Could Julia Gillard see out the year as PM?

[BlueManic]

LTE-Advanced or some variant of it is the only wireless tech I'm aware of that's on the horizon that can reach those sort of speeds but that's in perfect conditions, requires a lot of spectrum and is only for stationary devices. It's more a theoretical speed than a realistic one and scaling it up to the size of the NBN presents many of the same challenges and limitations as previous wireless standards.

So unless your aware of it it doesn't exist?

 

[MeeSo]

So unless your aware of it it doesn't exist?

I'm only an IT guy so unfortunately I don't share your knowledge of this subject. If you point me in the right direction I'm happy to look into it.

 

[BlueManic]

I'm only an IT guy so unfortunately I don't share your knowledge of this subject. If you point me in the right direction I'm happy to look into it.

Most of it is either commercial research that is confidential or published in subscription magazines that aren't available online for me to copy and paste.

A quick google search found this - http://www.uswitch.com/broadband/news/2011/02/1gb_wireless_broadband_to_be_widespread_by_2015_/

Now granted it is mainly focused on the standard for routers etc which will allow wireless transfer speeds of 1GBs. That is not directly related to internet speed. But as history as shown and as much more esteemed publications show, the industry is pushing towards wireless to meet the capabilities of this 1GBs standard.

 

[pjcrows]

If the immediate polls were genuinely dictating the current Government's daily agenda, as they did at the time of Ruddspill, then Gillard would have been told to step down in March. I don't see her going any time soon.

 

[Dry Rot]

I think the current mining tax is average at best. The ALP have seriously missed the opportunity to implement a good tax that will prevent the mining sector from choking the rest of the economy during the good times while allowing it to grow when resource prices drop. Overall the policy disappoints me but again it's better than Abbott's non-solution. Also it's got majority support so politically it won't be a hindrance. ?

After tonight's changes, can see that the mining tax is now just a useless fraud?

 

[MeeSo]

Most of it is either commercial research that is confidential or published in subscription magazines that aren't available online for me to copy and paste.

A quick google search found this - http://www.uswitch.com/broadband/news/2011/02/1gb_wireless_broadband_to_be_widespread_by_2015_/

Now granted it is mainly focused on the standard for routers etc which will allow wireless transfer speeds of 1GBs. That is not directly related to internet speed. But as history as shown and as much more esteemed publications show, the industry is pushing towards wireless to meet the capabilities of this 1GBs standard.

I'm aware of 802.11ac but it has no relevance to the discussion. LTE-Advanced is aiming for a peak downlink rate of 1 Gbps and a peak uplink data rate of 500 Mbps but these are both theoretical peak rates and not realistic in real world conditions. The chances of an individual device even getting close to those rates are tiny and that's assuming enough spectrum is even available. Building heaps more towers could compensate for that somewhat but I doubt there'd be much public support for it and that's not a cheap solution either considering build costs, backhaul, ongoing maintenance and future upgrades for the towers. 4G wireless is still a long way back from fibre as a communications technology and it's not catching up anytime soon or even keeping pace with increases in data usage. The 5G standard may improve that a bit with full duplex or something but even that would only double throughput and it's probably still 10 years away. Wireless is a complement, not an alternative.

 

[BlueManic]

I'm aware of 802.11ac but it has no relevance to the discussion. LTE-Advanced is aiming for a peak downlink rate of 1 Gbps and a peak uplink data rate of 500 Mbps but these are both theoretical peak rates and not realistic in real world conditions. The chances of an individual device even getting close to those rates are tiny and that's assuming enough spectrum is even available. Building heaps more towers could compensate for that somewhat but I doubt there'd be much public support for it and that's not a cheap solution either considering build costs, backhaul, ongoing maintenance and future upgrades for the towers. 4G wireless is still a long way back from fibre as a communications technology and it's not catching up anytime soon or even keeping pace with increases in data usage. The 5G standard may improve that a bit with full duplex or something but even that would only double throughput and it's probably still 10 years away. Wireless is a complement, not an alternative.

I believe you are underestimating the future technology. But putting that aside, 4G can now deliver speeds of 40mbs (I get 35mbs with my Telstra device - quicker than my ADSL2). Considering the NBN plans are 12mbs to 100mbs (and 100mbs is very exe) why would you put fibre in places that don't need it when wireless can provide the same speed for much less? I am not against fibre to key areas but putting it to 90% of the country is madness

 

[Footy Smarts]

I'm going to leave your previous post because I've said what I want to say and many of your criticisms either misrepresent or misinterpret my arguments.

However your wireless arguments are untenable. You made your claims about wireless and said that I should "Do the research, read the industry journals and peer reviewed publications".

Fine.

However when asked to present these publications you respond with this:

Most of it is either commercial research that is confidential or published in subscription magazines that aren't available online for me to copy and paste.

A quick google search found this - http://www.uswitch.com/broadband/news/2011/02/1gb_wireless_broadband_to_be_widespread_by_2015_/

Now granted it is mainly focused on the standard for routers etc which will allow wireless transfer speeds of 1GBs. That is not directly related to internet speed. But as history as shown and as much more esteemed publications show, the industry is pushing towards wireless to meet the capabilities of this 1GBs standard.

So the evidence that you've shown for the incredible wireless speeds you claim is an article on a consumer website with no scientific information. Further than that it doesn't even deal with what you initially claimed! Do you really expect readers to accept your claims without any evidence?

If there's peer reviewed publications please point me in the right direction (I can access most journals or link me to the arxiv if it's on there). Because currently your claims of 1gbs wireless for large numbers of consumers, which I've never seen or heard before, seem fictitious.

 

[BlueManic]

I'm going to leave your previous post because I've said what I want to say and many of your criticisms either misrepresent or misinterpret my arguments.

However your wireless arguments are untenable. You made your claims about wireless and said that I should "Do the research, read the industry journals and peer reviewed publications".

Fine.

However when asked to present these publications you respond with this:



So the evidence that you've shown for the incredible wireless speeds you claim is an article on a consumer website with no scientific information. Further than that it doesn't even deal with what you initially claimed! Do you really expect readers to accept your claims without any evidence?

If there's peer reviewed publications please point me in the right direction (I can access most journals or link me to the arxiv if it's on there). Because currently your claims of 1gbs wireless for large numbers of consumers, which I've never seen or heard before, seem fictitious.

So because you lack the capacity to research something it must be fictitious? Do you think they are building routers and cards capable of transferring at 1GBs for shits and giggles? You build the transfer speed and then the inputs catch up.

As for your other comments readers can judge for themselves.

 

[MeeSo]

I believe you are underestimating the future technology. But putting that aside, 4G can now deliver speeds of 40mbs (I get 35mbs with my Telstra device - quicker than my ADSL2). Considering the NBN plans are 12mbs to 100mbs (and 100mbs is very exe) why would you put fibre in places that don't need it when wireless can provide the same speed for much less? I am not against fibre to key areas but putting it to 90% of the country is madness

Why don't you head over to some of the standards bodies and see what's in development for future generations of the tech rather than simply assuming that wireless will get there in the end? ETSI, 3GPP, IEEE, ITU-T should all have info available on the subject.

As for 4G what do you think the speeds will be when the 4G network goes from 100,000 subscribers to millions? Do you think 15Gb for $80 a month is the sort of plan that's going to satisfy people's needs when data usage has nearly tripled over the last 3 years?

Fibre to 90% of the population could be madness but you haven't presented much of a case.

 

[Footy Smarts]

So because you lack the capacity to research something it must be fictitious? Do you think they are building routers and cards capable of transferring at 1GBs for shits and giggles? You build the transfer speed and then the inputs catch up.

This was your claim:

As for technology - by 2015 wireless will be at 1gbs readily available in Asia.

I assume by "readily available" you mean available at that speed for huge portions of the population. To my, admittedly sketchy, knowledge this seems far above what has ever been produced by wireless and what I've ever heard predicted in the short-term. I had a quick search for stuff but it's really not my area so trying to find relevant papers is difficult.

You're the one who made the claim. I tried to find stuff but couldn't. Even a name of the technology would be helpful. So what is this magical technology? I assume it's not any of the ones that MeeSo mentioned because none of them appear to ba able to do what you've claimed, at least not in such a short-term timeframe.

Also just because a device has been built that can transfer data at that speed doesn't mean that speed is achievable in the short term. Also a single device with a single connection offering that speed is very different to such devices operating with thousands of connections. This is a major drawback to wireless and that article in no way addresses that issue.

 

[BlueManic]

Why don't you head over to some of the standards bodies and see what's in development for future generations of the tech rather than simply assuming that wireless will get there in the end? ETSI, 3GPP, IEEE, ITU-T should all have info available on the subject.

As for 4G what do you think the speeds will be when the 4G network goes from 100,000 subscribers to millions? Do you think 15Gb for $80 a month is the sort of plan that's going to satisfy people's needs when data usage has nearly tripled over the last 3 years?

Fibre to 90% of the population could be madness but you haven't presented much of a case.

Perhaps the same way the US network is able to provide 4G speeds to millions of people? I.e. the more subscribers means more investment in the network - like with any network. The more subscribers the more costs come down and the bigger data plans - 5 years ago 50gb was considered a huge plan. 10 years ago 3gbs was massive on bigpond cable. As more and more people gained access to ADSL prices came down and data plans increased.

I haven't presented much of a case? Ok well perhaps you can answer a few simple questions I asked Footy Smarts - such as how much the NBN will increase GDP growth by each year, how does that increase compare to spending $35 billion on ports or rail or other infrastructure? What studies can you point to showing the reasons why taxpayers should be investing $35b in this technology as opposed to other investment opportunities? How much will it cost to upgrade the network to 1gb speeds? How come the take-up for the network in existing areas is less than 20%?

 

[MeeSo]

Perhaps the same way the US network is able to provide 4G speeds to millions of people? I.e. the more subscribers means more investment in the network - like with any network. The more subscribers the more costs come down and the bigger data plans - 5 years ago 50gb was considered a huge plan. 10 years ago 3gbs was massive on bigpond cable. As more and more people gained access to ADSL prices came down and data plans increased.

Spectrum is a shared resource with finite limits. The more subscribers there are using large amounts of data the less there is available to others. As more 4G devices become available and subscribers increase speeds will be impacted especially in densely populated areas unless more and more towers are built to cope with increased demand. Based on the experience with 3G building more and more towers is unlikely. If the Americans are doing something differently to get around this I'd love to see it.

I haven't presented much of a case? Ok well perhaps you can answer a few simple questions I asked Footy Smarts - such as how much the NBN will increase GDP growth by each year, how does that increase compare to spending $35 billion on ports or rail or other infrastructure? What studies can you point to showing the reasons why taxpayers should be investing $35b in this technology as opposed to other investment opportunities? How much will it cost to upgrade the network to 1gb speeds? How come the take-up for the network in existing areas is less than 20%?

How long can a copper and wireless network last based on current usage patterns? How many more towers do we need to build to enable a hyrbrid network at reasonable and consistent speeds? What are the ongoing costs to maintain the copper and wireless infrastructure? What are the projected costs to upgrade when we hit the networks limits? How much will data intensive businesses save by moving away from Telstra fibre? What are the benefits to the energy industry of utilising the NBN for smart grid tech?

We can both throw around questions. If you want to make a case against the NBN then do it. Don't expect me to do your work for you. As of right now you've offered very little to support your case except bluster and technological ignorance.

 

[BlueManic]

Spectrum is a shared resource with finite limits. The more subscribers there are using large amounts of data the less there is available to others. As more 4G devices become available and subscribers increase speeds will be impacted especially in densely populated areas unless more and more towers are built to cope with increased demand. Based on the experience with 3G building more and more towers is unlikely. If the Americans are doing something differently to get around this I'd love to see it.

How long can a copper and wireless network last based on current usage patterns? How many more towers do we need to build to enable a hyrbrid network at reasonable and consistent speeds? What are the ongoing costs to maintain the copper and wireless infrastructure? What are the projected costs to upgrade when we hit the networks limits? How much will data intensive businesses save by moving away from Telstra fibre? What are the benefits to the energy industry of utilising the NBN for smart grid tech?

We can both throw around questions. If you want to make a case against the NBN then do it. Don't expect me to do your work for you. As of right now you've offered very little to support your case except bluster and technological ignorance.

In your opinion. I am happy to let others read the thread and make up their mind.

I also look forward to bumping this thread in 3 years.

 

[ralphmalph]

In your opinion. I am happy to let others read the thread and make up their mind.

I also look forward to bumping this thread in 3 years.

I've read the thread and you need to provide more evidence to support your assertions.

 

[King Elvis]

This just came up on my FB feed, don't know if it's sourced, or has any grounding in reality what so ever...

His wife (chloe) and child have moved in with Mum, the G.G. Quentin Bryce, at Yarralumla. The reason: Bill’s got his mistress (his P.A.) pregnant.
It’s going to be interesting to see how this unfolds for the government in coming weeks. Apparently it’s not the first time he’s been in this sort of predicament.

 

[Dry Rot]

This just came up on my FB feed, don't know if it's sourced, or has any grounding in reality what so ever...

But didn't Bill leave his first wife for the GG's daughter?

If all this true, quite a few women will wish Bill was entombed underground at Beaconsfield, including Gillard.

On a brighter side, the good news is that Bill seems to be quite fertile....

 

[Dry Rot]

This just came up on my FB feed, don't know if it's sourced, or has any grounding in reality what so ever...

But didn't Bill leave his first wife for the GG's daughter?

If all this true, quite a few women will wish Bill was entombed underground at Beaconsfield, including Gillard.

On a brighter side, the good news is that Bill seems to be quite fertile....

This will be fun.....

 

[sportsmaniac89]

Wowee that is some story if true.

Labor party just can't get anything right

 

[noddy]

Wowee that is some story if true.

Labor party just can't get anything right

I never had sex with that woman.

 

[Paradigm]

Oh - seriously....

What is wrong with these people ?????????????????????

 

[King Elvis]

Contra, can you find out whether this is true or not?

 

[jo172]

Meh, grubby, but at least he's not stealing money to pay for it.

 

[jo172]

Having said that, how sure can we be that this isn't an elaborate scam to get the kids at school hand out to pay for Thomson's legal bills?

 

[Gough]

Hm, just heard same re pregnant PA from a well connected source in Melbourne. Baby due soon.

This will be fun.....

Heard this from two separate people today. No fire yet but certainly smoke. Won't really affect parliament, if banging your PA was illegal it would be Wyatt Roy alone in the house, but it will highlight the sleaze that surrounds this government.
What a ****wit, keep it in your pants ffs.