Quote:

Originally Posted by baax

This is true but the difference can't be that large just because we live in the deep north

From what I understand cable is subject to contention so can be pretty variable between areas and even between times of day?

http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/06...per-1000-users

American schools need mega-broadband networks — and they need them soon, a new report says. Specifically, U.S. educational institutions will need networks that deliver broadband performance of 100Mbps for every 1,000 students and staff members in time for the 2014-15 school year. That's the conclusion reached by the State Educational Technology Directors Association. Why the need for speed? For one thing, more and more schools are using online textbooks and collaboration tools, said Christine Fox, director of educational leadership and research at SETDA. Broadband access must be 'ubiquitous' and 'robust,' she said, adding that schools should think of broadband as a 'necessary utility,' not as an add-on. The report, called 'The Broadband Imperative,' further suggests that schools should upgrade their networks to support speeds of 1Gbps per 1,000 users in five years.

On a similar tip to above:

Developers in 25 cities are getting a playdate with GENI, an ultra-fast broadband sandbox, with the goal of building apps that push beyond the limits of today's Net.

The series of tubes that make up the Internet are getting bigger. Tomorrow President Obama will sign an executive order at the White House speeding the way for laying new cable, for example, by letting companies install broadband during highway construction work, which can lower the cost of installation up to 90%. At the same time, new applications of distributed cloud computing, virtualized networks that use software to simplify the flow of information, and symmetrical gigabit bandwidth connections all the way to your laptop, taken together, have the potential to reach speeds up to 250 times faster than today's Internet.

But what will we do with all that Internet? White House CTO Todd Park announced today that the National Science Foundation, which built the $40 million Global Environment for Network Innovations, "GENI," a prototype ultrafast broadband sandbox for developers, is sponsoring the US Ignite competition in partnership with Mozilla, Juniper, Cisco, Verizon, Comcast, and several other companies.

The goal of US Ignite is to get people in 25 cities to build at least 60 new applications in strategic areas--health care, education, clean energy, manufacturing, transportation, and security--all taking advantage of what these Speedy Gonzales networks can do. High-quality, uncompressed video could allow doctors to perform remote diagnoses, local networks could improve collaboration in classrooms, and big-data crunching could help Tallahassee, FL predict the next hurricane and move people to safety faster. "We're hoping it will make developers drool," says Matt Thompson, community manager for Mozilla, which will take the lead in coordinating hackathons and other events around the open innovation challenge.

http://www.fastcompany.com/1840101/b...?partner=gnews

This is the right way to go about it. Encouraging developers to make use of all that bandwidth is great. This is the sort of thing that is needed to help people like Buffed to try and understand what most people seem capable of comprehending when it comes to infrastructure like the NBN. Perhaps we'll have working models in the next 2-5 years?

Like it or not it's happening around the world and it's important that we don't get left behind.

So buffed, the Broadband Commission for Digital Development (a UN body set up by the ITU and UNESCO charged with helping the world meet the MDG's) recently made an address to the G20 suggesting they all start investing more in telecommunications infrastructure and then suggested they follow Australia's lead as the NBN is the right way to go about this.

I'm betting your cognitive bias won't let you understand this but basically the worlds leading experts on telecommunications infrastructure are saying the NBN is the right way to do things.

Counting down to buffed either complaining that the UN's advisory bodies don't know what they are talking about (ignoring the fact this one is made up primarily of representatives of all major IT companies on the planet and many leading academics in the field) or him just ignoring the post then complaining later that no-one in the world thinks the NBN is the best way of investing in telecommunications infrastructure once he thinks enough time has gone by since I posted this.

pfft. experts. what would they know about the rising cost of living anyway?

Nah, he'll just ignore it. He can't find a counter example that's not a glossy pic. And can't differentiate between ICT capacity being reached and floor space in an office building.

Oh and the tourist brochures for Orange clearly show that everything's peachy keen, so there can't be a reason for super fast internet anywhere.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griggle

So buffed, the Broadband Commission for Digital Development (a UN body set up by the ITU and UNESCO charged with helping the world meet the MDG's) recently made an address to the G20 suggesting they all start investing more in telecommunications infrastructure and then suggested they follow Australia's lead as the NBN is the right way to go about this.

I'm betting your cognitive bias won't let you understand this but basically the worlds leading experts on telecommunications infrastructure are saying the NBN is the right way to do things.

Counting down to buffed either complaining that the UN's advisory bodies don't know what they are talking about (ignoring the fact this one is made up primarily of representatives of all major IT companies on the planet and many leading academics in the field) or him just ignoring the post then complaining later that no-one in the world thinks the NBN is the best way of investing in telecommunications infrastructure once he thinks enough time has gone by since I posted this.

His point isn't that FTTH isnt the gold standard though, its cost versus benefit.

So you've calculated the benefit now and into the future have you?

Given the BCDD was telling the G20 they should all get involved in Telco infrastructure spending as a way out of the GFC and they point out the NBN as the example of how to do this, they are clearly of the opinion that the NBN will provide more benefit than it costs - to a scale large enough to stave of the financial ruin of the EU if adopted in those countries.

Quote:

Originally Posted by budoo

So you've calculated the benefit now and into the future have you?

Have you?

Shadow Minister for Communications and Broadband Malcolm Turnbull told IT Pro firmly this week: "No, the Coalition will not cancel or roll back the NBN. The NBN will continue to roll out but we will do so in a cost-effective manner in particular in built-up areas."



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/governm...#ixzz1zA9o6RtZ

I think that's a good move.

The same thing can be argued for with carbon tax. Repealing it wont see companies just start dropping their prices back to pre-carbon tax...they will just pocket the additional profits.

Phoney Abbot caught out lying about a blood promise?

Who would have thunk it?

There is a difference between changing policy in opposition prior to an election, than entering an election with a clear commitment and then doing a 180.

All I know is that everytime Turnbull opens his mouth, he sounds more and more like PM material. Would vote libs if he was at the helm (I do not make this statement lightly, mind you)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weinertron

All I know is that everytime Turnbull opens his mouth, he sounds more and more like PM material. Would vote libs if he was at the helm (I do not make this statement lightly, mind you)

I think this. But then I look at policy comparison and turn around. I would absolutely if we had presidential style elections.

In any case good news. I'm glad someone got through to them that the existing HFC is utterly useless and should not be a part of any NBN.

FTTN is the biggest fucking timewaste retard idea going around.

Its a short-term bandaid rollout that doesn't fix the problem of the rooted last-mile copper. Anyone who thinks it is a good idea clearly has no clue about networks.

And FTTN actually more expensive than FTTH once criminals work out they require 12v batteries to run FTTN nodes.

http://delimiter.com.au/2012/06/29/3...de-to-premise/

BT hasn't even finished rolling out its FTTN and it's already moving towards an (optional) FTTH model. Just another example of why FTTN is just delaying the inevitable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dAvoZ

There is a difference between changing policy in opposition prior to an election, than entering an election with a clear commitment and then doing a 180.

Perhaps it's for the good of the country though. It would have been a good day for NSW if they had of just decided to go water recycling and storm water harvesting that a stupid fucking desal plant. No conviction, no balls.

At least she's done something.

Perhaps let the people decide what they think is good for the country, then.

Because their knowledge of networking technology and large infrastructure projects is what?

I wasn't talking about the NBN.

people are idiots

Quote:

Originally Posted by dAvoZ

Perhaps let the people decide what they think is good for the country, then.

They will have that opportunity next year.

This may sound completely patronising but there will be a large section of the population who will give only a cursory glance to policies put out by the parties. They might read the policy section of their websites and the commentary analysis of the papers and media but very few will bore down into the data and information that is out there to determine some kind of objective reason for voting for a party based on their overall suite of policies.

I am not saying I go into great depth for every policy myself but my point is that segments of the Australian community may very well decide what is good for the country on the barest amount of research, on what it sounds like, rather than looking at the facts underpinning each policy objective.

