Telstra's Thodey says Coalition's broadband plan is faster and cheaper than the NBN

[Eagle87]

From the same blog - which just happens to be by a company with a vested interest.



Yep, a who's who of the worlds leading economies.

Let's keep that "west is best and always it shall be" hat firmly on and not consider that in the emerging Asian century, what happens there may have a lot more impact on how things develop than what happens here ...

I mean do you ever think outside your small world view?

Sure, many emerging countries have poorer infrastructure, the question is whether, as they move up the food chain, these countries will build FTTH NBN style networks or invest their money in what may be seen as more relevant technologies?

FWIW, India already has a tech sector that craps on anything we will ever do and has a larger middle class than the entire population of the US. Those developing technology probably look to developments in India before Australia...

But as you were ... " do you have a **** off we're full" sticker?

 

[MeeSo]

Or its a good solution for countries with poor existing infrastructure.

It's also just a measure of pageviews from mobile devices and tells you next to nothing about data usage or broadband usage patterns. It can't even separate devices using 3G or 4G from devices accessing the internet through their home network via wifi.

Considering the volume of smartphones sold over the last couple of years it's not at all surprising that there's been a huge increase in mobile browsing but a lot more factors needs to be considered.

Here's the worldwide graph for mobile vs desktop browsing for anyone interested.

http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_vs_desktop-ww-monthly-200904-201204

 

[The Goon]

Let's keep that "west is best and always it shall be" hat firmly on and not consider that in the emerging Asian century, what happens there may have a lot more impact on how things develop than what happens here ...

I mean do you ever think outside your small world view?

Sure, many emerging countries have poorer infrastructure, the question is whether, as they move up the food chain, these countries will build FTTH NBN style networks or invest their money in what may be seen as more relevant technologies?

FWIW, India already has a tech sector that craps on anything we will ever do and has a larger middle class than the entire population of the US. Those developing technology probably look to developments in India before Australia...

But as you were ... " do you have a **** off we're full" sticker?

All I was did was point out that there could be a very good reason for the phenomenal growth of mobile internet access in those counties - the lack of existing infrastructure. This seems to be confirmed by the very article you quoted. Even in India.

All the rest of your response is pure conjecture and does not reflect what I typed at all. Do you always resort to playing the man when you **** up like this?

 

[Eagle87]

All I was did was point out that there could be a very good reason for the phenomenal growth of mobile internet access in those counties - the lack of existing infrastructure. This seems to be confirmed by the very article you quoted. Even in India.

All the rest of your response is pure conjecture and does not reflect what I typed at all. Do you always resort to playing the man when you **** up like this?

How did I **** up?

I simply posted an article that reflects and puts some numbers around a growing trend. A huge growing trend in Asia.

The fact that so many are dismissive of mobile and it's emergence as an argument against the need for FTTH for every resident is interesting. And one suspects that by the time this has completely rolled out they might be the ones who've ****ed up.

I do tend to go the man at times when the man is a bloke who posts arrogant small minded crap and rarely contributes ..

As you were ...

 

[Clay Davis]

The impact of mobile phones in 3rd world and developing countries is interesting. Not sure it's apples and apples when talking about broadband in Australia, but it is changing how their economies work.

Here is an article from the Guardian about it, I do remember reading something more detailed, but I can't remember where.

An old friend of mine has been working on open source projects that help deliver information to Africans and people from other poor countries on their mobiles - one such example: http://mapkibera.org/

 

[Eagle87]

The impact of mobile phones in 3rd world and developing countries is interesting. Not sure it's apples and apples when talking about broadband in Australia, but it is changing how their economies work.

Here is an article from the Guardian about it, I do remember reading something more detailed, but I can't remember where.

An old friend of mine has been working on open source projects that help deliver information to Africans and people from other poor countries on their mobiles - one such example: http://mapkibera.org/

It's certainly a bit apples and oranges but the perspective is useful.

We occasionally make assumptions in Australia based on a very narrow view of what might happen. Meanwhile the world around us develops in its own direction.

 

[The Goon]

You ****ed up when you used the link and this phrase to support your argument that mobile technologies are a viable alternative to fibre.

We have the second most populous country on earth with almost 50% of its web traffic from mobile ...

And we reckon we need FTTH? To over 90% of all premises.

How did I **** up?

I simply posted an article that reflects and puts some numbers around a growing trend. A huge growing trend in Asia.

The fact that so many are dismissive of mobile and it's emergence as an argument against the need for FTTH for every resident is interesting. And one suspects that by the time this has completely rolled out they might be the ones who've ****ed up.

I do tend to go the man at times when the man is a bloke who posts arrogant small minded crap and rarely contributes ..

As you were ...

I pointed out this was likely due to poor existing infrastructure and your only response has been to insult me. Point out where anything I've said is other than a fact in support of my original point, where it is as you say 'arrogant and small minded'? And if I rarely contribute doesn't make my point wrong, such a weak point to raise.

But by all means continue to embarrass yourself.

 

[Eagle87]

You ****ed up when you used the link and this phrase to support your argument that mobile technologies are a viable alternative to fibre.

I actually pointed out, as has been suggested throughout this thread (which I'm sure you haven't read), that the trend towards mobile emerging now together with the inevitable increase in the trend and the technologies that will follow suggest that FTTH, to every premises, may end up a poor solution by the time the rollout is complete.

I have not said that mobile technologies ARE a viable alternative to fibre and they are not mutually exclusive.

Is reading new to you?

I pointed out this was likely due to poor existing infrastructure and your only response has been to insult me. Point out where anything I've said is other than a fact in support of my original point, where it is as you say 'arrogant and small minded'? And if I rarely contribute doesn't make my point wrong, such a weak point to raise.

You sarcastically, arrogantly and narrow mindedly dismissed the growth in mobile use in a last of top 10 mobile Internet use countries because of their current status v Australia & the West.

If you can't project the implications of this trend, given the growth in Asia/Africa and in Europe etc then I can't help you ...

But maybe think outside your small world view ... The artices posted by Clay might be a start ..

 

[The Goon]

I actually pointed out, as has been suggested throughout this thread (which I'm sure you haven't read), that the trend towards mobile emerging now together with the inevitable increase in the trend and the technologies that will follow suggest that FTTH, to every premises, may end up a poor solution by the time the rollout is complete.

I have not said that mobile technologies ARE a viable alternative to fibre and they are not mutually exclusive.

Is reading new to you?

You sarcastically, arrogantly and narrow mindedly dismissed the growth in mobile use in a last of top 10 mobile Internet use countries because of their current status v Australia & the West.

Actually that's only your interpretation of what I said ... and is not actually born out by what I typed. Is reading new to you?

You seem mad ... why don't you go furiously masturbate to your favourite picture of Andrew Bolt to relax?

... or would that just be an insult with no basis in what you wrote?

If you can't project the implications of this trend, given the growth in Asia/Africa and in Europe etc then I can't help you ...

You posit this is a trend yet continually ignore the valid point I have made about why it is a trend, instead either wilfully or stupidly attributing it to arrogance. It is a cheap but inferior product that makes connecting the internet viable for poor areas. You can bet in Dehli, Bangalore and Beijing they're not using it for these tech businesses you mentioned.

Further, if you look at the amount of money invested in developing technologies for poor compared to the wealthy markets (including growing portions of the Asian and Indian markets) the gulf is phenomenal. Thats just the reality. What mostly happens is as technology matures and becomes cheaper it's then accessible to the poor after first being sold to the rich. Which is what is happening with mobile technologies now. It's very rarely designed for them. As such there's nothing in what you quoted to suggest that a greater emphasis will be placed on mobile tech development over fixed infrastructure tech in the future.

So to use the article you quoted to support your argument completely misses the reason why the uptake of mobile technologies is occurring, and what the future implications are. It changes nothing in the status quo of the argument.

Comprende?

Im frankly surprised I had to spell it out for you. If you didn't work yourself up in such a righteous white middle class lather you should have seen it clear as day.

Oh sorry, was I making assumptions about you again?

 

[Eagle87]

Actually that's only your interpretation of what I said ... and is not actually born out by what I typed. Is reading new to you?

Oh diddums, hurt his feelings and he resorts to borrowing my insults ...

You seem mad ... why don't you go furiously masturbate to your favourite picture of Andrew Bolt to relax?

... or would that just be an insult with no basis in what you wrote?

**** knows what you're on about, do you?

I'll certainly bow to your obvious mastery of masturbation.

You posit this is a trend yet continually ignore the valid point I have made about why it is a trend, instead either wilfully or stupidly attributing it to arrogance. It is a cheap but inferior product that makes connecting the internet viable for poor areas. You can bet in Dehli, Bangalore and Beijing they're not using it for these tech businesses you mentioned.

No they aren't using mobile technologies to run outsource business in Bangalore - as a regular visitor there I can confirm that.

None of which changes my suggestion that the rapid growth in 2012 in the use of mobile Internet raises the genuine possibility that FTTH for every residence may be overkill.

How about addressing why every house in western Sydney needs FTTH in 2022 and why mobile Internet piggy backing off a fibre backbone won't better meet the needs of many (most) punters?

I'm hopeful actually addressing the issue I'm raising is possible for you ...

Further, if you look at the amount of money invested in developing technologies for poor compared to the wealthy markets (including growing portions of the Asian and Indian markets) the gulf is phenomenal. Thats just the reality. What mostly happens is as technology matures and becomes cheaper it's then accessible to the poor after first being sold to the rich. Which is what is happening with mobile technologies now. It's very rarely designed for them. As such there's nothing in what you quoted to suggest that a greater emphasis will be placed on mobile tech development over fixed infrastructure tech in the future.

Do you ignore the world around you as a hobby or a business?

So to use the article you quoted to support your argument completely misses the reason why the uptake of mobile technologies is occurring, and what the future implications are. It changes nothing in the status quo of the argument.

What the **** are you on about?

Even in "rich" markets we've got doubling of use in a year. And if you reckon that investors aren't looking at mobile Internet technology your deluded ...

Im frankly surprised I had to spell it out for you. If you didn't work yourself up in such a righteous white middle class lather you should have seen it clear as day.

Oh sorry, was I making assumptions about you again?

Were you wasted when you typed this?

I'm searching for some sort of rational reason for your post.

Try addressing the point I've raised throughout the thread and then maybe you'll contribute something to said discussion. To date your a sort of unsuccesful try hard ... like the team you support

 

[MeeSo]

Smartphones have one of the fastest adoption rates of any tech in history so growth rates in mobile internet usage isn't going to tell you the whole story. The important question is whether mobile internet is complementing or replacing fixed internet. Considering 93% of data in Australia is over fixed internet I'd say it's a complement.

Also a single optical fibre has much more bandwidth than the entire spectrum used for mobile communications can provide. To get a wireless network offering NBN speeds at even the lower range you're still going to need a lot of fibre to ensure small enough cells.

Of course IPTV taking off could render the whole wireless vs wired argument pointless very quickly.

 

[rickyp]

The general (I say general, because I'm a cop out) opposition to the NBN are being far too simplistic in their view of its final purpose. Fibre provides much much more than just high speed internet.

http://www.abc.net.au/technology/articles/2012/02/21/3435975.htm

Read this and hopefully it will change your opinion.

 

[The Goon]

You really have a massive problem with comprehension don't you?

Oh diddums, hurt his feelings and he resorts to borrowing my insults ...

It was such an original insult I just had to try it out for myself. You're right though, it is a pathetic diversion in lieu of either understanding or addressing the point.

**** knows what you're on about, do you?

I was pointing out the fallacy of your attributing characteristics to me based on your own assumptions rather than what I wrote - a point that obviously went way over your head.

No they aren't using mobile technologies to run outsource business in Bangalore - as a regular visitor there I can confirm that.

None of which changes my suggestion that the rapid growth in 2012 in the use of mobile Internet raises the genuine possibility that FTTH for every residence may be overkill.

Which is something I've never argued is needed. All I did was point out that your use of the article is neither here nor there in the context of this discussion. It doesn't either support you position or detract from it. Like you, it is an interesting waste of time - nothing more.

How about addressing why every house in western Sydney needs FTTH in 2022 and why mobile Internet piggy backing off a fibre backbone won't better meet the needs of many (most) punters?

I've never said it was needed - again that was just an assumption that you jumped to. Something you appear very good at.

What the **** are you on about?

Even in "rich" markets we've got doubling of use in a year. And if you reckon that investors aren't looking at mobile Internet technology your deluded ...

Again you either wilfully or stupidly misrepresent what I typed. What I said quite clearly in the last post was that the article you referenced did nothing to change the status quo of the argument. Increased take up of mobile technologies by the poor in Africa / Asia will not change the overall funding mix investigating these technologies. So the article you posted in support of your position does nothing of the sort.

Edit: If you disagree why don't you explain why instead of engaging in another round of unimaginative and misguided insults?

You really need to get over your little tanty and work on the comprehension thing mate.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

I always thought Keating/Labor should have subsidised across-Oz cable roll-out back in old days.

How so? Fibre optic is fibre optic. How are the cables being laid in the NBN materially different to those proposed back in the early nineties?

 

[Upton Sinclair]

None of which changes my suggestion that the rapid growth in 2012 in the use of mobile Internet raises the genuine possibility that FTTH for every residence may be overkill.

You've clearly never had to rely on a 3G connection - its fine if all you want to do is post of BF or look at Facebook but for anything else it is useless and data is ridiculously expensive.

 

[BlueManic]

You've clearly never had to rely on a 3G connection - its fine if all you want to do is post of BF or look at Facebook but for anything else it is useless and data is ridiculously expensive.

Two years ago yes. Now the network is great and I use it all the time when travelling, log in through citrix and it is like being on my ADSL2+ connection. 4g is even better - quicker than my ADSL2+.

I just use prepaid - don't think it is exe at all.

 

[kaysee]

...
Also a single optical fibre has much more bandwidth than the entire spectrum used for mobile communications can provide. To get a wireless network offering NBN speeds at even the lower range you're still going to need a lot of fibre to ensure small enough cells.

I grow extremely tired and frustrated by this constant pro-Fibre position... that fibre capacity is X% more than wireless... yadda yadda yadda.

The key question is: how much bandwidth will consumers need?

You could divert the entire River Murray past my property, but if I only use the water from my rainwater tanks then I wont care.

Wireless doesn't have to "match" the NBN technically... what it will do though is provide people with an alternative. One which Y% will find appealing because it meets their needs and delivers mobility.

...
Of course IPTV taking off could render the whole wireless vs wired argument pointless very quickly.

Why? IPTV isn't that demanding... 2-4Mbps (and dropping). What's more research is showing that consumers aren't simply replacing broadcast TV with IPTV. Rather they switch between the two.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

The key question is: how much bandwidth will consumers need?

If history is anything to go by then the answer is always - more. Or Moore, even, as in Moore's Law, as the power of computer devices increase so will the demand for bandwidth.

 

[seanoff]

all of you proponents of wireless.

go to the Sydney CBD at 5pm any weekday and try and get a data connection on your phone. good luck. sometimes you can't even get a voice connection.

try streaming video, it's pretty hit and miss even in the best of conditions.

but but wireless is improving quickly. yep it is. NEC have sent 101Tb/s over 165km on a single fibre strand. that's a good run between repeaters.

the NBN is akin to building the national highway network from scratch. it's importance is often not understood, nor is the power. for communities outside the golden triangle it will be extremely important, very quickly. It isn't just pr0n, altho that will be higher definition (not quality). it will be about health, policing, transport etc. it will also improve mobile services with the network backbone been able to handle more data.

on the political side the LNP have reduced the level of noise in opposition to this because they have been told by their NP constituents esp that this thing is actually really useful. also much of the opposition was part of the current tactic to oppose everything, even if it is a good idea.



btw, imagine the uproar if you tried to put wireless towers at much greater density than now. lol

 

[BlueManic]

funny I was in Sydney two weeks ago staying in the CBD and my 3g phone was able to stream you tube no problems between 4pm and 7pm. I also used the 3g and 4g networks on my macbook air to work from about 4pm to 10pm at night off and on - no problems at all. Perhaps you have a crap phone?

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Speeds are maximum speeds and may be affected by environmental factors or by the volume of traffic the base station to which you are connected is experiencing. If you choose a 512/128kbps plan you can expect to receive those speeds except in exceptional circumstances of very high network demand when speeds may be slightly reduced. If you choose a 1024/512kbps plan you can expect to receive that speed except during peak periods when you may experience speeds in the range of 700-1024kbps. In congested areas of inner Sydney speeds may dip as low as 400kbps

http://www2.unwired.com.au/what-is-unwired/plans-pricing/monthly-plans

 

[GuruJane]

How so?

Because that's when broadband cable internet first became available and delivered cable television as well - It wasn't fire optic btw.

Because the technology was clearly going to be transformational I thought govt should have made it as major infrastructure investment.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Because that's when broadband cable internet first became available and delivered cable television as well - It wasn't fire optic btw.

Because the technology was clearly going to be transformational I thought govt should have made it as major infrastructure investment.

Oh, you talking about coaxial cable. I thought you were talking about the Keating-era plans for Telecom to roll out fibre optic cables (I remember the ad's with Clive James of all people spruiking the benefits of fibre). If that had been laid then it would have been great, one of the benefits of fibre-optics is that it gives a huge scope to carry much more data in the future because you can use different spectra of light to transmit across.

 

[GuruJane]

Oh, you talking about coaxial cable. I thought you were talking about the Keating-era plans for Telecom to roll out fibre optic cables (I remember the ad's with Clive James of all people spruiking the benefits of fibre). If that had been laid then it would have been great, one of the benefits of fibre-optics is that it gives a huge scope to carry much more data in the future because you can use different spectra of light to transmit across.

Well of course fibre optic would have been even better if it was available at the time. I remember my feeling was that it was the biggest communications moment since the advent of the telegraph in the 19th century and should be available to all.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Well of course fibre optic would have been even better if it was available at the time.

The technology definitely was but I think my recollection of events is flawed - I thought there was a fibre-optic plan but am likely confusing ads from the time about development of fibre with the plan to roll out the coaxial network.