atw: Re: National Broadband Network issue - very OT now.
- From: LEWINGTON Warren <Warren_LEWINGTON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 12:25:31 +1000
Okay, Australian internet speeds 101.
A few points to bear in mind (which I started some hours ago and had to save).
This is so rushed...
An unfortunate by-product of privatising Telstra has been the creation of a
conflict of interest. In fact under our current corporate law, it is illegal.
Telstra owns the infrastructure (originally built by the PMG or the "Post
Master General" before I was born - which makes it almost old). Both sides of
government did this.
But that's the way it is. I am not complaining - I made money out of that
privatisation and made a motsa. Now the NBN will take the conflict of interest
away from Telstra - something everyone in the industry wants, Telstra
especially.
It will also give us big trunks to flow the information we send over the
current copper network - everyone will get the opportunity to get the same
speed. The present state playing with bandwidth has come about because some
people or organisations or entities will pay gazillions for speed, and are
happy to pay for that. Most of us can't afford to pay, but we'd like the speed
(well some of us would - some won't, and thats okay too).
Telstra, Optus, Vodaphone and so on are all playing with a limited amount of
bandwidth in the current copper systems - which is a small trunk. So speed
lanes if you like are at a premium. To give more speed right now to some, the
companies turn down the speed for others, like queues merging. So the speed
payers are getting priority at the queue merge, while others have to wait.
The NBN will solve much of this problem and really is a critical piece of
infrastructure that will increase competition, give us all the right to equal
services and will pay for itself in the long term. Please PLEASE consider the
future. The Quakers in the Liberal party would happily have us use stump jump
plows and Clydesdales (horses I love btw) to plough our telecommunications
fields and lets face it, stump jump ploughs haven't really been used for nearly
a century - have they?
There is so much more that we will all get as a result. Medical records,
consultations and assistance in remote areas will be transformed - transformed
totally with an optical fibre system. It means that real time diagnosis by
specialists in major cities can be performed in isolated towns immediately the
scans are done - instead of people having to fly (sometimes taking days). It
means education systems in isolated areas can improve to the extent the kids no
longer MUST go to boarding schools. Face to face meetings for business can
happen in REAL time - not like the tele-conferencing we have, teleconferencing
will mean less need to travel on planes away from home. It means phones can be
truly video technology based. It means engineering can do real time design with
design groups based in all sorts of isolated locations. It means the immediacy
of banking becomes truly possible. transport systems and finance, even our
lives can be transformed. ENTIRE new industries can grow that we have never
considered simply because this network can be created. GPS and emergency
systems will be much better and make life much safer in isolated areas.
It will HELP us all. It shouldn't just be for cities. And even in the cities,
now, some have and many don't...
Regards
Warren Lewington
Technical Writer
Compliance and Enforcement Branch
________________________________
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of bja
Sent: Wednesday, 18 August 2010 9:10 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: National Broadband Network issue - very OT now.
LOL. You have gotta love this list at times. :)
Now it's my turn ...
As I sit here looking at my latest CityLink statement, I am reminded that
sometimes the user is forced to pay for basic infrastructure if they want to
make use of it. To me, this is very annoying when the Scoresby FREEWAY, which
was 20 years in the pipeline as upcoming taxpayer-funded infrastructure, became
the EastLink TOLLWAY, and has the honour of now making up most of my CityLink
bill each month.
And since I am forced to either pay for the tollway or get off the tollway, I
sorta feel the NBN should be the same, because I'm happy enough with copper and
don't want to pay for fibre with my taxes.
I don't download much and my cable connection suits my needs. My real problem
is with Optus, who play with the bandwidth they buy from Telstra to save money,
and I doubt this will change (except 'Telstra' will be replaced by the NBN).
Amazingly though, I haven't heard anyone talking about THAT very real reason
for speed degradation.
As for the NBN, even if it can, in theory, give a zillion bits per second, if
the service providers are not forced to guarantee bandwidth/speed during peak
times, then it will be the
same as it is now, so what's the point?
So I reiterate, why should I pay to help someone else download movies etc at a
faster speed when I don't have that need, and when nobody pays to help me drive
on the tollway to get faster speeds.
User pays everyone. If you live east of Melbourne, that's just what we do so
why should we change now?
And I will make one final point to those running around in little circles
chewing their fingernails with a desperate look on their faces saying "give me
faster", "give me faster". I equate the 'need for broadband speed' as I do with
those wanting a car capable of 200kph when they can only legally drive around
town at half that speed or less. "Regardless of speed, I just want it faster"
is okay, but only if you want to pay for it because I don't want to-or did I
already say that. :)
My 0.03¢.
:)
Cheers,
Bruce
________________________________
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Marnell
Sent: Wednesday, 18 August 2010 3:49 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: National Broadband Network issue
Hi Rod,
This is rather controversial for a technical writing list, but since you raise
it let me ask you this. Do you think there would ever be an entrepreneur
willing to fund the defence forces? Build roads and bridges? Provide schools
and hospitals accessible by all citizens regardless of wealth? Might it not be
that the NBN policy, for all its warts, has been proposed precisely because no
profit-motivated entrepreneur would put money into it? Did the first university
begin as a profit-driven initiative? Or did the value of education out-strip
the monetary value of the the land, bricks and mortar? Might not the same
argument apply to the NBN?
You can call it socialism if you like, but I'm very happy paying taxes for
initiatives that provide lasting value and aspire to something other than
minimising costs. (On the cost-only model we would have none of the
architectural and artistic wonders of the world. And how emotionally deadening
would that be.) The fact that governments can and do waste money is no reason
not to give money to governments. We need them as much as a meeting needs a
chairperson. And therein lies the contradiction in Margaret Thatcher. She
declares that the homo sapiens is not a social beast but a purely an
individualist assemblage of value-less matter striving for self-pleasure and
then runs for parliament, pouring money into defence and many other natural
monopolies that help the many regardless of their ability to pay. Show me one
neo-liberal who really believes that every function, and I mean every function,
of society can and should be out-sourced to private enterprise.
I sincerely hope you don't need an ambulance this evening.
Geoffrey Marnell
Principal Consultant
Abelard Consulting Pty Ltd
T: +61 3 9596 3456
F: +61 3 9596 3625
W: www.abelard.com.au<http://www.abelard.com.au/>
Skype: geoffrey.marnell
________________________________
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rod Stuart
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 3:22 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: National Broadband Network issue
If Australia were a bastion of free enterprise capitalism rather than a sort of
socialist quagmire, some entrepreneur no doubt would have conceived of a
fibre-optic network, completed a comprehensive market survey, created a
business plan, written a prospectus, and floated it as an IPO on the stock
exchange.
How many citizens just itching to download movies faster do you suppose would
have been willing to invest the required $10,000 per household in shares?
If this ridiculous proposal put forward as a political gimmick is an
"investment", then it should follow that individuals have the freedom to choose
to invest or not to invest. At some future juncture then individuals would also
have the choice as when to sell.
As Margaret Thatcher is attributed with saying, "Eventually, Socialists run out
of other peoples' money to spend." That day of reckoning is not far away.
Socialism is nothing if it is not a jackboot on the face of humanity.
On 18 August 2010 13:17, WongWord@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:WongWord@xxxxxxxxx>
<wongword@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:wongword@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
In a few years time a govt can privatise the NBN for who knows what ...$430
million?
I agree not everything needs to be privatised at all costs. But what I am
saying is that the current NBN doesn't mean it needs to be a public enterprise
for ever and ever if that is your economic/politcal bent.
But let's give the whole of Australia a fair go. I feel the need and I'm only
on the outskirts of Sydney.
I am originally from Tasmania and let me tell you that if it wasn't for ABC
radio my childhood would have been a far more isolated one. I would never have
been exposed to the information and entertainment what was available by a truly
national broadcaster.
Irene Wong
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Johnson<mailto:peterjohnson.oz@xxxxxxxxx>
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 11:09 AM
Subject: atw: Re: National Broadband Network issue
Thanks for that Rhonda. I think your email sums it up pretty well. It's about
time we as a society departed from the market "god" concept & "privatisation at
all costs" attitude. There are some things that need a national unified
approach & I think in this instance it is appropriate for government to at
least initiate it. The NBN is an investment, just like education, roads, rail,
public health etc.
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 08:24, Rhonda Bracey
<rhonda.bracey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:rhonda.bracey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Hi all
I've never been one discuss politics (or even been interested too much
in the 'issues' surrounding an election). And I have no intention of
starting a discussion about politics here.
However, for many of you who work from home (whether in the city or
not), or who would like to work from home, the National Broadband
Network issue is one that affects you directly.
I blogged about my stance on this critical issue to my ability to work
here:
http://cybertext.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/letter-to-local-member-of-parl
iament-re-the-nbn/<http://cybertext.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/letter-to-local-member-of-parl%0Aiament-re-the-nbn/>
(or http://bit.ly/aewMZq)
The NBN is something I feel very passionate about, and even more so
since having an email discussion yesterday with Helen, a member of
another list I'm on. Helen has moved from Pemberton, WA to a property
about an hour south of Perth. She cannot even get phone, let alone
internet on her new property. As her internet access is severely
limited, I'll quote from an email she wrote to me today when she was
back in Pemberton:
"We are fed up with them, whoever 'they' are. We have had to have
satellite internet here because we are 100m from a hub/rim, in spite of
campaigning to get internet here, which everyone else does have now,
except us. The phone line (180m) was laid and connected on Friday only
for them to 'discover' there is a fault on the town side of the line.
The fault is, just like your cake, there was one 'pair gain' whatever
left for us to have and it has a fault. You can't tell me they didn't
know that, and that is why it was left. So no phone and no internet."
And this is an hour out of a major capital city, not woop-woop.
Some 50+ years ago an Australian government had the vision to lay copper
lines throughout the country to provide us with an (almost) universal
telephone service. Now a government wants to do a similarly large
infrastructure project, this time with materials that should last a
further 50+ years, but the opposition wants to keep us in the dark ages
of a failing copper wire network (and boy, have I had experience of it
failing!), or build thousands more mobile phone towers to provide us
with a slow satellite service.
I'll shut up now.
Rhonda
Rhonda Bracey
rhonda.bracey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:rhonda.bracey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
http://www.cybertext.com.au
CyberText Newsletter/blog: http://cybertext.wordpress.com
Author-it Certified Consultant
**************************************************
To view the austechwriter archives, go to
www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter<//www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter>
To unsubscribe, send a message to
austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
with "unsubscribe" in the Subject field (without quotes).
To manage your subscription (e.g., set and unset DIGEST and VACATION modes) go
to
www.freelists.org/list/austechwriter<//www.freelists.org/list/austechwriter>
To contact the list administrator, send a message to
austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
**************************************************
--
Rod Stuart
6 Brickhill Drive
Dilston, TAS 7252, Australia
<rod.stuart@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:rod.stuart@xxxxxxxxx>>
M((040) 184 6575 V(03) 6312 5399
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.441 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3079 - Release Date: 08/18/10
06:35:00
Before printing, please consider the environment.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachment to it are intended only to be
read or used by the named addressee. It is confidential and may contain legally
privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by
any mistaken transmission to you. The RTA is not responsible for any
unauthorised alterations to this e-mail or attachment to it. Views expressed in
this message are those of the individual sender, and are not necessarily the
views of the RTA. If you receive this e-mail in error, please immediately
delete it from your system and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy
or use any part of this e-mail if you are not the intended recipient.
Other related posts:
