Friday, April 10. 2009An Australia Wide Bikie Gang's Crystal Meth Factory....John Linton ....would do a millionth of the damage to Australian Society that the proposed "NBN Mk2" would do. (Actually I think I'll refer to the latest even bigger lie by Krudd as "SNBN" - being an acronym for 'Still No Broadband Now'.Then again perhaps it should be "YABBI" - 'Yet Another Broad Band Investigation'? I haven't seen any comments on the ABS internet industry figures in the technical/communications press or in any of the more general press which I thought may have picked them up given the semi-hysteria surrounding the recent non-announcement of "NBN Mk2". I suppose that irrelevancies like some semi-factual information has no place in today's Australia and opinion passing in the media. So I won't cite the actual figures as it seems that facts aren't of any use in commenting on the one source of 'independent' analysis of what the trends are in Australian's use of communications technologies. I say 'independent' because the ABS collects its statistics via sending out survey forms that are filled in by 100 "ISPS" and collated to show trends in usage of the different delivery service types and, in the case of broadband, the different speeds. Personally, and forgive the 40 plus years on interacting with the human race that has produced this result, I doubt that more than a handful of respondents to this survey answer the various questions truthfully - some because lying about anything is their natural method of dealing with issues and questions and others because their internal systems would make it difficult to easily obtain the information asked for. This means that the ABS statistics are unlikey to be really accurate but that they may well indicate trends more accurately than any other source in Australia. So the general trends the latest figures showed appeared to be would be what you would expect to see: 1) Dial Up user base falling towards below one million users 2) Increasing rate of wireless (HSPA) users 3) Growing but slowing take up of broadband 4) Faster take up of ADSL2 versus ADSL1 than previously 5) Faster migration of ADSL1 users to ADSL2 than previously So.....hmmm.....well, that's all very interesting.....but - who actually needs "fast broadband when you really think about it? Does anyone know any section of the Australian community that actually NEEDs an internet service at a speed of greater than a meg or so? I can't think of anyone who "needs" intenet connection at greater than a meg or so and I am a person who utterly depends on the internet for every aspect of the real things in my life and depends on supplying internet to tens of thousands of residential users and thousands of business users to keep my 'financial head above water'. I'm not going to debunk the childish list of applications that make "high speed broad band" essential to medicine, education and life itself" - if you cannot for yourself see why such statements are the purest nonsense then my few words aren't going to change your mind. Personally my view is that high speed, low cost internet should be dealt with in the same ways that bikie gang's drug factories and distribution methods should be dealt with - and for exactly the same reasons.....both addictions are destroying the youth and future of Australia as a society. Internet is a fantastic research and education resource and quite simply the ONLY way to run any sort of commercial and government enterprise - but that is not its main, or even a major use in this or in any other country - at least it isn't by residential users. Residential users use the internet for two main purposes: 1) Legally - to remove themselves from Australian society and what is important to Australian, or any other, society by allowing the weak minded and unconfident younger Australians to live in the fantasy worlds of WoW and shoot em up games or the even more dangerous demi-mondes of chat rooms and their new even more dangerous counterparts. 2) Illegally - to steal other people's property whether its credit card and bank account details or copy right material or anything else. These two uses account for most residential user's "need" for internet. The damage to Australia's society done by Crystal Meth is almost infinitisimal compared to the damage done by a home internet connection fast enough to allow a 12 year old to play WoW et alia or download pirate mateial or associate with "Avatars". Think it through - you will find NO reason for a government to fund an "NBN" and thousands of reasons not to do so. However can you think of a huge (more than the majority) secton of Australia's population that does need a major infrastructure project that will not only IMMEDIATELY lift the spirits of All Australians but is ABSOLUTELY necessary for the actual survival of us as a nation? As a reader of this blog commented a day or so ago - the ONLY massive infrastructure investment that should be made in this country today or any other day is the diversion of the super abundance of seasonal rainfall in the Northern parts of Australia to the water starved South of the continent. For 100 years the 'drying' of Australia has been talked about and various, some wildly improbable, schemes proposed to use the wasted and wasteful seasonal down pours to revive the failing water sources in the South. $43 billion might not be enough but it doesn't matter - whatever it costs would be money infinitely better spent than destroying even more of Australia's youth than is currently being done so Krudd doesn't have to admit to his lying, totally insane, election 'promise'. ...of course there's one other major draw back.......it won't win you re-election by lying to the electorate - the preferred process espoused by the current prime minister and so many before him. Whitlam, Hawke, Keating, Krudd Every single one a dud. PS: ...and it's not just me who thinks Krudd is even worse than Whitlam: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25317958-14743,00.html http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25321014-5000117,00.html Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
I think the new network proposed by the government a great idea. The cost V's financial return is irrelevant at this stage as I'm sure there are many products that will use this network that have not been invented yet. No business would build it for this same reason so only a government would spend so much money without knowing if it would return a profit. Does it matter if it doesn't? Governments waste so much money every year I personally wouldn't mind contributing some of my tax I pay to this network.
So the choice is really if we need it build it or just forget about it and focus on wireless as our only future. The phone line is near its end of life cycle as it's costing too much to maintain now. If the government build the network it will cost top dollar but at least the greedy hands of any business like Telstra won't control it. This proposal will solve many future issues as well. Comments (2)
Couldn't agree more that, in the future, there will be things that need something faster than a meg or so.
For over 100 years Australia has been running out of water. Which do you think should have priority? Comments (2)
The priority in the metropolitan electorate:
"Water crisis? I just turn on the tap, and there's the water." "Broadband? Well, the son complains that he can't play WoW while the daughter is busy on FaceBook/MySpace, and the wife is downloading recipes, and my movie download just takes forever - we need faster broadband, and someone else needs to pay for it, like the gubmint!!" I've always thought that people acknowledge there are wider problems, but at the end of the day, they are only worried about what affects their lives directly, and the balance of priorities is skewed towards personal wants. Comment (1)
the ONLY massive infrastructure investment that should be made in this country today or any other day is the diversion of the super abundance of seaonal rainfall in the Northern parts of Australia to the water starved South of the continent.
That is the most sensible idea I have seen and I would definately support it. Australia really only needs to have Telstra split up to Wholesale and Retail so every ISP can be on an even playing field. All we need are ADSL2+ Dslams in most exchanges of say 2000 approx subscibers and a superfast reliable Wireless network for the rest - plus satelite for the most remote places. Comment (1)
Appropriate Telstra's network for $15,000,000,000.00, and voila you have a national broadband network! and $32,000,000,000.00 to spend on worthwhile infrastructure projects.
Comment (1)
I think you leave of plenty of really useful residential internet applications -- internet banking, booking taxis, buying things from Amazon, eBay and many other online suppliers, and others.
But I do absolutely agree that a few Mbps is enough for all this, and that NBN Mk2 is a waste of money. Two options I like better: - buy back Telstra and split it properly (it's total market cap is less than $40B, and splitting it won't make it worthless) - legislation to allow any company to run fibre from an exchange via Telstra's conduits for a sensible fee -- then all the people who want to pay for 100Mbps internet can have it, without being subsidised by those who don't. Comment (1)
"buy back Telstra and split it properly (it's total market cap is less than $40B, and splitting it won't make it worthless)"
Surely that's not even necessary. I seem to recall that the Government still owns a large proportion of Telstra, just less than 51%. All they have to do is buy back enough of Telstra so they again have a controlling interest, then split it up. They can then retain their 51%, or resell it again. Seems simple. Comment (1)
I'm surprised that anyone thinks what is available now would be just fine in 10 years and onwards. With a 100mbps cable you could do so many things that would change the way communications and entertainment exist today. It will link Australia with the world and competition for services will be world wide. Cloud computing is just too slow at the moment for anyone to take it seriously but if the network was much faster just that one thing would be massive just as the original change to the world when computers were first introduced to business and lifestyles.
If we all think that wat we have today is sufficient for our future needs perhaps you should drag out your old commodore 64 computer. Comments (2)
Will someone explain to the Real Estate I recently sold my house through why they are stuck on an ADSL1 service for their whole office, and why they can't use VoIP like their competitors do (due to the upload speeds they get), thus putting them at a disadvantage economically? And how would they be uploading to realestate.com.au etc if they were stuck on dialup, or trying to use a $55/month 8Gb wireless (at approx 1500 download speed) and hoping there weren't too many people in the shopping centre sharing the same mobile tower (eg at 3pm after school when all the kids are on facebook outside McDonalds), thus reducing their speed to a fast dial-up.
Oh, and they are 30km west of the Exetel head office, 6km from Blacktown exchange, and were actually told that if they were at the "other end of the shopping centre" that they would have ZERO internet because of the distance from the exchange, and the bigpond cable only supplies the residential areas there (it does not run past the shopping centre, and there is no Optus cable). How many other businesses are in this situation? If only every business in Australia was located in or near the CBD. I'm sure people said that running power or telephone cables everywhere 100 years ago was also a silly waste of money. Mind you, I'll believe it when I see it as KRudd is big on speeches & rhetoric "we believe it is right" and small on action. Still, if he achieves one thing, thus removing Telstra's stranglehold over this whole country, then all the crap he has served up to date has been worth it. Comment (1)
Faster Internet > Water.
Nuff said. Comment (1)
I agree that distributing water to all of Australia is an important decision, but nobody says it is NBN or water. Maybe we (Exetel and its customers) can make this one of the environmental issues we can support from now on. Maybe we can push for a solution to the water problem.
More importantly I agree with peter_oz. The new NBN is needed to improve the lot of businesses throughout Australia. Businesses that need fast reliable networks but cant afford or just cant get high speed, business grade networks to their buildings. The fact that we will get high speed broadband to our homes is not the main aim, rather it is a welcome side effect. I vote for better government projects for Water, but also Health (including Dental) and Education and probably a few other issues, but for the time being this government has decided to tackle communication first. How about instead of wailing and moaning, we do our bit to make sure it works. Instead of "We'll all be rooned," (John O'Brien (1878-1952) ) we should be saying "I think I can, I think I can" (Mary C. Jacobs (1877-1970) ) Comment (1)
...because it's simply a lying pig trying to escape the fact that he lied to win an election and is now lying more outrageously to try and cover up his first lie in the hope of being re-elected.
By all means believe what you like - it doesn't change the fact that it can't and won't happen. There is no 43 billion - it has to be borrowed and then it will be pissed away on foreign purchases. If the new Whitlam is going to bankrupt the country then at least make a start on something that should have been done 100 years ago. Comments (2)
I for one see no need at all for so called "High Speed" internet access what will it matter if you can't get that 1GB of data right here right now. Nothing that you download from the internet is going to be a lifesaver because you can get it at 100 mbit's per second. I for one have tried 8mbit internet yes its nice but no it is not essential to my life hence I still use 1.5mbit for my access and it does me fine.
On the other hand I see a great need to actually divert sufficient water to other parts of the country that is starving for water to sustain life and possibly reduce imports of essential foods that can be grown here except for the lack of water. I would love to see some rational thought put in to water diversion without over doing said diversion to the detriment of the northern states. Comment (1)
|
Calendar
QuicksearchArchivesCategoriesBlog AdministrationExternal PHP Application |