Regardless of how one votes, and who one votes for, the voting choices we make which decide what is good for the country, may very well be the wrong choices: that is, they might actually be bad for the country. I don't exclude myself from this btw.

^I agree with you.
Politics now is not about discussion, its about the media cycle, personalities, and trying to be as mistake free as possible.

Making mistakes is generally evident of making decisions. The problem is not making a decision means you can't proved a fool.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dAvoZ

Perhaps let the people decide what they think is good for the country, then.

They did. We had an election in 2010, you might recall. We'll be having another one in late 2013. It's possible, although probably unlikely, that by the time of the 2013 election Tony Abbott will have stopped sulking about his failure to win the 2010 election or to negotiate minority government.

1. Find out one of the main reasons people won't vote Liberal is their NBN policy.
2. Announce change to NBN policy.
3. Win election.
4. Ditch NBN due to budget black hole.
5. ???
6. Profit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by legal-affairs

They did. We had an election in 2010, you might recall. We'll be having another one in late 2013. It's possible, although probably unlikely, that by the time of the 2013 election Tony Abbott will have stopped sulking about his failure to win the 2010 election or to negotiate minority government.

"There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead"

non-core promises
kids overboard
any more examples needed?

We should keep this discussion to the current government, no matter how butthurt you guys still are that John Howard was PM.

ok, you can tell everyone what they can post about then, would make it easier for you not to sound so stupid I guess

"Carbon tax"


Thread is now full retard

Quote:

Originally Posted by dAvoZ

"There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead"

"I know politicians are gonna be judged on everything they say, but sometimes, in the heat of discussion, you go a little bit further than you would if it was an absolutely calm, considered, prepared, scripted remark, which is one of the reasons why the statements that need to be taken absolutely as gospel truth is those carefully prepared scripted remarks."

Fair play sir, but I think Gillard's comments were both scripted and carefully prepared.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dAvoZ

"There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead"

So what. John Howard pledged "never, ever" to introduce the GST.

GST = 10%. Carbon price = 1%. Get a grip.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dAvoZ

Fair play sir, but I think Gillard's comments were both scripted and carefully prepared.

On the Today show?

And I inferred from what Abbott said that pollies should only be really trusted when they were reading from something written down on paper.

The problem with having to negotiate minority government was always going to lead to some kind of changes or additions to Labor or Coalition policies that were taken to the election.

Abbott is alleged to have offered Wilkie $1b for a Hospital. This wasn't an election campaign policy.

The ALP had not removed formulating an ETS from their policy platform in this current electoral cycle which would have required putting a price on carbon. What was negotiated with the Greens was an augmentation of this policy.

I know you know all this but I think it is important to remember that both sides were putting out election policies under the auspice of governing in the majority.

The ALP's policy on climate change has not changed radically from what it was pre-election.

Anyway, bit of a hijack. Not sure we need to be discussing climate change policy in every thread in CA&P.

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

So what. John Howard pledged "never, ever" to introduce the GST.

GST = 10%. Carbon price = 1%. Get a grip.

but he changed his mind and then he took it to the election. Gillard said she she wouldn't introduce a carbon tax prior to the election and then introduced one in a deal with the greens to gain power after. if you think it's the same, then it's a waste of time

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

So what. John Howard pledged "never, ever" to introduce the GST.

GST = 10%. Carbon price = 1%. Get a grip.

John Howard went to an election after than and only when he got re-elected did he bring in the GST. For fucks sake, is it that hard for people to remember that? It's only been pointed out 7 million times to date

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fledz

John Howard went to an election after than and only when he got re-elected did he bring in the GST. For fucks sake, is it that hard for people to remember that? It's only been pointed out 7 million times to date

so what does "never-ever" mean then Fledz? besides it's not his only broken promise. hey, if you want politicians to keep promises you'd better find another planet.

i wish turnbull would stop tweeting 4G speeds everywhere he goes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah

On the Today show?

And I inferred from what Abbott said that pollies should only be really trusted when they were reading from something written down on paper.

The problem with having to negotiate minority government was always going to lead to some kind of changes or additions to Labor or Coalition policies that were taken to the election.

