NBN Pricing

[cheap]

NBN (you know that thing "we" (the tax paying members of society) are subsidising to the tune of at least $38,000,000,000 .... $38 Billion) well Internode has just released its NBN pricing...

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/tec...721-1hqbn.html

I guess if you've inherited lots of money or won a substantial lotto division, then these prices will probably work for you, for everyone else it would seem a tad unrealistic.

Still you'd have to wonder what the NBN pricing would be without the $38,000,000,000 tax payers money to make it "affordable".

If you look closely and rearrange the NBN letter you get HUGE FLAMMIN RIPOFF! go figure???

[flappist]

Originally Posted by cheap

NBN (you know that thing "we" (the tax paying members of society) are subsidising to the tune of at least $38,000,000,000 .... $38 Billion) well Internode has just released its NBN pricing...

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/tec...721-1hqbn.html

I guess if you've inherited lots of money or won a substantial lotto division, then these prices will probably work for you, for everyone else it would seem a tad unrealistic.

Still you'd have to wonder what the NBN pricing would be without the $38,000,000,000 tax payers money to make it "affordable".

If you look closely and rearrange the NBN letter you get HUGE FLAMMIN RIPOFF! go figure???

Then stick with your ADSL........

[Spudz27]

Nothing expensive about it to me. Here in the country I pay $110pm for my net and voip at 8mbps with 100gb, it is supposed to be 20mbps but even when I was with telstra the fastest I could get was 12mbps. So if it is only $119 and I can get 100mbps, even 50mbps it is worth it in my eyes. Unfortunitely you city folk are used to not paying much for internet at all, so I think it is about time you can pay what the rest of us have to lol.

[GTpilot]

Originally Posted by cheap

NBN (you know that thing "we" (the tax paying members of society) are subsidising to the tune of at least $38,000,000,000 .... $38 Billion) well Internode has just released its NBN pricing...

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/tec...721-1hqbn.html

I guess if you've inherited lots of money or won a substantial lotto division, then these prices will probably work for you, for everyone else it would seem a tad unrealistic.

Still you'd have to wonder what the NBN pricing would be without the $38,000,000,000 tax payers money to make it "affordable".

If you look closely and rearrange the NBN letter you get HUGE FLAMMIN RIPOFF! go figure???

Think its time you crawled out from under that rock and take a look around.
It's quite obvious to me you have no idea what you are talking about on this topic.

[cheap]

Originally Posted by GTpilot

Think its time you crawled out from under that rock and take a look around.
It's quite obvious to me you have no idea what you are talking about on this topic.

So what practical benefit will NBN provide over ADSL/2 @ 4-12mbps?

Perhaps:

Twitter will be improved?
or
Youtube videos will they stream better?
or
Facebook will be more fun?
or
Gaming?
or
Downloading is that the benefit?
or
Emails will these become more intelligent?
or
Banking, finance. goggle, ebay, fordforums?
or
Maybe you know of some critical business application that must have these "so called high speeds". I'd be interested in knowing which applications they are, I've been involved with implementing high definition medical images (X-Rays) from hospital to hospital, using high speed (10Gb dark fibre) bandwidth. Surprisingly, it isn't bandwidth that is the issue with these applications, yet that is exactly the type of justification being used for the NBN.

So don't be shy, what am I missing? Help me (and other knuckle-draggers) understand...can you do this without petty insults?

[landau460]

This needs to be put into somesort of perspective. Like most are saying but what about the hospitals and putting the money there sound like a good idea to me but, i'm sure there is a better place than NBN of a cost of some 38 billion that is sure to blow out. When also lookin down at a possible recession, if that makes any differance to the whole matter.

There are things like road upgrades rail networks what ever else they could think of surely than making another destraction to life than the internet. Yeah it gets us this great forum, gaming, emailing, video links, downloads, uploads, that are doing it fine, now we will get it so some doctor in india can prescribe me something to help my hemroids!! Which i believe can be done already.
Then something i don't think we need that much will be forced to use.

Does that mean that if i dont pay to get NBN to my door that i will have to use wireless or are they goner try to can that or better still attach a wire to it and still call it wireless!!

Just sounds like a kid getting a new toy when i hear the arguments from the fores of NBN like a spoilt brat not knowing whats good for him only hearing how much it costs and how fast it goes.

[KITBAG]

Originally Posted by cheap

So what practical benefit will NBN provide?

Me, In a job / weekly pay..............

[cheap]

Originally Posted by 87 XF - AU11

Me, In a job / weekly pay..............

Fair enough.

[ch33z1l]

Originally Posted by cheap

So what practical benefit will NBN provide over ADSL/2 @ 4-12mbps?

Videoconferencing capabilities for education, health system and the business sector. In most applications now, a dedicated ADSL connection is needed for there to be any decent quality.

Another 10 benefits here:

http://apcmag.com/life-in-the-nbns-world.htm

[flappist]

Originally Posted by cheap

So what practical benefit will NBN provide over ADSL/2 @ 4-12mbps?

Perhaps:

Twitter will be improved?
or
Youtube videos will they stream better?
or
Facebook will be more fun?
or
Gaming?
or
Downloading is that the benefit?
or
Emails will these become more intelligent?
or
Banking, finance. goggle, ebay, fordforums?
or
Maybe you know of some critical business application that must have these "so called high speeds". I'd be interested in knowing which applications they are, I've been involved with implementing high definition medical images (X-Rays) from hospital to hospital, using high speed (10Gb dark fibre) bandwidth. Surprisingly, it isn't bandwidth that is the issue with these applications, yet that is exactly the type of justification being used for the NBN.

So don't be shy, what am I missing? Help me (and other knuckle-draggers) understand...can you do this without petty insults?

Ok, without the insults.......

Explain to me why, in terminology of 1995 (when dsl started), using only applications of the time (no such thing as social networking etc.) why there should be $bazillions spent on a 3G mobile phone system or copper based last mile technology when we had just spent $bazillion on the DMO and implementing RIMs into new developments?

Or better still, why shift from analogue mobile phones to GSM when the analogue had far better range and tolerance to interference?

Some years ago a group of people in a position of influence in the only telco in Australia decided that FAX was of no real use and TELEX would be all people would ever need. They could not think of a situation where TELEX would not be the solution.

Do you think you could explain the advantages of e-mail to a group of 20 year olds in 1975?

The world evolves and those who think ahead are the ones who will shape it....

[mondo_broady]

Originally Posted by flappist

The world evolves and those who think ahead are the ones who will shape it....

Amen to that!!

as for those arguing about not putting money into other infrastructure or services (hospitals), how many of you are fully aware of what's going on around the country or even in just your area?? get your head out of the agenda driven Murdoch newspapers, stop listening to talk back radio sensationalism and actually do some research. it's mind boggling to see the amount of work going on around the place.

i attended a book launch earlier this week where a school principal spoke about how grateful they were to finally have been able to build new facilities at their school for the first time in over 30 years because of the governments program.

as i said earlier, the feds tried to take over responsibility for the hospital system nationwide but the states all rejected it...

[BLKXR6T]

Originally Posted by mondo_broady

Amen to that!!

as for those arguing about not putting money into other infrastructure or services (hospitals), how many of you are fully aware of what's going on around the country or even in just your area?? get your head out of the agenda driven Murdoch newspapers, stop listening to talk back radio sensationalism and actually do some research. it's mind boggling to see the amount of work going on around the place.

i attended a book launch earlier this week where a school principal spoke about how grateful they were to finally have been able to build new facilities at their school for the first time in over 30 years because of the governments program.

I'm surprised you raised school facitities in an attempt to support your argument. What school principal wouldn't be happy with new building? Just a shame they had such a small choice of available one size fits all structures. The BER was a massive waste in VIC and NSW and a missed opportunity. As for research, all you have to do is look at what was built - very simple (and all expenditure is listed on the BER web site in any case) Just look at what private schools built and spent compared to the public system then compare $'s per square metre.
As for talk back radio sensationalism, yes, certain broadcasters are way over the top and do us a disservice, but not all. I think you give them more credit than they deserve as not everyone is brainwashed. Having said that, is someone who disagrees with the current government and shares the same opinions as certain broadcasters and newspapers not "fully aware" of what's going on?
The biggest issue I see with the NBN is the lack of credibility this governement has with running any kind of scheme sucessfully. Howard didn't spend, now Rudd\Gillard seem to have gone too far the other way and in too much of a hurry. Who was it that said they (Labour) had "failed to dot the i's and cross the t's" with the insulation scheme?
In any case I don't think most people would object to a new piece of infrastructure that filled a need and was managed properly. The current gov has a poor track record and thus most people are cynical.
That's my 2 cents worth. Intresting thread

[cheap]

Originally Posted by flappist

Ok, without the insults.......

Explain to me why, in terminology of 1995 (when dsl started), using only applications of the time (no such thing as social networking etc.) why there should be $bazillions spent on a 3G mobile phone system or copper based last mile technology when we had just spent $bazillion on the DMO and implementing RIMs into new developments?

Ask the Telco's why they spent "their" money doing this, I was their decision not mine.

Originally Posted by flappist

Or better still, why shift from analogue mobile phones to GSM when the analogue had far better range and tolerance to interference?

Ask Jeff Kennett and Andrew Peacock what they think of analogue phones.

Originally Posted by flappist

Some years ago a group of people in a position of influence in the only telco in Australia decided that FAX was of no real use and TELEX would be all people would ever need. They could not think of a situation where TELEX would not be the solution.

Dumb business decision.

Originally Posted by flappist

Do you think you could explain the advantages of e-mail to a group of 20 year olds in 1975?

Yes

Originally Posted by flappist

The world evolves and those who think ahead are the ones who will shape it....

Not necessary, making money/profit (and by default staying in business) is the key. Old technology doesn't mean it won’t make money, for example, prostitutes make money selling "old" wares

[flappist]

Originally Posted by cheap

Ask the Telco's why they spent "their" money doing this, I was their decision not mine.



Ask Jeff Kennett and Andrew Peacock what they think of analogue phones.



Dumb business decision.



Yes



Not necessary, making money/profit (and by default staying in business) is the key. Old technology doesn't mean it won’t make money, for example, prostitutes make money selling "old" wares

The reason why the 100% Government owned Telecom Australia spent $bazillions on the DMO is that before this we had analog lines on poles.
Less than 10% of houses had telephones.

Australia has one of the least dense population in the developed world (you are obviously excepted) and in order to connect all of the new customers remote integrated multplexers were installed in the middle of new sites with a bearer, usually fibre, back to a central exchange.
This allowed an extremely low cost way of attaching thousands of services on quickly.

Unfortunately the DSL bit of ADSL is not very fibre friendly and while a 2Mb E1 could handle 30+ concurrent vioce connections it is still only 2Mb so highspeed data was difficult.

DMO was the first NBN which was 100% Government and the reason why there were affordable phones in the 80s.

[ILLaViTaR]

Originally Posted by cheap

So what practical benefit will NBN provide over ADSL/2 @ 4-12mbps?

Perhaps:

Twitter will be improved?
or
Youtube videos will they stream better?
or
Facebook will be more fun?
or
Gaming?
or
Downloading is that the benefit?
or
Emails will these become more intelligent?
or
Banking, finance. goggle, ebay, fordforums?
or
Maybe you know of some critical business application that must have these "so called high speeds". I'd be interested in knowing which applications they are, I've been involved with implementing high definition medical images (X-Rays) from hospital to hospital, using high speed (10Gb dark fibre) bandwidth. Surprisingly, it isn't bandwidth that is the issue with these applications, yet that is exactly the type of justification being used for the NBN.

So don't be shy, what am I missing? Help me (and other knuckle-draggers) understand...can you do this without petty insults?

So you're basically saying it's better in everyway lol??? I think you are missing something.... It's like going from an XF to a FG

And the other major factor for justifying it is (what a lot of people fail to comprehend, including that religious cook Tony Abbott) is that fibre travels at the speed of light, even in 500yrs when internet is a million times faster these exact same cables will still be in use as they'll never become obsolete. It's been done correctly/planned for the future as opposed to greedy right wing baby boomers planning everything for themselves with no regard for anyone/the next generation.

The potential of data this network can handle is overwhelming, for example: Phones, tv channels, billing, banking, education/any form of data can be utilized through it, it already can but not on a national/global scale. This is a relaible static connection, like 1984 lol.

Saying all that the purpose is completely defeated because we still have "Tony Abbott's" trying to ******* capitalise off tax payer funded hardware therefore implementing data limits that restrict any form of progress this technology can offer.

So there you go a massive utopian worldwide network with uncapped potential for filesharing/socialising completely restricted yet again by right wing pigs.

You can't beat them, they're always going to destroy evolution/progress, may as well ******* vote liberal next time.

[cheap]

Originally Posted by ILLaViTaR

So you're basically saying it's better in everyway lol??? I think you are missing something.... It's like going from an XF to a FG

And the other major factor for justifying it is (what a lot of people fail to comprehend, including that religious cook Tony Abbott) is that fibre travels at the speed of light, even in 500yrs when internet is a million times faster these exact same cables will still be in use as they'll never become obsolete. It's been done correctly/planned for the future as opposed to greedy right wing baby boomers planning everything for themselves with no regard for anyone/the next generation.

The potential of data this network can handle is overwhelming, for example: Phones, tv channels, billing, banking, education/any form of data can be utilized through it, it already can but not on a national/global scale. This is a relaible static connection, like 1984 lol.

Saying all that the purpose is completely defeated because we still have "Tony Abbott's" trying to ******* capitalise off tax payer funded hardware therefore implementing data limits that restrict any form of progress this technology can offer.

So there you go a massive utopian worldwide network with uncapped potential for filesharing/socialising completely restricted yet again by right wing pigs.

You can't beat them, they're always going to destroy evolution/progress, may as well ******* vote liberal next time.

Let me make some corrections:

Fibre doesn't travel at all, otherwise it wouldn't work.

The speed of light in a vacuum is calculated at 299,792,458 metres per second. The speed of light in fibre optic cable is quite a bit slower.

Fibre network requires regular maintenance, over its life, as you say 500 years (whatever it may actually be) the NBN fibre cables will be replaced a couple of times over. Not to mention the odd backhoe cutting the link.

Apart from these corrections, most of your response was just ranting and wrong too.

[ILLaViTaR]

Originally Posted by cheap

Let me make some corrections:

Fibre doesn't travel at all, otherwise it wouldn't work.

The speed of light in a vacuum is calculated at 299,792,458 metres per second. The speed of light in fibre optic cable is quite a bit slower.

Fibre network requires regular maintenance, over its life, as you say 500 years (whatever it may actually be) the NBN fibre cables will be replaced a couple of times over. Not to mention the odd backhoe cutting the link.

Apart from these corrections, most of your response was just ranting and wrong too.

Nah I quite clearly meant fibre is faster than the speed of light, Einstein told me this himself at Bang the other night whilst cranking some parkway drive and dilating time.

Far less maintanance than the current ADSL network, don't take my comparison out of context and turn it into something general.

[FGII-XR6]

looks like good value to me I would get double my current data with significantly faster throughput for the same price I'm paying now

[Gobes32]

I currently pay Optus $79 a month for Adsl2 that averages 2.2mb/s and 120gb of data, plus unlimited local calls. The NBN would have to be very attractive price wise for me to want to leave my current provider.

[mr smith]

While our hospitals are bleeding dry at least we can have quick porn. This is another stupid waste of money.

[naddis01]

But you will be able to see a doctor from home with the NBN. (thats a joke by the way for those playing at home)

[mondo_broady]

maybe you should stop downloading porn and look further into the future than 5min... or maybe you'd like to be back in the 1950's with the mad monk?? also i believe the feds tried to take the hospitals off the states hands and the states knocked it back...

[mr smith]

Originally Posted by mondo_broady

maybe you should stop downloading porn and look further into the future than 5min... or maybe you'd like to be back in the 1950's with the mad monk?? also i believe the feds tried to take the hospitals off the states hands and the states knocked it back...

All I see is the ability to down load movies and music quicker. big deal, and what if people side step it and go wireless?
Please enlighten us with the real benefits.

[Maggot]

Companies in Perth that are lucky enough to have internet at all are paying $950 per month for 2M/2M (bdsl multiplex telstra).

I know of companies that have to either have a vivid wireless shared between 25 staff members.. or fork out for 12grand for a m/wave install.

And this is all within 20km of the cbd.

So the pricing being advertised is not that bad.

[z80]

Originally Posted by Maggot

Companies in Perth that are lucky enough to have internet at all are paying $950 per month for 2M/2M (bdsl multiplex telstra).

I know of companies that have to either have a vivid wireless shared between 25 staff members.. or fork out for 12grand for a m/wave install.

And this is all within 20km of the cbd.

So the pricing being advertised is not that bad.

Sounds like a ripoff.

mines 150 a month for this speed...same as the NBN already in melbourne.

[/QUOTE]

[Danny]

Originally Posted by mr smith

All I see is the ability to down load movies and music quicker. big deal, and what if people side step it and go wireless?
Please enlighten us with the real benefits.

Ever had to do a uni subject online, because you are too far away from your university? An online class where a teacher 2000k away teaches you how to do something, or give you feedback on a work requirement?

Ever had to speak to a dying loved one on skype who perhaps took a turn for the worst before you can jump on a plane/train to get to them in time?

You idiot.

[Adamz Ghia]

Originally Posted by Danny

Ever had to do a uni subject online, because you are too far away from your university? An online class where a teacher 2000k away teaches you how to do something, or give you feedback on a work requirement?

Ever had to speak to a dying loved one on skype who perhaps took a turn for the worst before you can jump on a plane/train to get to them in time?

You idiot.

Why call names for. Honestly one of the artforms of the lowest common denominators of society. We can already skype, we can already do a uni course online, we can already get feedback, this technology allows us to do it faster and more efficiently. I'm all for this provided it is value for money and done properly. This is a massive project with plenty of scope for waste and mismanagment. Does this include any investment for wireless technology for remote areas? I'm assuming they won't be running fibre to the middle of the desert...

[Bucknaked]

Originally Posted by Adamz Ghia

Why call names for.

Metrosexuals. Highly strung individuals.

[Polyal]

Originally Posted by Danny

Ever had to do a uni subject online, because you are too far away from your university? An online class where a teacher 2000k away teaches you how to do something, or give you feedback on a work requirement?

Ever had to speak to a dying loved one on skype who perhaps took a turn for the worst before you can jump on a plane/train to get to them in time?

You idiot.

Hmm thats a pretty loaded post.

1. Yes, off campus is not a problem depending on what course you are doing. Feedback issues are usually related to slack staff not the speed of the connection. We regularly used skype or conference type systems. Sure it could get choppy from time to time but it works fine 95% of the time.

2. While its nice we have the tech to talk to people anywhere, anytime, we seemed to have coped for many years previous to this. People pass away, and theres not much you can do other than enjoy their company before they do.

Just like the carbon tax saving the kids, bringing emotion into a debate results in nothing but name throwing.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by Danny

Ever had to do a uni subject online, because you are too far away from your university? An online class where a teacher 2000k away teaches you how to do something, or give you feedback on a work requirement?

Ever had to speak to a dying loved one on skype who perhaps took a turn for the worst before you can jump on a plane/train to get to them in time?

You idiot.

I currently do uni online (my uni is in WA, I'm in Qld)...my internet connection costs me $80 a month, and the speed is fine for what needs to be done - assignments are uploaded quickly, access to databases is easy...no problems at all...

I can see the benefit for far reaching communities - and the question 'why not have it?' is a valid one. I do, however, question the cost to implement such an initiative (just like all other Gov funded 'initiatives'...I question, what's really in it for them?). What's the catch?