste it on infrastructure they'll waste it on other things.

I'm with you Obes...

i would rather they spend my money on more important things, like UFO defence and potato chips that dont go stale

All I see is a few negative people with shifting goal posts.

I dream about what ten million dollars would buy.

Imagine ten billion dollars. Or more! I realize this is the season of spending money, but why not spend it on hospitals, roads, schools, defense, christ - anything else. There's no point spending squillions of dollars on a network that most people won't use, and don't give a s*** about.

Telstra get a bad rap on this aspect because their legacy network was so completely ancient and overwhelmed by contemporary demands, they had (and could) price accordingly. And, in my opinion, FTTH is a desperate attempt by an industry facing extinction to introduce FUD into the debate. Surely, FTTH is complete overkill for the landmass, demand, and competitive stakes in the industry.

Please explain to me why a home user needs or wants 1Gb to the home??

As a reference, Cisco Telepresence at 1080p is a tad under 20Mbs.

dRanged...

For starters...

FTTH is complete overkill for the landmass, demand, and competitive stakes in the industry.

NOBODY IN THE ENTIRE THREAD HAS SAID THAT WE SHOULD ROLL OUT FTTH TO 98% OF THE POPULATION.

Axia said that if you are going to roll out FTTN, you may as well roll out FTTH instead and stop wasting time. Their proposal suposedly has a FTTH component in the capital cities.

As obes has already said about a billion times... This network is going to take 5 years plus to build. That will be 2014 at least before it is completed. Are you saying instead of spending $4.7 Billion on a future proof FTTH network in the capital cities, that they should just spend $4.7bn on a FTTN network that is out of date before its started compared to other countries, and relies on a Telstra owned copper network that is falling apart? The wiring in the pit outside my house is held together with electrical tape. I can only imagine what it would be like in 10-15 years when the $4.7 billion we just spent on a FTTN network is wasted because we now need FTTH to stay relevant.

If someone wants to run triple play services through the one cable, they are going to need at least 20mbit for TV and one would think 10-20Mbit for net. Thats getting towards the limit of VDSL. Especially if its FTTN and there are users that are more than 1KM from the node.

I'm unconcerned with the spend from the Government because i'm resigned to the fact that they will spend the money on "a network". I would just like that network to be the best one possible. Obviously FTTN is better than what we have now, but if it can be had for a similar price (in the capital cities), why not roll out FTTH and be done with it?

Please explain to me why a home user needs or wants 1Gb to the home??

..

"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
-- Bill Gates, 1981

bam.

/thread.

thanks tequila.

"640K ought to be enough for anybody." -- Bill Gates, 1981

Reminds me of when my mate bought a 1GB HDD for the first time. I was laughing at him saying, what the hell do you need 1GB for?!

That was back in the day when games were installed from 10 floppy disks and CDROMs had just been invented.

Sometimes I cry myself to sleep.

my first comp had 1gb hard drive everyone laughed at me too... until i installed flight simulator 95... 600mb later boom!

Well, optical interfaces alone are hundreds of dollars a pop.

there are 4.3 million houses to pass in the capital cities.

imagine the arse-f***ery involved in running physically delicate optical cable through 4.3 million unique property conduits australia wide.

Plus you have to migrate/mitigate/translate all the existing voice, fax, internal wiring, eftpos, etc.

Pretty sure most councils won't want you to hang it from the power poles (if they exist)

FTTH should be user pays from FTTN. If there are applications in future which come to popular request, then the home user can cough up and have it custom installed, just like a copper connection is done today.

"640K ought to be enough for anybody." -- Bill Gates, 1981

No-one has actually found the source of that quote, so it's a load of BS.

No-one has actually found the source of that quote, so it's a load of BS.

Boom!
<thread>...

imagine the arse-f***ery involved in running physically delicate optical cable through 4.3 million unique property conduits australia wide.

er uhm, I dont think anyone really expects a fibre loop to EACH house
but at least to the local jump boxes out the front, then just copper ethernet to your house or something

terminating at a wall socket just like any rj11 (phone) socket does

so you build your new house and you've got phone sockets (rj11) + and internet (rj45)

as for the gates quote, it doesn't matter if he said it or not - it made a point and we all got it.

Well, optical interfaces alone are hundreds of dollars a pop.

A single 100mbit fibre-to-utp converter, $180(granted, US$). In the quantities required for this project I'm sure there'd be a healthy bulk discount.

there are 4.3 million houses to pass in the capital cities.

imagine the arse-f***ery involved in running physically delicate optical cable through 4.3 million unique property conduits australia wide.

Have you ever used fibre optic cables? They're not THAT delicate. The type used for infrastructure cabling usually has nice hard plastic cores, kevlar fibre sheathing and a nice tough plastic outer. They pull these cables through the ground with a landcruiser-mounted giganto-winch for crying out loud.

Plus you have to migrate/mitigate/translate all the existing voice, fax, internal wiring, eftpos, etc.

Why? See comment about fibre<->UTP converter. If it ran on your existing internet connection it'll run on FTTH. I don't see where it says voice will specifically run over it either? No reason why your phone/fax/eftpos can't still use existing copper.

Pretty sure most councils won't want you to hang it from the power poles (if they exist)

So uhh, they won't? I don't see any reason why they wouldn't just put it all underground, can you?

I think some people should read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ftth (apologies if it has already been posted, I haven't noticed it).

in reply to tequila, "FTTH (fiber to the home) is a form of fiber optic communication delivery in which the optical signal reaches the end user's living or office space."

There are tricky things they can do with fibre splitting to reduce the number of runs required, but I'd rather see a fibre from the node to each house!

yeah, and i would rather the government spent money on giving us all jet packs but it isn't going to happen.

not with that attitude!

they are still debating about whether it should be jetpacks to the node (JTTN) or jetpacks to the home (JTTH).

i would prefer BTTH (Beer to the home)

according to how I use calc.exe, $4 billion dollars is 80,000 jobs at $50,000 a pop! That would cover like, all the bankers that now have to jump out of windows

That would cover like, all the bankers that now have to jump out of windows

I'd prefer them to jump, please.

according to how I use calc.exe, $4 billion dollars is 80,000 jobs at $50,000 a pop! That would cover like, all the bankers that now have to jump out of windows

One off one year jobs ... you have great ideas trog. You delayed their jump by 1 year.

Its called infrastructure. Building it creates jobs and has the added bonus of leaving stuff we can continue to use.

Australia is massively under infrastructured. eg. the drought we had in brisbane was because of a lack of infrastructure (new dam is coming ... maybe and dams are being linked). Or Brisbane roads (which is currently being addressed tho wether more roads is the solution is another discussion).

Its called infrastructure. Building it creates jobs and has the added bonus of leaving stuff we can continue to use.

I wonder how much other infrastructure we could build for 4 billion dollars with 80,000 people in a year...

I look forward to building this infrastructure and then watching all our talented IT grads go to London to earn pounds. Although if the pound keeps taking, aha, a pounding, maybe they'll go somewhere else.

Australia is massively under infrastructured. eg. the drought we had in brisbane was because of a lack of infrastructure (new dam is coming ... maybe and dams are being linked). Or Brisbane roads (which is currently being addressed tho wether more roads is the solution is another discussion).

Yeh, I'd rather see a 4 billion dollar dam project ... if farmers aren't whining about not being able to get DSL they're complaining about not being able to water their crops. Sheesh!

I wonder how much other infrastructure we could build for 4 billion dollars with 80,000 people in a year...

basically none, cos the 4 billion would only cover their wages. they could all lean on pretend shovels for 12 months though

you're forgetting about the magic jellybeans they planted, jim

mmm jellybelly

I think you're being short sighted and unreasonable Trog.

Much love.

So we dont build it now.
We wait ten years then we discover that 'Oh we should have built it 10 years ago.'

Like the fact that we only built a 3 lane bridge at Redcliffe.
Or that the Gateway was only 2 lanes.
Now its going cost quadruple what it would have built it back then.

You dont build infrastructure to satisfy current demands.
You build it for Future demands.

The problem is there are far more urgent and critical issues than rolling out HD live streaming to 98% of the population.

to you maybe

Lol infi, haven't been reading the thread have you.

1. It's happening whether you like it or not, that's been discussed in this thread.
2. It's not going to 98% of the population, which has also been discussed already.

Although you may be trolling. It's hard to tell!

last edited by Phooks at 18:46:36 17/Dec/08

1. It's happening whether you like it or not, that's been discussed in this thread.

I don't care that its a "done deal". it hasn't happened yet and there is still time for a change of policy. A subsequent government can undo policy, and hopefully one will.

2. It's not going to 98% of the population, which has also been discussed already.

the tenor of the argument has been that high capacity broadband should be rolled out to a large coverage area, using taxpayer money. and i disagree with that statement.

so :P

I'd like to roll my high capacity cable over your mothers large coverage area.

Using taxpayer money.

Infi is just dirty cos there is no santo claus giving him pre$$ies like the good old days.

I think you're being short sighted and unreasonable Trog.

Much love.

none taken!

you're sort of ignoring the fact that I think we should still do it... I want fibre to my home. I was just in Amsterdam like, weeks ago, and spent the whole time walking around seeing posters for their new fibre internet service for like 60 euro a month or some bulls***. I just don't want to turn this into a taxpayer money black hole, which just seems inevitable, with the end result being the same as it is now.

As with all major projects its pretty hard to tell what is the right way and what is the wrong way, even after its done. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.. I'll just continue to assume I'm right regardless of what happens.

I wonder how much other infrastructure we could build for 4 billion dollars with 80,000 people in a year...

almost $9 billion just went out to bogans, retards, cripples and talk-back radio listeners.

they were given instructions to spend it, and 90% of them won't bother. $9 billion dollars that won't help anyone without dependants, depends adult nappies or an extra chromosome.

this other $5 billion that at least gives me faster broadband for my taxes.

To be honest, I was kinda pissed off that I didn't get any of my own tax monies back to "stimulate the economy".

Why couldn't they just divide the monies between everyone?

nF has a point.

The amount of money K Rudd and crew are flushing down the toilet on middle class welfare and propping up corporate polluters and failed car makers is astounding. At least this is an infrastructure spend and at the end there will be something to show for it, even if the government doesn't own it or get value for money.

I guess in a few more years the libs can come back in and pay off the deficit we are heading into. Yay labor!

I wonder how much other infrastructure we could build for 4 billion dollars with 80,000 people in a year...

almost $9 billion just went out to bogans, retards, cripples and talk-back radio listeners.

they were given instructions to spend it, and 90% of them won't bother. $9 billion dollars that won't help anyone without dependants, depends adult nappies or an extra chromosome.

this other $5 billion that at least gives me faster broadband for my taxes.

surely you can imagine what I think about that!!

Oh my. from AustralianIT

NATIONAL security concerns about Chinese espionage could threaten the new frontrunner for Australia's $15 billion publicly backed national broadband network.

Security agencies will closely examine the bid lodged by Singtel Optus, which is believed to propose the involvement of Chinese telecommunications equipment-maker Huawei Technologies to help build its network.

Huawei was the subject of a US congressional investigation on national security grounds this year after legislators expressed concern about its links to the Chinese military and intelligence apparatus. The concerns led Huawei to withdraw from its joint $US2.2billion ($3.3billion) bid to buy a stake in US internet router and networking giant 3Com.

Optus emerged this week as the surprise frontrunner for the national broadband network tender when the Government excluded Telstra from the tender process after its bid failed to meet some of the project's stated requirements.

Huawei, the shadowy company based in Shenzen and founded by former People's Liberation Army officer and Communist Party member Ren Zhengfei, has triggered debate in the US, Britain and India about whether it is a legitimate international telecom player or a company bent on doing Beijing's bidding.

Intelligence agency concerns about Chinese cyber-espionage prompted India to scrap a planned $US60 million Huawei investment in its telecom in 2005.

If only there was another bidder in the process that was Australian owned...

what do the trailing dots on your closing comment imply?

what do the trailing dots on your closing comment imply?

Monkey are going to take over the world with jet packs

suspense

my ... key is broken...

If only there was another bidder in the process that was Australian owned...

Urr... Ara, it has nothing to do with the bidder being Australian owned. They're worried because Optus are planning to use Huewei as their node vendor...

This has nothing to do with Optus at all... and you shouldn't be confusing people by implying that it does

last edited by mongie at 13:10:45 18/Dec/08

Yeah, that'd be pretty frightening, having a national broadband network build for a country which had automatic backdoors built into it for the Chinese government.

But then I realized "oh wait, australianit.com.au is just the IT front for the fearmongering news.com.au!".

mongie, these concerns are nothing new and im not talking about their equipment supplier.

Advocacy groups like Privacy International have for years accused the Singaporean government of aggressively using surveillance, legally or illegally, to promote social control and limit domestic opposition. Cameron Murphy, secretary of the Australian Council for Civil Liberties, said, ''If they breach the law in Singapore through SingTel, why wouldn't they do it in Australia through Optus?''

last edited by ara at 14:22:38 18/Dec/08

ara I am sure if you look on how to wiki you can find instructions for a tin foil hat.

yeah a foreign government would never breach Australian privacy laws. what a ridiculous suggestion!!

you're so crazy, ara!

That stuff about Huawei is pretty scary .. luckily there won't be any single point of monitoring for our internet activities like a country-wide filter being installed anytime soon.

ignorance is bliss Obes, but you don't know what i know.

oh noes ... they know what i have been bidding on in ebay, and reading the news ...

oh noes!

ps. I doubt you actually know as much as you are pretending ara. Deep throat doesn't gloat he is deep throat.

That stuff about Huawei is pretty scary .. luckily there won't be any single point of monitoring for our internet activities like a country-wide filter being installed anytime soon.

haahahaha

ara I am sure if you look on how to wiki you can find instructions for a tin foil hat.

You dolt, they're boats not hats. Everyone knows that.

I doubt you actually know as much as you are pretending ara. Deep throat doesn't gloat he is deep throat.

i know that we have developed mind reading tech that goes through foil hats... oh no, i have said to much.

I know its ninemsn but its interesting read

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/701326/govt-may-face-big-broadband-compo-claim/