Abbott is alleged to have offered Wilkie $1b for a Hospital. This wasn't an election campaign policy.

The ALP had not removed formulating an ETS from their policy platform in this current electoral cycle which would have required putting a price on carbon. What was negotiated with the Greens was an augmentation of this policy.

I know you know all this but I think it is important to remember that both sides were putting out election policies under the auspice of governing in the majority.

The ALP's policy on climate change has not changed radically from what it was pre-election.

Anyway, bit of a hijack. Not sure we need to be discussing climate change policy in every thread in CA&P.

I think most people can understand this deep down - that when the slim minority gov situation came into place that it was a whole different kettle of fish and compromise was going to take place.

I just don't get why Gillard & co didn't get on the front foot and explain this is why she essentially needed to backflip on the carbon policy, take some steam out of the Coalition and media's unrelenting Juliar campaign.

I think a more smooth talker PM could've really done that, but don't look at Julia for good communication skills.

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

So what. John Howard pledged "never, ever" to introduce the GST.

GST = 10%. Carbon price = 1%. Get a grip.

Lame. He took it to an election after changing policy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah

On the Today show?

And I inferred from what Abbott said that pollies should only be really trusted when they were reading from something written down on paper.

The problem with having to negotiate minority government was always going to lead to some kind of changes or additions to Labor or Coalition policies that were taken to the election.

Abbott is alleged to have offered Wilkie $1b for a Hospital. This wasn't an election campaign policy.

The ALP had not removed formulating an ETS from their policy platform in this current electoral cycle which would have required putting a price on carbon. What was negotiated with the Greens was an augmentation of this policy.

I know you know all this but I think it is important to remember that both sides were putting out election policies under the auspice of governing in the majority.

The ALP's policy on climate change has not changed radically from what it was pre-election.

Anyway, bit of a hijack. Not sure we need to be discussing climate change policy in every thread in CA&P.

I don't think you can trust what any of them say, written down or not.
But this whole notion of defending Gillard's 180 backflip because Howard made a few is one eyed.

A spade is a spade.
She stabbed a sitting PM in the back for power.
She is now proudly touting an ETS to the public despite going into an election stating the opposite.

It won't be forgotten in the election when the coalition romp into power.

never ever hey?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dAvoZ

I don't think you can trust what any of them say, written down or not.
But this whole notion of defending Gillard's 180 backflip because Howard made a few is one eyed.

A spade is a spade.
She stabbed a sitting PM in the back for power.
She is now proudly touting an ETS to the public despite going into an election stating the opposite.

It won't be forgotten in the election when the coalition romp into power.

when lnp dont have the numbers to repeal it, and likely they wont, will they risk a double disolution?

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

so what does "never-ever" mean then Fledz? besides it's not his only broken promise. hey, if you want politicians to keep promises you'd better find another planet.

So you can never change your mind? Don't be so dense. The point is he changed his mind and then allowed the public to vote him out if they opposed it. They voted him back in.
Gillard on the other hand waited until she got elected, then backflipped weeks later.

That's completely different.

Yes I know politicians will always be politicians but there is a massive difference between how the GST and CT were brought in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdoodle

when lnp dont have the numbers to repeal it, and likely they wont, will they risk a double disolution?

They have no other choice, unless they convince the public that it's worth waiting until the Senate is replaced. Good luck with that though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fledz

So you can never change your mind? Don't be so dense. The point is he changed his mind and then allowed the public to vote him out if they opposed it. They voted him back in.
Gillard on the other hand waited until she got elected, then backflipped weeks later.

That's completely different.

Yes I know politicians will always be politicians but there is a massive difference between how the GST and CT were brought in.

you are ignoring that neither side won a majority and both negotiated with the greens and independents to get in though, Abbott said he would have sold his arse to be pm, I don't recall him including sale of his arse as one of his election planks though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fledz

They have no other choice, unless they convince the public that it's worth waiting until the Senate is replaced. Good luck with that though.

is there anywhere you can bet on the carbon price scheme not being unwound over a set time? I would lay money that it is in place a year after he wins.