Bias in reporting is a sad affliction of this politicised issue, that's why you don't just take one source's word for this. Like I said this article is a summary of what we already know.claybro wrote:So just to recap, the very left wing Melbourne University, has an article on "election watch" shouting the virtues of the NBN. They even have a photo of the very professor from the NBN TV adds in their article. So we now know which university the lovely professor who simply cant exist without his NBN in the TV add comes from. So much for being unbiased. So then where do they get their costing figures from? The NBNCO? The same Co that is way behind schedule and WAY over budget and under their take up target in areas connected even before this gets off the ground?
It's good that you get this.claybro wrote:OK sarcasm aside, just as a lay person, who really wants to get on board with this, lets look at their facts. So the figure (even in this article is now $44BIL) I thought it was $35 BIL last year. Ok so what's a few billion you say. That increase in cost is over 1 year and it has not even got off the ground yet. How can we possibly know it will stop at $44BIL. Ah but even at $100BIL it would be worth it eh, because as is constantly pointed out, UPLOAD speeds are as important as DOWNLOAD. Yeh I get that,
No, you're not understanding the technology. Wireless and Satellite in the NBN are only used for niche cases where fiber is not possible. People with their mobile devices do not connect to these. Wireless and Satellite in this sense are fixed antenna services (a parabolic antenna or dish pointed in a very specific direction), not to be confused with domestic mobile wireless (WiFi). WiFi is what people with their mobile devices in homes and coffee houses are connecting to. These services are privately held and plugged into the building's wired connection.claybro wrote:...but aren't the upload and download speeds identical under both systems in wireless and satellite devices, and given that is what the vast majority of people are connected to, via smart phones and Ipads I am still at a loss to understand why every home will be connected. People do not plug their tablets into a wall jack at home to browse.
Except under the Lib's plan, we spend around 30 billion on a system that will be obsolete the year after it is complete, a copper network that will cost us even more to repair (remember the copper system is on its last legs), and a system that costs a lot more to run in terms of power (add to the 30 billion the costs that they haven't included for cabinets).claybro wrote:Also, organisations such as unis, hospitals and the like that require the added capacity of cable to premises will be able to connect to cable under both systems, as it should be.
It's a false economy.
I'd rather the whole thing be abandoned than to waste 30 billion on buying a pup.claybro wrote:Should K Rudd win the next election, this will become a very big rope around the governments neck as far as bad publicity (poor execution of the project, cost over runs, delays and poor uptake), and financial drain. Just watch as he backflips and scales down or delays aspect of this project as well, once it becomes political poison.
Do it right or don't do it. I wish this wasn't a politicised issue so we could actually get past all the FUD and do it right.