backtop


Print 50 comment(s) - last by cheetah2k.. on Apr 20 at 12:30 AM

None of the bidders for the national broadband network met the requirements, so Australia will build its own network

In many parts of Europe and Asia, broadband speeds on wired and wireless networks are much faster than the speeds that American consumers have available. The U.S. has plans to use the wireless spectrum vacated by analog TV broadcasts to help fix the broadband availability issue, but it will be years before most of the new networks are up and running on the spectrum.

Other countries around the world are also working to make broadband connections faster and available to more of the population. Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd made an announcement today that none of the five bidders for the national network for broadband were able to meet the needs of consumers.

Australia has been taking bids for a national fiber optic network for a while. Among the bidders were Telstra and Optus, two of the largest networks in the country. With none of the five bidders meeting the needs of the national fiber optic network, Rudd announced that the Australian government and private industry would be investing $30.6 billion USD over the next eight years in a speedy fiber optic network that will include fiber optic cable connected to homes, not just to the street corner telco boxes.

By providing the majority of the $30.6 billion investment, the Australian government will be the majority owner of the fast network when it is fully installed. Private sector investment will be limited to 49% of the network costs to ensure the government is the majority owner. Plans for the network call for download speeds of up to 100 Mbps and the network will be operated independently of the Telstra and Optus networks.

Rudd says that at the peak of construction the new network will provide 37,000 jobs, a significant boost to the economy during the global recession. When complete, the fiber-to-the-premises network will run to 90% of the homes and business in the country with the additional 10% being served by speedy wireless and satellite connections good for up to 12 Mbps. The initial investment from the government will be $4.7 billion and the government will sell its interests in the network within five years of completion.

Analyst Lauren Holt said, "The investment by the Government creates an alternative to Telstra's fixed-line network over time, effectively re-nationalizing part of the fixed-line industry in Australia."

The new network will mean that Telstra will have less of a chokehold on internet access in Australia and the company is expected to fight the government in courts to try to prevent the new network from accessing its existing network of copper wire. Some analysts say that the network could be delayed by five or ten years as Telstra fights a long legal campaign. However, the Australian government says that it will change legislation to prevent Telstra from harming the project and preventing the fast network from being installed.

Australia's planned 100 Mbps network is fast, but in Japan the J:Com network runs at 160Mbps, making it significantly faster than what Australia has planned. At the same time the speeds for broadband downloads are going up, many providers are setting caps on the download limits that offset some of the usefulness of the faster platform. In the U.S. Time Warner is rolling out metered internet access to some parts of the country.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

So...
By Motoman on 4/7/2009 11:39:12 AM , Rating: 5
...this is the same Australia that was wanting to censor the intarwebs, right? So having the Australian government in control of their "primary" internet infrastructure is, I'm guessing, a bit like putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop...?




RE: So...
By James Holden on 4/7/2009 11:43:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm guessing, a bit like putting Fox in charge of MySpace ...?

Updated that analogy for you


RE: So...
By callmeroy on 4/7/09, Rating: 0
RE: So...
By Boze on 4/7/2009 7:20:36 PM , Rating: 5
I've seen you post that same tagline about Fox News and how people feel about it, to the point where I would have no trouble believing you are employed by Fox News, or a News Corporation subsidiary.

I wouldn't argue that CNN or MSNBC or ABC or CBS or the Los Angeles Times or the New York Times are, occasionally, biased to either the left or the right, but I sincerely doubt you could make the legitimate claim (and keep a straight face doing so) that Fox News is "about as" or "less" biased than those sources.


RE: So...
By callmeroy on 4/8/2009 8:36:42 AM , Rating: 2
Well thanks for remembering something, most don't. You should also remember in that same tagline post to which you are likely refering I stated I don't watch much fox news for its news but rather because a particular show is on that station that I catch from time to time that I like.

LOL -- I'm employed by Fox News or News Corp because I am with a minority opinion? typical. I could absolutely keep a straight face in person and tell you all those stations/papers plus Fox News are all biased rather heavily to one side or the other.

Personally I find it entertaining that you suggested NY Times are "occasionally" biased.....they are blatantly biased every story i ever read from them.

Anyway -- my base point remains....news media in this country (US) are all catering to either left or right political slants and they do it pretty obviously too. The thing is, if you are a member of the group that's being catered too -- naturally you don't see it....just like a disagreement in real life -- the parties involved see one thing, but a 3rd party sees something else entirely...normally the 3rd party's account is closer to the truth.


RE: So...
By Viditor on 4/10/2009 3:12:37 AM , Rating: 2
But you miss the point about Fox entirely...

It's not the political bias that people react to, it's the massive conspiracy theories and bizarre "no-spin reporting".

There are many news sources that are highly conservative/right wing, but they don't go the Sean Hannity/Michelle Bachman bizarro route...
Judging all Republican news sources by what comes out of Fox News is like judging all Christians by what comes out of Jim and Tammy Faye Baker...

At the end of the day, taking Fox at face value is sort of like a national IQ test...it let's you know who's from the inbred line. ;)


RE: So...
By callmeroy on 4/10/2009 8:00:08 AM , Rating: 2
Ahhh....thank you for explaining a point I wasn't considering...and seriously I'm not being sarcastic here either. I've always assumed it was the massive right tilt of Fox that people jump on it about. I will be honest, I enjoy Glen Beck's show from time to time (not a diehard wather though - 3 times a week is a max, lately haven't seen him in 2 weeks) , I've listened to Hannity a few times for the first 30 minutes of a drive home before and I found him hypocritical both in his points and how he treats guests or callers. So in that regard --- I can see what you mean there.

Thank you for actually explaining it though w/o the BS rethoric and slamming....

Only because of the topic -- and because he's just gone national , if any of you have long rides home in miserable traffic like I do -- check out Michael Smerconish -- he's a talk show host of course, but the thing is --- his show is only about 25% politics and 25% news/current events and then 50% normal stuff and sometimes off beat topics. One day he'll talk about sports, the next he'll have a topic about something you might have thought yourself "did you ever wonder why folks do [some bizarre thing]?"....

Its good for the drive in at least...


RE: So...
By Samus on 4/7/2009 8:37:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
(I love riding people about Fox News --- because they are all the same!! LOL)


They are all the same because most of them get their news from the same source...Fox Media Corporation / Rupert Murdock; the largest source of media coverage in the world.

Although that has changed a lot since the 2000 United States Presidential Election that left most news organizations embarassed after they followed Fox Networks' coverage.


RE: So...
By cheetah2k on 4/8/09, Rating: -1
RE: So...
By Pryde on 4/8/2009 1:12:34 AM , Rating: 2
100mbps is only 12.5MB a sec. That $30.6B will be spent in Australia creating many jobs and possibly saving many as well. Our Hospitals, Schools etc all use the Internet for various reasons.

In this day and age we need fast Internet not just to download pirated movies quickly but to increase our presence on a ever expanding digital world that can have huge impacts on our a economy.


RE: So...
By cheetah2k on 4/20/2009 12:30:51 AM , Rating: 2
I'm down, I'm out, I'm negative 1...

Still haven't received my $900 handout tho... Come on KRudd!


RE: So...
By callmeroy on 4/8/2009 8:27:52 AM , Rating: 2
That's ridiculous and a very hard to believe and far reaching assumption , that they all get their news from News Corp, while it would be less than truthful for me to say they don't EVER get ANY news from News Corp -- you have to exert very little effort to seem a vast majority of the news is gathered from the AP....a company to which News corp doesn't own. I read stories often from around the web and even from the sites I suggested previously and time and again I'll see (source: AP or From the Associated Press).


RE: So...
By Chocobollz on 4/8/2009 3:13:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Rupert Murdock

Not Peter Parker?


RE: So...
By jimbojimbo on 4/8/2009 2:10:24 PM , Rating: 2
You guys are stupid. It's fox as in the little animal that would eat chickens??? Duh. Did moron school get DailyTech as the home page or something?


RE: So...
By StevoLincolnite on 4/7/2009 11:45:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
...this is the same Australia that was wanting to censor the intarwebs, right? So having the Australian government in control of their "primary" internet infrastructure is, I'm guessing, a bit like putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop...?


Seems to entire country opposes the filter, ISP's, The Opposition Government (Liberals), The people and everything in between, I doubt it will become reality, Steven Conroy has been made to look like a complete fool over the situation when the ACMA black list was leaked onto Wiki leaks.

However the Government plans to sell the Fiber Network a few years after it has been constructed so it will gain a small profit, which would then be channeled into other projects.


RE: So...
By AntiM on 4/7/2009 12:30:37 PM , Rating: 2
I had the same thought. They probably had no intention of allowing a private company to construct and own the network from the beginning.
Filtering and censorship aside, it's a good investment; kind of like investing in an interstate highway system. It's a big investment upfront, but the long-term payoff will be well worth it. If only US leaders had such foresight.


I will believe it WHEN I see it.
By ayat101 on 4/7/2009 12:23:13 PM , Rating: 2
Australia has been an internet "backwater" for so long that I find it hard to believe they will pull this off as planned... or that it will not be hobbled in some way... for example having 100 mbps connection but say a 10 GB download limit.

HOWEVER, I am not sure how they came up with the 100 Mbps speed figure. If they are truely going for fiber connections all the way around, as soon as you upgrade the modems and associated equipment I supet you can pump up the speed.

What is the highest speed over the Fiber right now? 1000 Mbps? More? Is this faster equipment so much more expensive that they are not going for it right at the beginning?

The speed issue is more than a little confusing.




RE: I will believe it WHEN I see it.
By Doormat on 4/7/2009 4:38:31 PM , Rating: 2
If I'm guessing right, they implement it with GPON and use 32 homes per node. 2.4Gbps/32 = 75Mb/s, so they aren't overselling it too much. What I would go for is to make sure that they run more than one fiber to each node, not only could they resell the fiber for internet, but for TV and VOIP as well.

I do think there will be a transfer cap - consider that this company will have to peer with other networks, and could have to pay per net bit when peered. I don't know what the costs are for transport in Australia, but I feel confident in guessing higher than most elsewhere in the developed world when you figure a larger percentage of traffic will be running over undersea cables compared to North America or Europe.

Anecdotally, a friend of mine who lived in Japan for a while said that while he had 100Mbps connection, anything that was off the island of Japan was nowhere near that fast.


RE: I will believe it WHEN I see it.
By StevoLincolnite on 4/7/2009 9:33:33 PM , Rating: 2
The good thing about the Network is that it should be relatively easy to upgrade in comparison to the aging copper networks, so ISP's might improve our internet speeds.

As for the price of Data, with PIPE around it should drop, and the cost of peering with other users is negligible some ISP's already offer quota free peering to people in the same state.

ISP's here also usually make agreements with other company's and networks to reduce the cost of Data, the major killer at the moment however is Port Costs, Telstra is happy to charge an ISP $50 a month for an ADSL 2+ port.

With the Fiber Network all ISP's will be on equal footing, hence driving competition, so if Telstra releases a 100mbps plan with 200mb of downloads for $50 a month, then Optus would be able to under-cut there prices significantly.

Basically the price of Data should fall, Telstra wont be in control of all the big fat pipes.


By ayat101 on 4/8/2009 2:31:42 AM , Rating: 2
I am hoping that the way it is built and set up is designed for future upgrades - to save costs in the long run.

How much more does it cost to run a cable with say 10 fibers as opposed to 1 fiber? Or how much more does it cost to arrange the nodes/exchanges in a way that makes swapping new equipment easy?

The reasonable thing to do is that data within THE Network will be free, or at a very cheap rate (say 1 to 3 TB a month). I lean towards the subscription unlimited data cap within the network model. Outside data will be charged at whatever rate... BUT once you set up proper proxies, and even for P2P once the data gets into Australia, it can be redistributed very quickly without having to come from the outside again.

The biggest gain here will be for data sharing, TV, phone, various online communities, etc, ALL WITHIN Australia :)


RE: I will believe it WHEN I see it.
By ayat101 on 4/7/2009 11:21:44 PM , Rating: 2
So... how do they get 160 MBps in Japan? Is it because some connections are slower than average? Or do they simply oversell maximum capacity?

I hope they do a two tier transfer cap then. Say unmetered within Australia and capped outside.


RE: I will believe it WHEN I see it.
By Doormat on 4/8/2009 1:43:42 AM , Rating: 2
I think you're talking about that Japan 160Mb/s article from the other day - thats using DOCSIS 3.0 over coax I believe.


RE: I will believe it WHEN I see it.
By ayat101 on 4/8/2009 2:22:51 AM , Rating: 2
Ok... I admit I am not that familiar with current fiber technology - I had no reason to learn about it before now. However, once you lay the fiber, what is to stop you from pumping more data through it by getting better modems, switches, and the associated electronics? I recall constantly reading in New Scientist and the like magazines that somebody has found a new modulation method or a faster chip that will allow more and more data sent through the same fiber. Or even using two or more wavelengths through the same fiber to sent even more data.

I will be SO HAPPY to get the 100 Mbits :) My point is that people are already criticising this network for being too slow and out of date. The critics compare it the new generation mobile wireless and say the speed is similar already... but they are NOT thinking about the total bandwidth and reliability - stupidity rule it seems :(

Thus my counterargument is that a fiber network should be relatively easy to upgrade if the need arises.


By StevoLincolnite on 4/8/2009 10:10:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I will be SO HAPPY to get the 100 Mbits :) My point is that people are already criticising this network for being too slow and out of date. The critics compare it the new generation mobile wireless and say the speed is similar already... but they are NOT thinking about the total bandwidth and reliability - stupidity rule it seems :(


100Mbps will be a ball-park figure, it will more than likely be the minimum obtainable speed, sort of like the regulation the government threw onto ADSL where if your speed is supposed to be greater than 1.5mbps, and it isn't then it has to be fixed.

Some sources have cited (Whirlpool is the Aussie Broadband website if you want to catch up on all things Broadband in Australia) that the network would be more than capable of supplying Gigabit speeds.

The good thing however is that we are jumping the Fiber to the Node straight to Fiber to the Home, where speeds are more capable of being upgraded. (Fiber to the node will have it's limits because the data going from the Node to your home will be via copper using ADSL technology's which is limited).

The network won't be to slow or obsolete in 8 years time, 100mbps will be the minimum speed that you should expect as that has been the promise that Ruddy has provided, upgrades to the network after that would be relatively cheap and quick to perform also.

In Metro areas the speed should be phenomenal even making the new upgrades to the Japanese network and the Telstra Hybrid Fiber and Copper Coax networks seem arcane. (Telstra's Hybrid Fiber/Copper Coax is capable of 100mbps already).

Remember most countries are using Hybrid Coax/Cable technology's, this will be pure Fiber.

Also worth mentioning is the potential pricing, we might no longer need to pay line rental to Telstra ever again...

Plus there is another downside, and that is if there is download limits, uploads might end up being counted with the majority of ISP's (or even all of them) the reason being is that it will be a symmetrical speed, currently all Australian connections use an a-symmetrical speed, where the download speed is significantly higher than the download speed, and upload data still costs an ISP money, having it symmetrical might be a bit of a downer for some...


Good for the Australian economy!
By Jansen (blog) on 4/7/2009 11:44:27 AM , Rating: 4
Having affordable high-speed internet access with no throughput caps would help boost Australia's domestic IT industry.

With all of the bandwidth available, multimedia programs and videoconferencing becomes much easier to implement. This will spur local startups, which will be able to compete internationally when the rest of the world catches up.

I wish I had Fios...




RE: Good for the Australian economy!
By StevoLincolnite on 4/7/2009 11:48:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Having affordable high-speed internet access with no throughput caps would help boost Australia's domestic IT industry. With all of the bandwidth available, multimedia programs and videoconferencing becomes much easier to implement. This will spur local startups, which will be able to compete internationally when the rest of the world catches up. I wish I had Fios...


I'll just be happy to have Fiber... paying Telstra $30 a month just for home phone line Rental just to get the internet, then paying Internet on top gets a bit much.

However I feel sorry for those who will have to use Satellite and Wireless still, the caps on those aren't anything to gloat about! (5gbs or less?)


RE: Good for the Australian economy!
By notolerance on 4/7/2009 6:20:50 PM , Rating: 2
Stevo, ever heard of a thing called Naked ADSL?!! Here, checkit: http://www.tpg.com.au/products_services/ull_pricin...

No need for line rental. Get some VOIP action happenin, and your set yo!! No more cryin them tears...Telstra just laps that up!

BTW, don't ever go with Telstra or Bigpond for internet - a complete rip off, one of the only ISP's that still charge for uploads, not to mention easily being double the price of others...

-notol


By StevoLincolnite on 4/7/2009 9:23:47 PM , Rating: 2
1) Naked ADSL is not available to those on a RIM.
2) Naked ADSL is not provided for those who are on Telstra hardware. (Telstra has a thing about refusing to go nekkid).
3)I'm with Westnet.
4) I only have Testra ADSL hardware in my exchange, no TPG, iiNet, Internode, Optus.


It's Australia
By Reclaimer77 on 4/7/09, Rating: 0
RE: It's Australia
By notolerance on 4/7/2009 6:25:35 PM , Rating: 2
It's Reclaimer

Who cares...


RE: It's Australia
By Reclaimer77 on 4/7/2009 6:35:49 PM , Rating: 2
hahah how cute. Take you a long time to come up with that on your own ?


RE: It's Australia
By pwnsweet on 4/7/2009 10:40:50 PM , Rating: 1
Wouldn't live anywhere else. How fast your internet connection is and how much your download quota you have per month is way way down on my priority list.

I'd rather slower internet and less download quota but have access to Cottesloe beach in Perth, Western Australia than have faster internet and higher download quota and have access to your shitty beaches in the US.

Cottesloe > Miami Beach every day of the week.


RE: It's Australia
By Reclaimer77 on 4/7/2009 11:55:57 PM , Rating: 1
Oh don't get me wrong, I have no problems with Australia. In fact, if Obama keeps this bullshit up, I could see myself there easily.

It's just, after reading the article, I'm not sure why we should care what Australia is doing with their internet. That's all. Meant no offense.


RE: It's Australia
By notolerance on 4/8/2009 7:04:14 PM , Rating: 2
News Flash!!! The world now revolves around Reclaimer! Please refrain from posting any information unless it affects Reclaimer in some way - if not, its just pointless information and he couldn't care less!

BTW, a few words of advice: With your attitude towards things, you would do well to duct tape your mouth shut before coming over here, Aussie's tend not to like you self centered egotistical types.


I'd be happy with 50 Mbps...
By phu5ion on 4/7/2009 3:57:15 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately, I live in the US.




RE: I'd be happy with 50 Mbps...
By Motoman on 4/7/2009 6:20:37 PM , Rating: 2
...just ran a couple speed tests on our Embarq DSL...

1.5mbps or so down - .4mbps or so up.

To be fair, we live rather out in the boonies, and I'm rather impressed that we can get DSL service at all. But still. I'm paying $40 or $50 a month for this...and my only other alternatives are satellite (had that before - would shoot myself before switching back), dialup, or now I suppose the wireless-broadband stuff that cellular phone companies do. No cable here.


RE: I'd be happy with 50 Mbps...
By Shig on 4/7/2009 7:37:02 PM , Rating: 2
I live around Chicago and both Comcast and Verizon offer me service that fast. Just depends what city you're around I guess and how badly your politicians want broadband. Luckily it was a higher priority in Chicago than most other US cities.

I regularly download 2.5MB/s+ (Mega BYTES) per second from fileplanet and other uncapped places, upload is 500KB/s. Comcast has a 250GB cap which isn't THAT bad, a lot better than time warner's terribleness. And you don't get charged for going over, they first warn you, then they throttle you.

Companies like Time Warner are single handedly slowing down the progress of broadband in this country. Sickening. I hope Verizon and Comcast move into their areas and bankrupt them.

To be perfectly honest, I really don't even need this much speed. It's a luxery. The only thing that comes close to using this much bandwidth is streaming 1080P movies, but I just rent them from netflix anyways.


By StevoLincolnite on 4/7/2009 9:42:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I live around Chicago and both Comcast and Verizon offer me service that fast. Just depends what city you're around I guess and how badly your politicians want broadband. Luckily it was a higher priority in Chicago than most other US cities.


The difference between Australia and the US however is that 90 - 100% of the country will have speeds greater than 10mbps with 90% of the country having 100mbps or greater speeds.

Then you have the fact that Australia's Population is mostly concentrated on the outside of the continent, reaching that last 10% to cover the continents interior would more than double the costs of the network.

One day 100mbps would feel like a 9800 baud modem, remember when 640k of ram was going to be enough for the future? Technology moves forward and it takes advantage of the resources available.

I remember when 1.5mbps first came available I was paying $160 a month and the speed from that was considered stupidly fast, now it's pretty average, if not low-end.

quote:
Companies like Time Warner are single handedly slowing down the progress of broadband in this country. Sickening. I hope Verizon and Comcast move into their areas and bankrupt them.


Sounds like you need a 3rd player in the market, Both of those companies are very much like what our Telstra and Optus are, Telstra had ADSL 2+ availability for years and years, but it would only flick the switch to ADSL 2+ when a competitor installed ADSL 2+ hardware in an exchange.

Or when the Government announced the NBN Telstra quickly upgraded it's cable network to 100mbps down, and 1mbps up which was only available to a tiny portion of the country.


Odd.
By StevoLincolnite on 4/7/2009 11:42:37 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The new network will mean that Telstra will have less of a chokehold on internet access in Australia and the company is expected to fight the government in courts to try to prevent the new network from accessing its existing network of copper wire. Some analysts say that the network could be delayed by five or ten years as Telstra fights a long legal campaign. However, the Australian government says that it will change legislation to prevent Telstra from harming the project and preventing the fast network from being installed.


Earlier today while watching the announcement from ruddy on Television was that the older Fiber to the Node proposal/temder would have been met on the battlefield against Telstra delaying the construction (Who loves to go to court with the Government about every little detail).

However the Fiber to the Home will completely by-pass Telstra's copper network, hence Telstra wont have a leg to stand on, despite that Optus, Telstra and iiNet and most other ISP's are extremely happy about the announcement, hence if Telstra is happy about it, then I doubt the government would be met with opposition from Telstra.

I'm incredibly happy about the announcement for far to long Telstra has had a strangle hold on our telecommunications, even building RIMS around DSLAMS to block competitors ADSL 2+ equipment.




RE: Odd.
By 306maxi on 4/7/2009 12:15:48 PM , Rating: 2
Good news for you Stevo!

I used to live in Perth and Telstra seemed to go out of their way to slow down the upgrading of RIMS to CMUX's. I'm actually amazed at how expensive broadband is in Australia as well my parents (in Oz) pay as much for a 512k connection which doesn't have a huge cap as I pay here in the UK for an unlimited connection which runs @ up to 8 meg (I get about 3-4).

People here in the UK complain about BT and how crap they are and to an extent they're right but Telstra are a real weight around the necks of the internet in Australia.


RE: Odd.
By BruceLeet on 4/7/2009 12:26:21 PM , Rating: 2
Well, the way that is worded it makes the Aussie Gov't seem like commies. But then again Telstra delaying it to have a monopoly reminds me of capitalism.

In the end of it all, its cheap.

Telstra Lawyer : How you, uh... how you coming on that project you working on? Hmm?
Got a big, uh, big stack of papers there?
Got a, got a, got a nice little project you working on there?
Your big -big project you've been working on for three years?
(Voice rising in pitch) Hmm? Got a, got a compelling protagonist, eh?
Got a, got an obstacle for him to overcome? Huh?
Got a project brewing there? Working on... Working on that for quite some time, huh?
Yeah, talking about that three years ago.
You've been working on that the whole time?
Nice little, uh, project-- beginning, middle and end?
Some friends become enemies some enemies become friends? Eh?
At the end your main customer is richer for the experience, yeah?
Yeah? Yeah, you've got, uh-- no, no. You deserve some time off.


Priorities?
By glasspanic on 4/8/2009 12:09:28 AM , Rating: 2
I don't really see the need for the majority of the population to have a 100mbps connection. Sure, big business etc could make use of it, but a home user? The benefit provided does not, in my mind, justify the outlay required. Sure, they'll sell it off down the track and possibly make a profit (just see the myki fiasco, where the Victorian government tried to introduce a smart card system for public transport, already widely implemented worldwide, but somehow go majorly over-budget and overdue).

Why not limit the high-speed network to the major urban centres where the businesses that would take advantage of this exist. Perhaps I'm a little biased - I live in a city and have an ADSL2+ connection already - but it would cost so much to connect all the towns with a population of 1000+. If Australia had the population density of Japan, sure, it might be feasible... but we don't.

Mr Rudd would do better investing in other, more pressing, infrastructure. Moving away from coal, perhaps? Given (relatively) tiny amount of funding for renewables... Especially given that the CPRS, even though it's target lowered significantly, is still likely to fail.




RE: Priorities?
By andrinoaa on 4/8/2009 6:25:34 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe, you prefer to drive T-model fords, but I don't! More pressing infrustructure? Its ALL important. They all need to be done. This expenditure is over 8 years and then about 5-10yrs after, it will be sold. If you factor in the time period, thats not as expensive as you are led to believe.
Low population is exactly the reason the government had to step in. NO COMMERCIAL operator could ever do it alone and Telstra were only interested in their own needs NOT OURS!!
Do you think country people are less worthy than yourself? This is not only a social glue but also a bonanza for country businesses. Another way to look at it is, what part of your brain is expendable? The less used or non?


RE: Priorities?
By glasspanic on 4/9/2009 5:27:05 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not saying that I'm more important than people from the country, I'm saying that neither of us need 100mbps connections. For business hubs, sure, 100mbps has some benefit. For home users? A technology such as ADSL2+ which only needs equipment at the telephone exchange rather than nodes every few blocks.

I don't care if the funding is spread over 8 years - less could be spent on the broadband network and more on other infrastructure. I'm not sure how to quantify the financial benefit of businesses having a 100mbps connection, but I can imagine there would be some. Again, home users?

I can think of plenty of issues Australia needs to deal with. Water (although if I recall correctly that's a state issue - can't remember if federal took over Murray Darling, but they can give funding to the state gov. to deal with these issues), utilties, port infrastructure, incentives for R&D/uptake of new technology... Perhaps something from the big summit that Rudd help with "Australia's smartest"? They should have had some good ideas.


Filtering
By toyotabedzrock on 4/8/2009 12:49:07 AM , Rating: 2
I'm very concerned that this will lead to governmental filtering of the web. At some point some conservative extremest will be in place to control this network and start filtering. And once the public has been forced to use filtered Internet for years it will take a lot of effort to remove that policy.

Look at the raid that happened in Germany because of the leaked blacklist. Also the threats of $11K fines for links to the wikileaks page about the blacklist. Also the blacklist seems to target legal gay porn.




RE: Filtering
By andrinoaa on 4/8/2009 6:13:35 PM , Rating: 2
Stop being so negative. This is what Australia needs. The Liberals botched and neglected the infrustructure. Their ownly concern was to sell Telstra and set up a manufactured competition that could never work FOR THE CUSTOMER. This is a BIG BIG country, with lots of low density population. Commercial interests could never ever build a fully integrated system country wide. I for one, am tired of small and narrow minded polititians, this is brilliant. Expensive? Yes but look at it this way, the copper lines for our telephone system have been around for more than 60yrs. So $43b over 60 years doesn't faze me at all. As for government filtering, this makes it so so much more difficult and expensive that it will only be a minor irritation.


face it...
By swizeus on 4/7/2009 1:18:31 PM , Rating: 1
Internet becoming more and more expensive in US than in any other part of the world, considering caps applied by time warner really makes internet much much expensive. You got Mbps speed, yeah right, but that 30 GB limit is coming up really fast with that speed...




RE: face it...
By Gen McTard on 4/8/2009 9:38:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Internet becoming more and more expensive in US than in any other part of the world, considering caps applied by time warner really makes internet much much expensive. You got Mbps speed, yeah right, but that 30 GB limit is coming up really fast with that speed...


umm... I'm thinking you from Australia or you don't know what spell check is "much much"

Also in looking at your comparison to other countries that have lower cost internet most of them are wireless not hard wired like the U.S. is (again because you must not be from around here The U.S.) which is going to cause a lot of latency issues and drops from hotspots going down. One other little factor is most of the countries that have this lower cost internet are also the size of the 13 colonies like Australia use to be (well not exactly we weren't a penal colony). So this wired internet is going to cost money and as a business you do have to recoup costs of install or its not a business its a government institution.

So on to you last bad point the article was about 100Mbps not 30 GB's. 30 GB is a storage size not a internet speed, internet again not intarwebs, internet so and to alleviate any more confusion

Gigabytes (GB)

Megabits per second (Mbps)


Okay Guys Listen...
By DiscipleOfJobs on 4/9/2009 11:43:30 AM , Rating: 2
Will the metal lobster really have any affect on this? You have to think about that huge hole under his ship. These days, a man and a weiner.




By Broadview on 4/10/2009 11:45:09 PM , Rating: 2
The Australian Senator has copped a lot of flak attempting to "censor the internet", his benchmark, the existing censorship laws relating to all media, as defined by the Australian Communications Media Authority, formed from a legacy of a number of government bodies, eg, Customs Dept, Censorship Board, from years back, to give you an idea, the banning of Lady Chatterley's Lover. I'm sure you get the idea. It's current focus on this subject is primarily related to distribution of child pornography and other nasties, and the good senator called for ISP's to volunteer in a trial of an internet censorship model based on the existing legislation, and how it would be suitable for the internet. Nothing more. The previous government had in place a "Net Nanny", free for everyone, but had only marginal success at that time, due to minimal uptake, back when the internet was a relatively safer place. There was national protest, and several ISP tech savvy MD's had critical input of the program, recognising that there are other ways that deviant's can get their kicks. A general consensus is the government would be far better advised to pour more money into government policing authorities to catch offenders, and those people have been highly successful, in co-operation with world agencies.




"This week I got an iPhone. This weekend I got four chargers so I can keep it charged everywhere I go and a land line so I can actually make phone calls." -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki