SA Premier gets US fast broadband tour

By
Nayantara Mallya, Chillibreeze
-
190

news South Australia Premier Jay Weatherill has toured the high-tech city of Chattanooga, Tennessee in the United States, to survey the city’s revitalisation brought about with the use of high-speed broadband.

The City of Chattanooga leads the United States with its gigabit-per-second broadband network connecting homes and businesses. The city has been named one of the seven most intelligent cities in the world and it recently won an award for the Coolest Community Application. Weatherill viewed several applications of the world-leading technology in the run-up to the Australian Government’s roll-out of the National Broadband Network (NBN).

In a statement issued this week, Weatherill described Chattanooga as an example of what a city can achieve if its government and businesses are prepared to use broadband technology to resolve issues. “After a history of being known for its pollution, the manufacturing city of Chattanooga has reinvented itself as a hub for high-tech and advanced manufacturing. Recently Volkswagen has opened a new plant in the city, as well as a substantial Amazon fulfilment centre,” he said.

The City of Chattanooga hosted Weatherill and held briefings from a variety of business and civic leaders on the current and future applications of the gigabit network. Some of these were police and fire communications, intelligent traffic systems, stormwater and waste water management and medical diagnostics.

The city also gave Weatherill a demonstration of the smart lighting and camera technology that enables police to regulate the level of lighting in public areas — an effective practice that has checked anti-social behaviour and transformed the city’s Coolidge Park into a popular destination. “Coolidge Park is an excellent example of how a city has opened up its riverbank using a combination of business investment and new technology,” Weatherill said.

The Premier spoke about his intention to develop a connection between Adelaide and Chattanooga and to explore how the South Australian Government could learn from the city’s innovative ways in these areas.

Weatherill is on an 11-day visit to the US. He will meet General Motors chief executive officer Dan Akerson and be given a number of high-level briefings on the world economic situation. He will also host a defence function and attend the G’Day USA Gala.

Image credit: SA Government

Related posts:

  1. Turnbull embarks on Asian broadband tour
  2. Truth: South Australia’s “Gig City” plan is hyped-up nonsense
  3. Fletcher wants Oz to learn from UK broadband policy
  4. Coalition “conned” Tasmania on the CBN, says Premier
  5. NBN Co conducts XG.FAST trials with Nokia

190 COMMENTS

  2. Now that is an intelligent and worthwhile trip by a politician…..looking to see how they can benefit their constituency.

    Now if The Telegraph and the Australian would bother doing some real reporting and take a trip over there, they might learn something…..

    That’s what this NBN is all about, enabling users, businesses, products and solutions. Things that could not be imagined before are now possible, including decentralisation of business, which the Government wants, but infrastructure like the current ADSL cannot provide.

    Some of these things cannot be quantified in a business case.

    Regards

    Bob

    • “Now if The Telegraph and the Australian would bother doing some real reporting and take a trip over there, they might learn something”

      This presumes The Australian or The Telegraph wish to shirk their moral right to be the parochial judge of the change.

      Something new is happening — QUICK, WE MUST STOP IT AT ALL COSTS AND UNDERSTANDING IS UNIMPORTANT WHERE ARE MY PANTS?!

      Here’s an example of fast broadband having a positive influence within a community. Alain will tell us it’s all smoke and mirrors. Actual examples don’t prove anything, of course.

    • So how is all of that reflected in Telstra/Opticomm Greenfield estates and TransACT areas in Canberra that have had FTTH for years?
      There has to be Australia’s ‘Silicon Valley’ out there somewhere after all this time?

      ‘Some of these things cannot be quantified in a business case.’

      No, but of course if you read up about the City of Chattanooga rollout it is nothing like the NBN rollout in Australia at all, for instance the much touted gigabit service is available to a select number of businesses and Government agencies at the bargain price of $350/mth.

      • The Chattanooga network is of far smaller scale than the NBN, hence the large price. Yet despite the price, it’s still being used.

        Chattanooga covers about 165,000 people. The NBN will cover about 22 million.

        You’ve heard of economies of scale, no?

      • for instance the much touted gigabit service is available to a select number of businesses and Government agencies at the bargain price of $350/mth.

        do you have a link for this info?

      • “So how is all of that reflected in Telstra/Opticomm Greenfield estates and TransACT areas in Canberra that have had FTTH for years?”

        Sporadic implementations of fibre is not what NBN is all about….it does very little…..and as for Transact providing 10Mb/512K lines on fibre doesn’t do much either. Many of the places/businesses in Canberra cannot obtain the 30Mb/10Mb connections. I work in IT in Canberra, across the whole area, so I know what is possible.

        “No, but of course if you read up about the City of Chattanooga rollout it is nothing like the NBN rollout in Australia at all, for instance the much touted gigabit service is available to a select number of businesses and Government agencies at the bargain price of $350/mth.”

        No but it does show more of a microcosm of what can be achieved, than talking about a few greenfield sites or Canberra that is fragmented at best, including the areas of Canberra that are using Wireless (as that is all they have), or businesses 10Km from the city that can achieve no better than 2Mb down and 400K up….and NBN Pricing is far less than $350 per month. NBN enables a business or residential to select what they need.

        Regards

        Bob

        • @Bob Fryer

          Well that’s interesting you classify existing Greenfield and TransACT rollouts of FTTH as being ‘sporadic’ and not of significant scale to start dictating the development of applications that justifies FTTH in the first place.

          Putting aside the compelling argument of established FTTH rollouts overseas to population densities the NBN Co can only dream about, even by 2022, I would be interested to know at what point in the NBN rollout cycle timeline anytime up to 2022 do we start to see these all these new software applications kicking in justifying the NBN’s reason for being?

      • Let’s hope Australia doesn’t have a Silicon Valley. Have you ever been there? I have. The place is a slum. More like a big runodwn industrial park surrounded by neighbourhoods you’d see on Cops. Cuppertino is the only nice place near there. Constantly patrolled by cops to keep the reast of San Jose out.

        • What part of Silicon Valley did you go to? I’ve been there and I can tell you it’s nothing like that at all…

    • What’s the fact that is not the same got to do with anything, we need spin to promote the NBN not facts?

      lol

        • That doesn’t make any sense in the context of this discussion, but then again that’s never stopped you posting RS, you see a new comment by ‘alain’ blood rush to the head and …. ‘I must shoot off a response, anything will do’.

          • You were quite last night “never again alain”, after that embarrassing dissection from NightKhaos, regarding bonds.

            But let me be frank.

            I think most people here have you pencilled in as an argumentative, smart arse, not a reasoned correspondent. This is why those like me respond to you in a similar manner. But now, after reading and being involved in correspondences with you, I feel that the smart arse tag may be unfair?

            Following the discussion on “Telemedicine” with you confusing it for “video conferencing” and the bonds issue and how it operates, as well as many issues similarly, I now believe you aren’t a smart arse at all.

            My apology for treating you as a snide prick, when you are just someone who simply doesn’t know and who has trouble letting go of the old and accepting new concepts! As such you deserve sympathy not ridicule.

            Good news is, the NBN will reduce if not eradicate such deficiencies for future generations.

          • There was never a embarrassing dissection from NightKhaos ‘regarding bonds’, it was the opposite as you well know, the rest of your post is just the usual personal attack irrelevant no proof waffle

          • So are bonds avaialble and paying for the NBN?

            Please enter typical nonsense and anything but an answer, now.

            No attack, it was a rational conclusion from reading your posts.

          • @alain.

            You reply to absolutely everything else whether required or not, whilst the silence regarding one simple bonds question is typically, comically deafening.

            Don’t disappoint.

          • Your URL dated May 10 2011.

            “The federal government plans to raise $2.7 billion from private investors to finance the national broadband network in the coming financial year, and is ramping up efforts to tap households for the cash.

            The budget papers say the government will tip $3.1 billion into the network in 2011-12, and $2.7 billion of this will come from issuing “Aussie Infrastructure Bonds” to private investors”.

            Last time I looked (and btw I have two eyes) we are now past 2011, into 2012 and more than half-way through the stated “coming financial year” and private investment is “not taxpayer funded”.

            Do you think you’ll ever get anything right?

          • Until a press release is made for the private bonds, Alain is correct

            The NBN was up for private investment in 2009, and nearly 3 years later there is still no investment

          • Alain and Deetego, the bonds that are for sale and funding the NBN are not the private bonds sold directly from NBN Co. Did either of you even read the SMH article I linked? Apparently not.

            They are standard government bonds, which gives the government an equity injection, which the government passes onto NBNCo. The taxpayer therefore does not pay for it because the equity is not actually derived from taxpayer income.

            Unless you have evidence that shows that there were no government bonds sold over the past 9 months, or evidence that proves that none of the equity gained of government bonds sold over the last 9 months went to the NBN, the NBN is being funded by Bonds, as stated in the 2011/12 budget disclosure.

          • KnightKhaos, there have been numerous press releases of Gillard injecting tax dollars from the contingency fund into NBNCo (the latest one was 900 million iirc)

          • In fact, here is the official statement from the government

            http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2011/176

            Over the next four years, the Government will progressively inject equity into NBN Co totalling $18.2 billion to help finance the roll out of the NBN, in line with NBN Co’s Corporate Plan.

            As per the article, this is valid for 2011 to 2012

            These are instalments towards the Government’s $27.5 billion equity commitment, starting at $3.1 billion in 2011–12.

            I have no idea what you are trying to play for, these are not bonds, this is government injection of money

          • Deetego: read this.

            THE federal government will begin tapping global investors to raise nearly $3 billion over the next 12 months to help fund the national broadband network.

            …

            However, investors who buy Australian government bonds will not know that their money is going towards NBN Co’s fibre-to-the-home project because the government’s financing arm is rolling the infrastructure bonds into its general issuance program.

            So the government is getting the money from the NBN from bonds, in the General Assurance Program. There it is, in black and white. The fact it is a government equity injection does not mean the equity was derived from tax-income. In fact, I doubt we actually have enough tax-income to actually produce a fraction the equity required.

          • Maybe you didn’t get my point

            NBNCo is getting funding from 2 sources, both injection of taxpayer funds and from what could (possibly) be bonds

            There have been press releases that have stated the government has injected funds from the contingency reserve, which has nothing to do with bonds

            We have no idea how many bonds the government has actually acquired, we do have an idea of how much the government spends on the NBN from taxpayer sources, they are forced to release this info in press statements

            My gut feeling is that, up until now, the amount of bonds that NBNCo has acquired will be proportionally negligible, its an incredibly risky investment that is highly sensitive to political interference and has been delayed by years

          • Your gut feeling has no basis in fact because the government bonds that are being used to fund the NBN project are still part of the General Issuance Program, there is no way for a would be investor in government bonds to know where the funding they are injecting into the government with their bonds is going, and no point for the government to try and “isolate” the project either.

            All we know is that the funding has come from the government in forms of government equity. We have evidence that some of that income comes from Government Issuance Program Bonds, some from the contingency reserve, and probably even some that comes from tax-payers directly.

            For the record, Alain’s original assertion was that if the tax-payers weren’t paying for it, who was? The answer is investors in government bonds. Plain and simple. I don’t know why we need to continue this debate further.

            Maybe the problem is we need to stop referring to government spending as “tax-payer” spending. Do iiNet shareholders say that their investment paid for the buyout of Internode? No, they say that iiNet brought Internode. Their shares may have enabled it, yes, but iiNet could have just as likely derived the equity needed for the buyout from profit they make.

          • If they say the source of funding is from the contingency reserve, than that is not coming from bonds

            The contingency reserve is allocated from taxpayer funds and other sources, thats why its called a contingency reserves

            Similarly government bonds, do have to be repaid by the government, so its essentially the same (in this case we are paying the interest on the bunds, instead of it being a direct injection). Government bonds are paid by the taxpayer, its always been that way. Its in fact the same reason why government bonds have such a low interest rate, because funding from people (i.e. tax) is almost as certain chance as you can get of the bonds being paid back (of course the people end up paying for it then)

            If we are talking about private bonds, than yes I have no idea. I know that the injection/government bonds go into the billions, as has been stated in the press releases. You don’t have to believe my gut feeling, but looking it it from a logical perspective, private investment in NBNCo at this point in time is a ridiculously stupid and risky idea. It would be at least better to wait to see if Labor wins next election, bare minimum to see what happens with deal for Telstra. I am sure there may be some few oddballs that have invested in NBNCo, but at this point in time you are basically throwing money down the toilet (and I think with past experience of Telstra and its shareholders, investing in highly politically sensitive industries that are prone to government interference isn’t really a fantastic idea)

          • Son of a… okay… just two questions:

            The contingency reserve is allocated from taxpayer funds and other sources, thats why its called a contingency reserves

            So those other sources would include the the Government General Issuance Bonds I referred to wouldn’t they?

            Can you prove the entirety of the funding allocated to the NBN in Government Equity injections has come from the contingency reserve?

          • Uh, I never said that the entirety of NBN is funded by injection

            I said its a combination of government bonds and injection, both of which cost taxpayer funds (the former directly and the latter indirectly).

            All that I am saying (regarding private investment), that up until there is some sought of press release regarding private investment (apart from the government stating that they allow it), its safe to assume that it hasn’t happened, because when Rudd first announced NBN Mk2 for private investment, nothing came out of it

          • In the meantime while NK and WC go off and lick their wounds I am still after a link where I can buy those Aussie Infrastructure Bonds that Labor promised private investors could buy into, I need to invest in a sure thing backed up by ‘killer apps’ like voice, anyone got a link, anyone at all?

            :)

          • …

            Deteego: That doesn’t answer either of my questions, nor does it have any baring of what I have been trying to say this whole time. So I’ll just leave you to your deluded assumption that I have been referring to private bonds.

            Alain: Go buy some General Issurance Bonds if you want to invest in the NBN, and stop fucking trolling. I have answered your question (if the NBN isn’t funded by tax-payers, i.e. tax, where is it being funded from), and now you’re just moving the goal posts. Now I need to find a source that proves you can buy private bonds?

          • the crux of the issue is WHO IS CARRYING THE RISK of building this giant Labor white elephant?

            the answer is: the taxpayer.

            just because the Government has to borrow money to satisfy its equity investment in the NBN does not mean that “taxpayers are not building the NBN”.

          • Coming in a little late to the party EFD. If you had bothered to read the entire conversation, including the original conversation in another article, you would know that your points have already been addressed, and if it is that important to you, conceded. How about you stay out of other people’s long standing arguments until you actually know what we are arguing about?

          • @NightKhaos

            No need to get all hot and bothered and drop the F*** bomb as if that adds emphasis because you have dug yourself into another hole that you are desperately trying to get out of (yet again).

            Read this:

            http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bn/eco/NBNFunding.htm

            Especially:

            ‘NBN funding allocations to date

            Combined, the potential funding sources available to the government represent a resource pool from which it can then allocate funding to the NBN. The funding allocation to the NBN is derived from summation of all identified allocations. These identified allocations are attributed to the following:

            the Building Australia Fund (BAF)
            the contingency reserve account
            existing and/or additional issuance of Commonwealth Government securities (CGSs) as part of the Government’s general debt pool, and the proposed future issuance of NBN specific Aussie Infrastructure Bonds (AIBs).’

            and this:

            ‘Summary

            ‘In summary, the total identified NBN funding allocation as at 30 June 2010, for the period 2008–09 through 2013–14, is $16.842 billion, comprising actual and estimated future funding allocations from the BAF ($2.942 billion), contingency reserve allocations ($13.6 billion), and the Government’s planned debt issuance via CGSs (approximately $300 million thus far). Any additional funding to be raised through issuance of AIBs to households remains to be seen as currently only ‘government consideration’ is being given to offerings of AIBs to household investors.’

            The funding from CGS’s is trivial, only $300 million, the bulk of the billions come from the BAF and the contingency reserve, and it is planned forward to continue that ratio.

            Your assertion the taxpayer is not funding the NBN and it is all coming from debt issuance is obviously incorrect.

          • First of all I dropped the “f-bomb” because I was getting frustrated at you, deteego, and now EFD.

            I am not trying to dig myself out of a hole, if anyone is digging a hole it is you.

            First off let us look at our original statement here:

            FYI if it was on budget the taxpayer would be paying for it via their taxation. It is an off-budget project. Meaning that the government, i.e. the taxpayer does not pay for the project, instead they provide security for the debt.

            Let me rephrase that in terms you can understand: NBNCo is borrowing money off the tax-payer, the tax-payer. The tax-payer isn’t paying for the project, they provide security. Now apparently you misunderstood that. So you replied with (here):

            The bonds are not available yet, we are into our second year of the rollout , so how is the NBN staff and all the rollout contractors being paid, with Monopoly money?(deliberate pun!)

            So, I ignored the obvious implication that you misunderstood what was meant by the project being off-budget, and focused directly on how it is being paid for. Which I responded to here.

            Seriously? How can you not know this?

            Equity payments from the Commonwealth Government. You must have missed it considering the only comment you made was about how the NBN is going to be the discovery of a new anti-biotic.

            And where does the Commonwealth Government get this equity? They sell bonds.

            The article I provided showed evidence that the government was looking to get approximately $3 billion dollars worth of bonds. No where in that statement did I say they only sell bonds did I?

            Now, addressing your latest reply, because any further replies of mine were just trying to reiterate the original point and answer your question including:

            Alain and Deetego, the bonds that are for sale and funding the NBN are not the private bonds sold directly from NBN Co. Did either of you even read the SMH article I linked? Apparently not.

            They are standard government bonds, which gives the government an equity injection, which the government passes onto NBNCo. The taxpayer therefore does not pay for it because the equity is not actually derived from taxpayer income.

            Unless you have evidence that shows that there were no government bonds sold over the past 9 months, or evidence that proves that none of the equity gained of government bonds sold over the last 9 months went to the NBN, the NBN is being funded by Bonds, as stated in the 2011/12 budget disclosure.

            Which is probably the closest I have actually come to saying “the taxpayer is not funding the NBN and it is all coming from debt issurance”, which again, in context doesn’t follow, I was talking about bonds. The taxpayer does not pay for [the equity derived from debt issuance], because the equity is not actually derived from taxpayer income, [it is derived from investment in the government by the purchase of bonds].

            I did however say, here, that we don’t have enough tax income to pay even a fraction of the equity required for the NBN. This is still true, because we have been deriving it from income saved for misc projects, i.e. the reserve allocations and Building Australia Fund.

            So, ignoring the fact the article you showed was from August 2010, and thus that the $300 million figure is woefully out of date, that article does not contravene anything I have said to date.

            Hands Alain a spade. Good luck.

          • That’s the best example of tap dancing I have seen, first of all you state the $300 million is hopelessly ‘out of date’ without providing any update to that figure and also ignoring the allocations break ups are budgeted into well into 2014.

            You also ignore the contingency and BAF allocations are in billions and the debt issuance is only in millions,and those proportionate ratios are still current.

            The vast reserves of billions of dollars siting in the BAF and contingency reserve accounts that are paying for the vast bulk of the NBN rollout came from where exactly if not tax revenue, the tooth fairy?

          • That’s the best example of tap dancing I have seen, first of all you state the $300 million is hopelessly ‘out of date’ without providing any update to that figure and also ignoring the allocations break ups are budgeted into well into 2014.

            >

            Yeah, okay, I didn’t provide evidence.

            You also ignore the contingency and BAF allocations are in billions and the debt issuance is only in millions,and those proportionate ratios are still current.

            No where in that statement did I say they only sell bonds did I?

            The vast reserves of billions of dollars siting in the BAF and contingency reserve accounts that are paying for the vast bulk of the NBN rollout came from where exactly if not tax revenue, the tooth fairy?

            I did however say, here, that we don’t have enough tax income to pay even a fraction of the equity required for the NBN. This is still true, because we have been deriving it from income saved for misc projects, i.e. the reserve allocations and Building Australia Fund.

            Whistles.

    • therefore we can ignore any examples of new ways that broadband can be used and forget about any examples of how broadband can bring change to the way the world functions.

      glad we’ve got that out of the way nice and early.

      • Of course you and other NBN apologists always let the comment about EXISTING Greenfield and TransACT FTTH rollouts in Australia go firmly through to the keeper, NBN FTTH will be different because …. umm err it just is.

        • Well, because they are.

          They were built on the economics of a few hundred allotments at most. A single NBN network module is around 3,500 locations, and built to a different topology.

          So yes, different.

          • No.

            Single greenfields housing estates where such rollouts have occurred have generally contained only a few hundred allotments EACH.

            Not overall.

            The dimensioning of a – say – 500 endpoint network is different than the dimensioning of a 3500 endpoint network.

            Given your VAST experience in network design and construction, I thought you would have known this?

          • Other than a meandering ‘hey everyone look what I know about tech stuff’ diversion what has any of that got to do with the point under discussion, that is that established FTTH areas in Australia has shown to bring benefits to communities that the poor suckers on ADSL2+ and HFC can only dream about?

          • No, it’s “you can’t bitch about me answering something you brought up”, especially since you almost never answer questions people ask of you.

        • you missed the key magical operative term: “ubiquity”.

          take any garbage, nonsensical “business plan”, append the word “ubiquitous” to it with grand aplomb, and voila!… it magically becomes “viable”. all the negative criticisms of the crackpot scheme can immediately be swept away with blind glee.

          i’m surprised the ALP hasn’t trademarked the term “ubiquitous”.

          • Not needed they have already trademarked ‘Nation Building’, cue National Anthem and Australian Flag waving gently in the breeze.

          • Maybe the ALP should trademark –

            “The Way Forward to a Higher Bandwidth, More Fibre-Intensive Australia”!

  6. Are there any examples of private industry doing stuff in Chattanooga on this network? All those examples just sound like government services.

    • Recently Volkswagen has opened a new plant in the city, as well as a substantial Amazon fulfilment centre,” he said.

      • Let me rephrase – are there any examples that explain how they’re using that network, and/or confirm that the reason for those commercial ventures are actually significantly tied to the presence of that network?

          • So what is the direct relationship between VW opening a plant and Amazon opening a massive distribution warehouse with the availability of high speed FTTH by the City of Chattanooga?

            Perhaps it was ‘other’ factors?

            oh dear it was.

            ‘The 79.1-acre site of Amazon’s Chattanooga distribution center is owned by the city Industrial Development Board and leased to an Amazon affiliate. The city and county granted property tax breaks on the property near the new Volkswagen plant for the next decade to help entice Amazon to locate in Chattanooga.’

            http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011/apr/03/amazon-full-speed-ahead/

            Never mind, it sounded good.

          • that’s a standard practice to entice business to build in your location.

            besides that, they could have offered them the world, but if the infrastructure that they required wasn’t in place, they wouldn’t have setup shop there.
            that includes broadband availability.

          • Oh it’s because it’s placed in front of you in black and white now ‘standard practice’ is it?

            Whatever happened to your ‘before the network they weren’t there.now they are.’ emphasis, of course you well know the Amazon distribution warehouse is all about massive land allocation with tax breaks and close access to population density for staffing, to assert that a massive warehouse distributing goods from on-line orders is all about gigabyte BB availability is really grasping at straws.

            But optimistically I look forward to VW and Amazon replicating builds here in Australia, all we have to do is get that darned NBN into the ground and they will come out here in droves.

            :)

          • of course it is standard practice.
            the offers would have been made whether there was high speed BB available or not.
            whether amazon would have accepted without BB is another matter.
            as i said in my previous, if all of the required infrastructure is not in place (and this includes BB), they would not have setup there.

            as for VW and amazon setting up in australia, well i doubt that VW would come here, but i am fully expecting amazon to setup shop.

          • The same reason why so many business are located in inner city Sydney and Melbourn there are times it has very little to do with where their customers are or employees are located but on the communications infrastructure available. When the rent on a inner city office is cheaper than communication infrastructure where it is needed there is an issue. I know of one company that rents an office and corresponding roof space in a city office block just so they can use a point to point link to get the comms to their actual office(via point to point wireless). No one actually uses the office day to day. This is because the comms infrastructure isn’t actually available or priced in such away that after the client pay the cost of installation they still get charge an exorbitant amount to actually use the service.

          • All the tax breaks in the world will not entice a company into a particular location if that location does not have sufficient infrastructure to support it. Would they have moved in if electricity, water, sewage or paved roads were not available? Neither will they move there if the telecommunications infrastructure was not sufficient for their needs.

            People who say that fibre is only required to business areas sound to me like they are saying that paved roads are only required from factories to warehouse to shops. All residential houses only need packed earth roads leading to them. Incidentally, this would be a nice test to find out what percentage of houses come off paved roads (note: not percent of roads paved, but percent of houses drive on to paved roads). I suspect it will be over 90%.

    • your fatal flaw Renai was mentioning the NBN.

      your articles could be about the different ways a dog can have a shit and as long as you mentioned the NBN, the comments would still get flooded.

      :)

    • You need some to only allow 5 replies on an article.
      Then we can avoid some people sticking there hand in their ears repeating same thing 15 times that has nothing to do with article at hand.

  8. As Steve Jobs once said. “I don’t do market research. People don’t know what they want until we show it to them”. This rings true for a lot of technology and this case the NBN. People have no idea of the possibilities the NBN or technology in general. Once the NBN is in place companies will show all the cool stuff you can do with it. Until then people wont understand.

      • If you must bring up this point yet again alain, the answer is that Greenfield and TransACT areas are not yet using any “cool” applications becuase the applications have not yet been developed.

        In a local market that is currently predominantly serviced by comparatively slow adsl broadband when compared to that available in the areas you mention, applications have of course not yet been developed to take advantage of the increased bandwidth available to only a select few thousand people out of the 20+ million other people in the country (not to mention how small a market Australia is compared to other countries anyway). No business/developer in their right mind would develop commercial bandwidth intensive applications that would take advantage of fibre when your customer base would be so insignificantly small.

        Besides, applications such as Netflix already exist and profit well in overseas markets due to the increased bandwidth and data caps typically available to the average consumer (i.e. a much wider proportion of the local market, not just a few thousand people). However, despite much demand Netflix has been reluctant to branch out into the Australian market and to be honest I can’t really blame them too much. With current bandwidth and data caps available right now in Australia to the average internet user on ADSL2+, from Netflix point of view it probably doesn’t make sense economically. If you want more information i’m sure you can read Renai’s previous article about brining Netflix to Australia.

        Come on alain, you know this. You sell yourself short by acting so willfully ignorant in posts like this when if you ask yourself deep down, you already know the answer to your pedantic badgering and can construct a much more convincing argument if you really tried. You have the ability to argue a point well if you try but I sense you have become increasingly lazy of the last several months and have resorted to more and more of the show me the proof or it’s not true style posts.

        Remember, these are discussion forums so it doesn’t hurt to simply discuss things once in a while. Not everything needs to be a fact finding and discreditation mission like a bunch of bloodthirsty politicians in question time.

        • — Besides, applications such as Netflix already exist and profit well in overseas markets due to the increased bandwidth and data caps typically available to the average consumer (i.e. a much wider proportion of the local market, not just a few thousand people). —

          average connected bandwidth in a lot of major US cities is actually similar to Australian major cities.

          — With current bandwidth and data caps available right now in Australia to the average internet user on ADSL2+, from Netflix point of view it probably doesn’t make sense economically. —

          it is actually cheaper to provide unlimited data under flat-rate ULL/LSS than $20/Mbit NBN fibre. also, all of the NBN plans released so far have similar data caps to ADSL plans.

      • Correct, trog.

        In the 1850s taxpayers built an overland telegraph. They came.

        In the 1950s taxpayers blanketed rural Australia with copper telephone wires hitherto only available in cities. They came, with phones, then acoustic couplers, then dialup modems, then ADSL (up to 4km).

        In 2011-2021 taxpayers build optical fibre to premises in all large towns and cities across metro and regional Australia, LTE wireless to 97% of the population and launch two satellites for 100%.

        In the three months from October to December 2011, already 2300 of the 18000 premises with fibre physically in place have a commercial NBN fibre service.

        Now, here’s an interesting bit of maths for NBN skeptics.

        Telstra and Optus ADSL contracts typically run 24 months. 2300 services means a 12.7% takeup rate from the 23000 premises physically connected to NBN fibre, and we are 3 months, or 12.5%, into the 24-month contract period since October 2011. That’s almost 100% takeup, exactly what you would expect of intelligent householders, almost all of whom are taking up the service as their ADSL contracts end.

        • Careful using simple logic around here – you’ll get labelled!

          The fact the people have to wait to get out of contracts is always something that the detractors miss, or misdirect away from.

        • @Francis

          ‘In the 1850s taxpayers built an overland telegraph. They came.

          In the 1950s taxpayers blanketed rural Australia with copper telephone wires hitherto only available in cities. They came, with phones, then acoustic couplers, then dialup modems, then ADSL (up to 4km).’

          wow this claptrap again, there is one thing about NBN apologists they all try and sing from the same hymn book and repeat the same old tired nationalistic mantra over and over, although to be fair you didn’t mention the Sydney Harbour Bridge or the Snowy Mountains scheme once.

          Of course they key difference with all that ‘history of infrastructure in Australia’ drivel is that the NBN requires existing working BB infrastructure including 100Mbps HFC to be shutdown to have any chance of survival, not only that the taxpayer is paying the owners of that working infrastructure for it to be shut down.

          I am not aware that this is a precedent set by the 1850’s overland telegraph and repeated in the 1950’s copper wires rollout are you?

          ‘In 2011-2021 taxpayers build optical fibre to premises in all large towns and cities across metro and regional Australia, LTE wireless to 97% of the population and launch two satellites for 100%.’

          They did? jeez I thought Telstra and soon Optus and Vodafone owned LTE, it’s actually owned by the taxpayer is it? – the speculation as to what is going to happen after two elections before 2021 is pure guesswork in the extreme, and somewhat blindly optimistic the population is going to return two successive Labor Governments after Gillard again, which is doubly optimistic seeing the present Labor Government relies totally on the grace and favour of minor party non-Labor MP’s to Govern.

          ‘In the three months from October to December 2011, already 2300 of the 18000 premises with fibre physically in place have a commercial NBN fibre service.’

          Where did you get that figure from?

          ‘Now, here’s an interesting bit of maths for NBN skeptics.’

          This will be good.

          ‘Telstra and Optus ADSL contracts typically run 24 months. 2300 services means a 12.7% takeup rate from the 23000 premises physically connected to NBN fibre, and we are 3 months, or 12.5%, into the 24-month contract period since October 2011. That’s almost 100% takeup, exactly what you would expect of intelligent householders, almost all of whom are taking up the service as their ADSL contracts end.’

          Oh I see you know all about the BB contracts residences are on in NBN active foot print areas, how do you know this, did you ring up Telstra and Optus and they emailed you commercial-in-confidence customer contractual info straight up with start and end dates on all of them because you said you needed it for a post in Delimiter, because you needed some facts, which would make for a refreshing change from the usual NBN apologist star gazing BS.

          Yeah you were right it was a ‘interesting bit of maths’, the pity is you made it all up, it’s more like a misplaced application of the statistical Theory of Probability.

          • Perhaps the stupidest comment yet “Never Again alain”. You’re even running out of bullshit.

            1. Provide clear evidence to show the NBN will not be profitable
            2. Provide clear evidence to show the NBN will not increase productivity
            3. Provide clear evidence to show the NBN will not be beneficial

            You keep saying it, so money meet mouth.

            Onya bike.

          • Do me a favour and provide clear evidence to show the NBN will increase productivity.

            A peer reviewed study or two will do. I’ll look at the same time and see if there are any.

          • Just to be clear the study has to show nationwide access to very high speed internet (higher than ADSL2+) will increase the productivity of that population in a net overall metric (i.e. if productivity increases in one metric but decreases in ten with a net loss in productivity then that is not counted).

          • I can’t find any on ScienceDirect or Cochrane Review (both reputable sources which cover a significant amount of science research).

            This paper shows access to the internet in general increases the wealth of a nation – but we already have good access to the internet. We need to find out what happens when you speed it up.

            hangkyu Choi, Myung Hoon Yi, The effect of the Internet on economic growth: Evidence from cross-country panel data, Economics Letters, Volume 105, Issue 1, October 2009, Pages 39-41, ISSN 0165-1765, 10.1016/j.econlet.2009.03.028.
            (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165176509001773)
            Keywords: Internet; Growth; Panel data

            We can show introducing it to nations with poor or middle economies is good:

            George R.G. Clarke, Has the internet increased exports for firms from low and middle-income countries?, Information Economics and Policy, Volume 20, Issue 1, March 2008, Pages 16-37, ISSN 0167-6245, 10.1016/j.infoecopol.2007.06.006.
            (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167624507000418)
            Keywords: Internet; Development; Exports

            There are papers showing both a decrease or increase in workforce productivity with the introduction of the internet (depending on how it’s measured, etc):

            Eleftheria Vasileiadou, Rens Vliegenthart, Research productivity in the era of the internet revisited, Research Policy, Volume 38, Issue 8, October 2009, Pages 1260-1268, ISSN 0048-7333, 10.1016/j.respol.2009.06.005.
            (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733309001280)
            Keywords: Productivity; Collaboration; Internet; e-Science; Email

            José Ignacio López Sánchez, Beatriz Minguela Rata, Antonio Rodríguez Duarte, Francesco D. Sandulli, Is the Internet productive? A firm-level analysis, Technovation, Volume 26, Issue 7, July 2006, Pages 821-826, ISSN 0166-4972, 10.1016/j.technovation.2005.03.002.
            (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166497205000647)
            Keywords: Productivity; Internet; Workplace; Information technology; Spain

            Jessica Vitak, Julia Crouse, Robert LaRose, Personal Internet use at work: Understanding cyberslacking, Computers in Human Behavior, Volume 27, Issue 5, September 2011, Pages 1751-1759, ISSN 0747-5632, 10.1016/j.chb.2011.03.002.
            (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563211000604)
            Keywords: Cyberslacking; Non-work-related computing; Internet use; Organizations; Communication technology; Productivity

            Anyway, if you can find some research showing productivity gains from turning ADSL2+ speeds into higher speeds then I’d genuinely like to see it.

          • Should have written that:

            The study has to show moving from nationwide access to ADSL2+ speed and lower internet to higher than ADSL2+ internet will increase the productivity of that population in a net overall metric (i.e. if productivity increases in one metric but decreases in ten with a net loss in productivity then that is not counted).

            I needed to make clear that we already have high penetration ADSL internet access – so studies showing the introduction of internet access are not useful. We need to see what a change in speed will do.

          • Obviously you missed the questions but thanks for the (lame) effort.

            So again

            1. Provide clear evidence to show the NBN will not be profitable
            2. Provide clear evidence to show the NBN will not increase productivity
            3. Provide clear evidence to show the NBN will not be beneficial

            I want to know about our NBN.

            Try again

          • “Obviously you missed the questions but thanks for the (lame) effort.”

            Firstly, they are all statements.

            Secondly, I read and understood all of them and I addressed just one of them by asking you to prove the opposite.

            My challenge to you: “provide clear evidence to show the NBN will increase productivity”.

            I went on to show that one the largest scientific journal database aggregators in the world contains no such studies.

            Are you able to show that productivity increases? Because so far you’ve done nothing at all.

            “I want to know about our NBN” – same here. Show me the money.

          • Ok Harley, I’ll do it without the sarcasm this time.

            So you admit that productivity IS improved with internet access and provide all these URLS showing us exactly that. Praise the lard.

            E.g (condensed) “…we found evidence that the Internet plays a positive and significant role in economic growth”. “..strong correlation between exporting and internet access at the enterprise level”

            Hardly disproving or answering my question on disproving the NBN! So now use your own eyes and say, gee I could do what I do now on dial up, but, I probably wouldn’t be as productive. Is that a fair statement?

            Anyway, since you were unable to provide any evidence at all, as I asked, your altered the argument to we don’t need better, because ”we already have good access to the internet”.

            Incorrect. A lot of people don’t even have access, let alone good access. Probably best to look outside your own door. We are languishing near the bottom of worldwide penetration/per capita figures (not even making some).

            http://broadbandguide.com.au/blogs/2010/12/1490/

            http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/1107/

            Also, why are both sides of politics willing to spend a “minimum of $17B” on FTTN/FTTP, if what we have is good enough? What YOU have may be good enough and to be frank, what I have will suffice for now (even though ADSL2 and being not near an exchange, IS NOT good enough).

            Anyway I did as you asked and generically Googled and found this straight up.

            http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2010/prod_101710.html

            “Many emerging economies are ‘leapfrogging’ by focusing on bringing the best broadband to their cities, acknowledging their impact on the economy”

            “14 countries (1 in 5) already prepared for the Internet “applications of tomorrow”, compared to only 1 country in 2008”

            Repeat – bringing the “best broadband (not what we have is good enough)” and more countries are readying for “applications of tomorrow”.

            Applications of tomorrow eh. – These “fools” mustn’t know what they are talking about. They actually believe that what WE have isn’t good enough. It even seems they actually refuse to accept that technology improvements ceased 7 April 2009.

          • “Ok Harley, I’ll do it without the sarcasm this time.So you admit that productivity IS improved with internet access and provide all these URLS showing us exactly that.”

            Yes, some forms of productivity increase with internet access, others decrease. Some aspects of the economy decrease but overall their is an increase.

            “Praise the lard.” Reads sarcastic to me.

            “E.g (condensed) “…we found evidence that the Internet plays a positive and significant role in economic growth”. “..strong correlation between exporting and internet access at the enterprise level”
            Hardly disproving or answering my question on disproving the NBN! So now use your own eyes and say, gee I could do what I do now on dial up, but, I probably wouldn’t be as productive. Is that a fair statement?”

            Yes, the internet plays a role in economic growth. Nobody is disputing that. Our situation isn’t one where we don’t have internet access and are gaining it. It is one where we are upgrading our access. This is the crux of my challenge. Prove the NBN will increase productivity.

            “Anyway, since you were unable to provide any evidence at all, as I asked, your altered the argument to we don’t need better, because ”we already have good access to the internet”.”

            No, I didn’t alter my argument. I made it clear that our situation is going from high penetration ADSL access to high speed access (this is a fact). I didn’t want anyone to get mixed up with studies that show going from no internet to having internet as a comparison (since they are two different situations). Making something clearer is not changing the argument.

            “Incorrect. A lot of people don’t even have access, let alone good access.”
            No, we have good speed and high penetration (cough).

            “Also, why are both sides of politics willing to spend a “minimum of $17B” on FTTN/FTTP, if what we have is good enough? What YOU have may be good enough and to be frank, what I have will suffice for now (even though ADSL2 and being not near an exchange, IS NOT good enough).”

            To meet increased predicted future bandwidth demands – mainly driven by entertainment.

            “Anyway I did as you asked and generically Googled and found this straight up……
            Repeat – bringing the “best broadband (not what we have is good enough)” and more countries are readying for “applications of tomorrow””

            Yes, that’s why we don’t use Google. Cisco has a vested interest in suggesting that you need to keep up with better internet infrastructure.

            “Applications of tomorrow eh. – These “fools” mustn’t know what they are talking about. They actually believe that what WE have isn’t good enough. It even seems they actually refuse to accept that technology improvements ceased 7 April 2009.”

            The “applications of tomorrow” are just more bandwidth hungry versions of todays applications with minor incremental improvements.

            The reverse challenge still stands. Show us how Australia’s NBN will increase productivity.

          • “I needed to make clear that we already have high penetration ADSL internet access – so studies showing the introduction of internet access are not useful. We need to see what a change in speed will do.”

            Isn’t that like saying “Sure it is proven that horse drawn carts and carriages improved commerce and productivity, but what can a change in speed (by paving roads and using internal combustion engines) do?

          • Yes. It’s exactly like that (as an analogy). But we extrapolate with our heads – and it doesn’t always work out the way we intend. So we use science to measure the effects and extrapolate from that. Australia is going into pretty uncharted waters with our NBN so we won’t have much in the way of studies to back up what we think will happen.

            Remember the first combustion engines were junk and it took a long time to evolve them into what we have today (about a century).

          • Of course a lot of the argument about high speed is all about residence choice, it all very well saying that we need high speed BB but if residences make decisions that they don’t need the fastest speed available to them today, that is there are many that are happy with 256/64, 1500/256, 8000/384 many on grandfathered ISP plans even though ADSL2+ or high speed HFC is available to them it makes a total mockery of the need for FTTH to 93% of residences.

            Of course the one and only key to the NBN’s survival is making sure residences don’t have those choices, hence the agreements with Telstra and Optus to shut down their infrastructure so that residences are forced to use the NBN.

            Labor can then gloat about the marvelous ‘NBN uptake figures’ post copper and HFC shutdown in regions, and probably would have the ball faced gall to say it’s undeniable proof of the need for FTTH because more residences are using it.

          • Seriously this is an exercise in futility, because frankly the chances of a few here ever agreeing the NBN is a good thing is, to be honest, about the same as me agreeing it is a bad thing (at least I admit it)

            It’s more commonly referred to as “The Irresistible Force Paradox”.

            However, my mind is made up (and honourably so, as I do not toe a party line) because “no one has presented, rational, factual evidence” to suggest the NBN will not be a beneficial, successful, cost effective investment/infrastructure build for Australia.

            Then NBN is designed –

            * To provide a nationwide service, giving especially, future generations of Aussies a technological head start
            * To deliver Australia an optimum service, not a cheap imitation which will (according to recognised trends) need upgrading sooner rather than later
            * To make our communications fairer all round. Not continuing to leave us at the mercy of one profit driven private company, with a conflict of interest – wholesaler/retailer – as the opposition’s alternative will.
            * To provide modern comms for those who currently do not have, such as those rurally located (and provide for them, “equally affordably”).
            * Will provide more competition/choice at retail level “nationally” (cities currently have too much choice/rural none/regional little)
            * Will provide employment opportunities for Aussies and flow on effects which will directly and indirectly assist in growth
            * Is being overseen by knowledgeable, experienced people (no not politicians – NBNCo)
            * Is being funded from the sale of bonds – so there isn’t a taxpayer burden
            * Has been projected to be affordable to consumers (so far proven so)
            * Has been projected to receive a modest ROI/proportional to the affordability
            * Has been projected to repay itself in time
            * Will be an asset which can be sold to boost the country’s coffers for future generations

            Your minds are also made up and imo, 99% of this is due to blinding political association, not the NBN itself. Because frankly, the arguments being put forward by otherwise, intelligent IT people, are questionable (to be polite) saying things such as –

            * What we have is good enough (no, what ‘you’ have may be good enough, for now – but regardless, this is for all Aussies)
            * There will be no future apps/we don’t and won’t need better up/down speeds (seriously – you really believe this)?
            * Hurting taxpayer (ignoring bond funding, whilst some openly promote hand outs of $bn’s to private companies – resulting in little or no ROI and no asset ownership – WTF)!
            * Claiming Labor wastage (political bias)
            * Claiming Communist plot (political bias)
            * Going into bat always, deserved or not, for Abbott/Turnbull (political bias)
            * Going into bat for opposition MP’s who hyopocritically demand the very NBN they oppose, for their constituents “FIRST”. They want it before their own party deny them – WTF (political bias)
            * Bagging Conroy each and every time (political bias) and yes, pro NBNers do it too, especially for his filtering BS
            * Saying FTTN is cheaper – maybe initially – but at 40%/$17bn, it would seem not and then refuting later needs of FTTP and associated costs)
            * Refusing to acknowledge the issues with copper/ADSL and therefore FTTN, as well as HFC (some even change from day to day saying HFC is unused/NBNCo must shut down HFC due to it’s competitiveness – WTF).
            * Claiming we are all being forced onto fibre (ignoring we are forced to now use copper, were forced from analogue to digital, dirt to sealed roads – it’s known as technological advancement)
            * Saying we are all being “forced and have no choice but to use the monopoly NBN” – then stating wireless will be a fervent competitor, whose take up rate may even make the NBN obsolete!
            * Saying we are all being “forced” and must use the NBN. But then saying the NBN will not be profitable?
            * Playing the man not the ball in relation to Mike Quigley
            * To argue over a word in a comprehensive document, because you simply are not mentally equipped to accept the entire picture…(as clearly outlined within this very comments section multiple times)
            * To bag FTTP daily and fully support FTTN, when a lot of your so called FTTP concerns (if they actually existed) would also apply to FTTN too

            I think Stanley Crouch summed you all up perfectly – “When people conclude that all is futile, then the absurd becomes the norm”

            I now wait with bated breath for the absurd to say the exact same things again in reply (sigh) and prove Stanley’s futility phrase, once again.

          • “because “no one has presented, rational, factual evidence” to suggest the NBN will not be a beneficial, successful, cost effective investment/infrastructure build for Australia.”

            You are mainly correct. Although as above there are numerous studies that show drawbacks to internet access (so whilst you can prove the internet is beneficial, you can also prove it is a liability).

            The reverse of what you said is also true: no one has presented rational, factual evidence to show that the NBN will be a beneficial, successful, cost effective investment/infrastructure build for Australia. If you believe this proof exists, please present it – it would be great to read.

            After reading this don’t make the mistake of thinking I’m against the NBN. I’m not. I think the NBN will be phenomenal. It will be the best nationwide telecommunications infrastructure in existence.

            What I will argue about though is proof. We don’t have much. We are making a calculated gamble. By definition that is what an investment is. There is a probability of success and a probability of failure. In this instance since the hardware is already proven we know it will be a technical success (without any doubt it will succeed technically). But as a financial investment it is a gamble that may not pay off (and that’s a fact).

            I personally think it will pay off in the long run. But in the short term it may turn out that there were better investments for Australia – only time will tell.

          • @ Harley

            Looks as though we will have to agree to agree on the NBN being phenomenal and agree to disagree on the information to suggest it so.

            From my perspective, while of course no one can categorically guarantee our NBN’s success or failure, as it hasn’t been completed yet – so assumptions, conjecture and bias run rife – I believe there’s plenty of analysis to suggest FTTP a winner.

            Whether one wishes to believe or accept such information, is of course, one’s own prerogative though.

            However, as someone who claims to be an NBN fan, I do find it somewhat strange that after all the staunch NBN opponents (including Joe Hockey – who apparently said the NBN will actually detract from productivity) keep demanding “proof”, from others here, that the NBN will improve productivity, be beneficial and profitable, that rather than take exception to their constant badgering, you choose to take exception to the one person who simply threw their own BS right back at them :~/

          • He is using if I post bulk crap in one massive lump no one can be stuffed to individualise each line to respond so it looks as if I have won the argument.

            In all honesty it’s just plain embarrassing and to repeat what I have stated before, this multiple banned poster is the best thing the anti-NBN argument has going for it, and after all this time he still doesn’t get it!

          • Again Tosh (like we didn’t know FFS)… it’s futile for us to even try to correspond rationally with the irrational and politically motivated, as I already mentioned.

            Of interest to you, please note on the first permalink, the ending where I propesied “the absurd” replying and guess what? Sure enough, thank you and Never Again for fulfilling my prophecy and in a timely manner?

            http://delimiter.com.au/2012/01/11/sa-premier-gets-us-fast-broadband-tour/#comment-302921

            http://delimiter.com.au/2012/01/11/sa-premier-gets-us-fast-broadband-tour/#comment-302351

            http://delimiter.com.au/2012/01/11/sa-premier-gets-us-fast-broadband-tour/#comment-302875

            More like guffawing wildly.

          • that it provided a service which nobody realised that they needed until it became available would be my guess.

          • Well you are partly right but you left out the total picture, where is Concord today?

          • Is that I don’t know what to say, I need to respond with something so ‘wow’ will have to do in the absence of anything relevant?

          • no that is “wow” as in “i can’t believe you just compared the demise of concorde to the NBN.”.

            by the way, here’s some info for you regarding concorde.

            On 10 April 2003, Air France and British Airways simultaneously announced that they would retire Concorde later that year.[132][133] They cited low passenger numbers following the 25 July 2000 crash, the slump in air travel following 11 September 2001, and rising maintenance costs. Although Concorde was technologically advanced when introduced in the 1970s, 30 years later its analogue cockpit was dated. There had been little commercial pressure to upgrade Concorde due to a lack of competing aircraft, unlike other airliners of the same era such as the Boeing 747.[134] By its retirement, it was the last aircraft in British Airways’ fleet that had a flight engineer; other aircraft, such as the modernised 747-400, had eliminated the role
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde#Retirement

            which pretty much sums up why concorde was retired and confirms that despite it being the only supersonic commercial aircraft, it was outdated and obsolete.

          • They would be sitting alongside all those other “obsolete items”, such as typewriters, cassette players, video recorders and of course ADSL/Copper PSTN/HFC/FTTN.

          • Concord obsolete, rofl?

            Its not obsolete even by modern standards, its still the fastest consumer commercial aircraft available. It became obsolete because most people had no use for the premium version of air travel.

            That doesn’t mean it wasn’t productive, nor that people didn’t use it

            What it did mean was that its net productivity was negative (in the sense that concord went bankrupt and never paid back what it cost them to service the airline), and only the people that were loaded with money could afford to use it in the first place

            As a wing commander you should know that

          • @deteego

            “Concord obsolete, rofl?”

            “Its not obsolete even by modern standards…”

            “It became obsolete….”

            So you laugh that I said obsolete, then said it wasn’t obslete then agree it is obsolete. All in just 2.5 lines of one comment.

            I think this is where we all say rofl and shake our heads in disbelief.

            Join us.

          • In the context of my argument, I was talking about technically obsolete

            The concord is not technically obsolete, even by today standards. If you are talking obsolete in the sense it was an overpriced premium product which people generally didn’t need, then yes you are correct

          • So in terms of a direct correlation with Australia’s FTTH rollout to 93% of residences it is spot on.

  9. ” Once the NBN is in place companies will show all the cool stuff you can do with it. Until then people wont understand.”

    The reason I quote myself is it’s not the NBN that will show the future. it’s the companies that develop the applications that run on it that will show us. It’s just a technology enabler.

      • No one has asked the standard question about the NBN ‘What’s the killer app for the NBN’, so you don’t need to attempt to provide a ‘witty’ response, which is meaningless anyway, but it is true to form, keep it vague and never ever under any circumstance go into specifics.

        • No one has asked the standard question about the NBN ‘What’s the killer app for the NBN’,

          oh really?

          have you tried googling that question?

          you’ll get quite a few hits back from a lot of people asking exactly that.

          • well it is kind of difficult to develop an app for something doesn’t exist yet, don’t you think?

            imagine how silly it would have been if apple had created itunes before they created the ipod.

          • Apple actually did develop iTunes before the iPod… :\

            iTunes was an application they bought from another company – (and it had a different name) – quite some time before the first iPod.

          • i stand corrected.
            however, as bad as my example was, i hope my point was still made.

          • No, that’s the direct opposite of your ‘point being made’.

            ok. how about imagine how little you would have to complain about if the NBN did not exist?

          • I have still yet to see any such applications coming from Japan or South Korea, considering they have had 100mbit broadband for almost a decade now

            There is no proof whatsoever of the build it and they will come attitude. There are certain countries that have had fibre for quite some time, and the applications that have been designed for it are primarily entertainment

          • the two main applications for superfast broadband are:

            1. multiple streams of super high-definition video delivery through legitimate channels

            2. mass, high volume piracy of super high-definition video content

          • I have still yet to see any such applications coming from Japan or South Korea,

            oh but have you forgotten?

            asia hold no relevance to the NBN.

            Its not relative to the case in hand at Australia
            http://delimiter.com.au/2012/01/06/nbn-detracts-from-productivity-claims-hockey/#comment-298125
            At least its much closer than asia, in every way possible (such as also taking into account economies)
            http://delimiter.com.au/2012/01/06/nbn-detracts-from-productivity-claims-hockey/#comment-298865

          • Geez nice work

            Instead of addressing the point, you completely sideline it with an irrelevant remark

            You yourself stated that the reason why the applications are not being made is because we don’t have the infrastructure to develop such apps

            I pointed you to two countries, which have (near) universal super speed (i.e. 100mbit) broadband available.

            I am asking you to actually answer my question directly, instead of playing dodgeball, and tell me what applications such countries have developed, that are actually used on a national level

            As economics for dummies has stated before, so far only applications are entertainment or piracy (something that is funnily enough possible under todays networks as well)

          • I doubt there will ever be a “killer app”. Instead there will be a gradual evolution of software to use up the newly available bandwidth. Just as with PCs, it will be a slow and incremental process.

            But I do note that after South Korea introduced their super high speed nationwide internet access that a killer app did appear:

            StarCraft.

            Funnily enough, it created a large industry surrounding it (I’m not sure of the overall wealth the nation gains from it though).

          • South Korea actually has a much lower ICTU benchmark than the likes of countries such as America

            For those that don’t know, this benchmark actually represents the real terms of IT related innovation in the country, in other words technological innovation of the country

            America, is still the first in this benchmark, even though it has lower internet speeds than many other countries. You can shove high speed broadband, but its hardly a dominating factor when it comes to developing applications

            Stuff like google, Facebook, or things like IBM etc etc. A lot of these technical innovations come from America, since American environment, both in terms of economics, ease to startup a company etc etc. Even starcraft was made by an american company (blizzard)

            What can countries like South Korea show us developed from really high speeds? The only thing I can really find is generic MMO (or other) types of content, and in the case of South Korea that may not be a good thing, because internet addiction in that country is becoming a severe problem.

            Spending your whole time playing games or watching TV with high speed connection is hardly seen as being productive, because that is about as much as the average Joe will end up doing with his 100mbit connection (if he’s going to use it)

          • You have to remember Deetego that the NBN FTTH is unique, it is different to FTTH already in use here and overseas.

            All these software companies have these ‘killer apps’ waiting for release on the condition that one relative small country population wise in the world rolls out FTTH to 93% of its residences.

          • Deteego, interesting you Quote US technology and innovation attributing it to the private sector, the reality is the foundation and basis was and still is US Government investment in Research and technological research and development, contracted of course to research institutions and universities, private companies who then subcontract. The Cold war and the Space Race, so much of our current technology including lasers, the basis of the subject in hand.

            http://www.cio.com/article/Print/690327 ( ‘IPad Deconstructed’ Forum Makes Case for Federal Research )

            “A lot of countries have realized that one of the reasons the U.S. became so great was because of things like federally funded research. So there are lot of countries that are trying to really invest in science and technology. I think it’s important to continue funding that in the U.S. Otherwise it is just going to lose the edge – it’s as simple as that. ”
            “Has federal research played a role in your work? Definitely. In every single case. In every single thing
            that I have done.
            Do a lot of your students work on projects funded by the National Science Foundation? Yes they do. The model for the NSF is a really great one. The money is usually used to support students. That’s really
            great, because not only are you educating them but these people are also doing the technology transfer. These students work at research institutions like Carnegie Mellon or MIT or Stanford and then they go get a job, say at Apple or at Google, and that is where a lot of the technology transfer is happening. “. ……….The enabling foundation for the future

      • I have morphed into the equally obnoxious anti alain, haven’t I?

        Time for a phrase.

        Right actions in the future are the best apologies for bad actions in the past – Tryon Edwards

        • yeah a little. :)

          i’m starting to wonder if you’re not ex-lovers.
          or siblings.

          …

          or both.

          • Looking at today’s comments I’m not even close, thank god.

            And I have promised to never get there.

  11. Well if you look at the flow of the discussion it was from the opening posts, the pro NBN brigade jumped onto the report waving their NBN flags and stating that what was happening in the City of Chattanooga was unequivocal proof of why need FTTH to 93% of residences in Australia.

    The rest of what followed basically ripped that ridiculous simplistic assertion apart, then diverted off into the usual pro and anti NBN discussions.

Comments are closed.