Though, if you hold on a minute, I may be able to get a referral code that will benefit both of us ;)
Sounds good to me!Though, if you hold on a minute, I may be able to get a referral code that will benefit both of us ;)
Nah, better off for you to use the above codes.
To add to this point, fibre is practically infinite in speed. If someone finds something faster than light, we may have to change the cables but in all likelihood it's never going to happen, at least not economically in our lifetime.No, it's not that you can't, it's that you won't even try to.
You accused us of self-interest, when you're the one arguing based on what you think is right for tax-payers, which is quite arrogant to start with, and uses arguments which are wrong.
Here is a study done with a realistic cost/benefit comparison between FTTN and FTTP. Please chew on it before spewing more idiocy on the matter:
FYI, wireless (5G or whichever technology) is actually much better suited for low density rural areas as opposed to urban ones, because the amount of additional infrastructure (towers, antennas, power supply, fibre supply, converters, etc...) it would require to cover the traffic volume, would be exponentially dearer than FTTP and you would have this literally EVERYWHERE:
View attachment 5363
No country in the world is considering wireless to cover broadband needs in urban areas currently or in the near future (10-20 yrs), when FTTN will already be incapable of supporting the required volumes and speed.
Countries which chose in the past to roll FTTN out (UK and Germany for example) with similar arguments as provided by the LNP here, are now upgrading to FTTP, making their previous investment a waste.
Except it wasn't reality that taught them a lesson, everyone knew the Optus network was hot garbage. It was basically corruption and handing over billions of tax payer dollars to private enterprise while trying to feed the public the line of saving money. Even the Telstra network while not a total throw away required enormous upgrades, they had to shut down the whole fucking HFC network for over a year performing endless upgrades until it was stable enough to even provide current speeds. I'm not confident it has much of a future without the entire thing costing more to rebuild than laying... Fibre.Thanks for your reply. I know it's just homouring me, and the others have tapped out, but here are my thoughts:
This is the one part of the argument that I'll concede. While the idea had merit - an existing network that could theoretically handle most of what the current NBN offers (certainly higher speeds than copper), the reality proved different.
The major arterials of the network has always been fibre, all the LNP did with their shitty plan was bring the copper from a 5KM to the home radius down to about 1KM from a closer node to the house radius. So we've paid to construct a network 80% of the way, leaving the last 20% of the build. It's going to be really expensive to contract these upgrades one at a time when they all ineivtably break down from the copper wear and capacity saturation.That doesn't answer the question on its usage. The arguments here have suggested that there are critical sections of the NBN that are dramatically compromised by using copper, akin to bottlenecks where there should be freeways. But that is simply not the truth. Copper only remains in the sections that connect the nodes to the house. The major arterials of the network are fibre.
In economical terms, replacing them "in a decade or two" at least allows the cost to spread over that time, if it is even required at all. Remembering of course that when this debate started, and still continues, we're in a defecit, and any money we "spend" on infrastructure like this is effectively borrowed, and acrues interest. Staging it out over time, instead of borrowing it all immediately, makes sense.
Yes and no, the last mile is more expensive but it is essentially a per metre construction cost, it doesn't cost more to dig up a drive way than it does a footpath. Either way the cables are laid and if you lay the conduit and do it right ONCE, it's extremely easy to upgrade the cables in future instead of repairing one shitty copper cable at a time. It's basic economies of scale. Do it once, right, in bulk, or pay exhobritant fees to contractors to do it one at a time. Sure it spreads the cost but it's not like we could not afford it upfront while the LNP Are handing out 80 billion in tax cuts and spending an absurd amount on outdated military tech. It's about priorities, but more importantly, one cost benefits the entire nation, the others benefit... A few people?As above. Except in real terms, it's not a 20% saving. From what I understand, when costs are factored in in a "per connection" basis for FTTP, the largest cost is actually the connection from the node to the premises.
Labor had contracts locked in long term, it was fully costed and going ahead. LNP paid insane amounts, cancelled all the contracts, made new contracts with worse terms for the government. Look up the corruption behind the scenes for the NBN. The LNP never changed course because they thought it was economically viable, they changed course because Labor had an amazing infrastructure plan well organised and if it went ahead without a hitch the LNP could claim no success. It was a political stunt, not a measured economical plan.And here's the thing. Again, when this debate originally started, the Fanboying was over Labor's FTTP overkill plan, which was that ~93%. Which is why I am doggedly refuting the "LNP's plan will cost more" claim. Even at 80% FTTP, there is no way the LNP's version will come close to what Labor were prepared to spend.
There are even more recent "alternative" versions that Labor have suggested with lower percentages again. Which is what leads me to believe that there isn't an actual figure or saturation or strategy that many people here believe to be a viable target. It's just whatever Labor's plans were at that point, because whatever it was, it was more than the LNP's. It was simply Moar Fibre is better, regardless of its viability.
This is always going to be a problem, just like Solar could make the electricity network redundant but won't. There'll always be a portion who don't need more than a 4G hotspot but the majority need high bandwith, high data cap reliable access that doesn't cost a fortune.There was a noted and definite trend, as mobile phone adoption became more prevalent, of people ditching their fixed home line, and simply using the mobile as their all-purpose phone. Now that the NBN has killed off active "telephone" lines, all communications, voice or otherwise, are technically just data transfer. Meaning that there is effectively no need to have a physical line, any data connection is fine.
They've already started rolling out 5G hubs, and even though they're quick to claim that they're not yet intended to replace your home internet connection, there is certainly the case for it to become more mainstream in the future.
Wireless has absolutely no bearing on a fixed line network, it's complimentary at best, not a replacement. Wired can exist alone, Wireless cannot. A strong wireless network requires a strong wired network. It is not cheaper to roll out mobile base stations every 200-300 metres versus just rolling out the damn cable.How far? Well, you said above that the shitty old copper lines will need replacing "in the next decade or two". That gives us plenty of time, especially with how fast wireless technology keeps advancing. Hence my stance that it's not set in stone that these copper and cable connection will absolutely need to be updated to fibre. Yes, it will be a massive undertaking to roll out 5G beyond the major cities, but it's essentially inevitible. And if not 5G, another form of high speed mobile communication will be developed to suit, unless you believe that mobile communications will halt in progress for some reason? The fact that 5G at this point is already faster than what you can get with most FTTP connections suggests to me that wholesale adoption, making it commercially viable for a mass rollout, isn't simply the musings of an uninformed idiot who thinks they know stuff about internet things.
Not all of the knowledge, but actual knowledge of how network infrastructure works. It's kind of important to consult experts, like the ALP did, rather than thinking someone like Abbott knows better than actual fucking industry experts. Abbott wouldn't know what a fucking base station means, he's hardly qualified to determine the best setup of a national broadband network.Feel free to exit this conversation yourself. But I'm not going to run away from discussing it because some guys think they solely possess all of the knowledge on a topic, and try to bully people out of it because they can't possibly comprehend its merits.
Not to mention the actual major problem of shared spectrum.This is the part which all the people claiming 5G will solve all issues *always* miss, usually because they get blinded by the speed it can support and don't look any further.
Glad you've seen the light. There is still hope for you after all...Okay, well, after reading all that and checking it with what's also described on various tech sites, I have to concede that a fibre network is definitely a must long term, at least in higher density areas.
Also, because of this, in terms of absolute cost, it will end up more expensive by doing retaining copper & HFC sections from the nodes to the premises.
But I don't agree that the full fibre network should have been done immediately. I liken the network to road infrastructure. Sure, in the future there is going to be an increased need for capacity (say, if there are developments planned over the next 5 - 10 years), you don't build a 4-lane arterial with traffic lights while it'll only be low-density local traffic in the meantime. You surface the roads and put in proper guttering and signage. Then as the developments start, as the land is being cleared and lots carved out, you widen the roads, upgrade the T-intersections to traffic lights etc. Spreading the costs of major works over a longer span is smart budgeting.
Would I have preferred that the LNP spent less money on American military equipment and put it towards more universal needs such as health, education, or infrastructure such as the above? Of course I would. But who knows what our military needs will be in the next 20 years, and like it's been alluded to, it was done to appease the US. It's effectively protection money - "buy these fighter planes, otherwise you may not to have enough protection should you end up in strife".
As to Murdoch manipulating the government, I agree in terms of the government buying his shitty old wiring. But if there was a time that Murdoch would benefit from a slow internet, it's long gone. I put this kind of fear-mongering right up there with "our students will be left behind unless we all get FTTP right now".
So my brother has had his new house built and he's moved in today and is looking for an internet provider.
I was thinking Aussie Broadband but $99 for unlimited 100Mbps is a bit much. I thought they were offering cheaper plans. TPG is cheaper at $89 a month.
Which one would be better? I haven't been with either of these companies so not sure how they are.
These codes give you $20 off for 3 or 6 months (can’t quite remember)Try these: