BF2S Forums Australian politics thread.

dude are you missing the fucking part where the ASX exchange's website says

ASX Trade is one of the fastest and most functionally complete multi-asset trading platforms in the world, delivering latency down to ~250 microseconds.

just shut the fuck up already. computing graduate with such pisspoor knowledge.

really glad BT helped london become a trade hub with their excellent nationalized infrastructure!!!!!!!

why would a home-trader need top speeds, exactly? it's an incredibly poor argument.

just find another basis to argue for this net upgrade in. the economic/market speed thing is lousy.

regardless of what ya'll think, Australia still needs a huge upgrade

The fact remains by upgrading the infrastructure properly it will means future upgrades will be further down the track.

Investing 60-70% of the money for a comparative 25% return for something that will have a shorter lifespan is just silly, especially considering how well our economy has performed for the past two decades.

It's not just about economics or finances and not even really what the NBN could be used for at the moment, (finances, tele-health, start-up businesses etc,) it's about using a time where Australia is strong economically to invest in infrastructure for the future. Internet usage in Australia increased by over 60% in the last year and in general it's not unlikely that Australia will meet the prediction by the CSIRO's Geoff Heydon that high-end users would expect speeds of up to 1GBps by 2020. And it's unavoidable that the copper network is on the way out, it's simply not going to be able to handle the demands on it in the future, not to mention the fact that it is falling apart already.

Also the Coalition's system plans for FTTH to be the eventual outcome, they just don't want to pay for it now because they want to differentiate themselves from the Government. Fiber is the future, that much is a given. So in the meantime they've got this slapdash FTTN solution that, yes, will be good enough for the time being, but will mean that over the next decade or even longer it will need constant upgrades to make it FTTH. Additionally it will have to continue the maintenance of an increasingly deteriorating and obsolete copper network which I believe Turnbull said would cost $20 per household per year - about an extra $280m per year overall.

The outcome is the same, the path is different. The Government's NBN aims to get the job done right and get it done once. The Coalition's plan aims to provide a decent upgrade now and then whoever's in charge is left to upgrade it when the need arises. The Government's plan is proactive. The Coalition's plan is reactive. That's really the only difference when it comes right down to it. Cost is irrelevant, both systems are investments and aim to essentially pay for themselves not to mention that the Coalition spending less now and paying more for future upgrades kind of evens them out in terms of total cost. Time difference is irrelevant, the Coalition's promise that they'll finish a less complete version of the same plan sooner is no boast at all. And really capability is irrelevant too as both systems will eventually provide the same capabilities, (presuming the Coalition does actually continue upgrades.)

Australians don't need speeds of 100MBps tomorrow, but they will eventually. Either you're going to be in a position where you have everything you need in place or you'll be in a position where you'll have to upgrade responding to need.

tbh sydney's road network is basically just another way of saying awful planning.

Ty wrote:

Australians don't need speeds of 100MBps tomorrow, but they will eventually. Either you're going to be in a position where you have everything you need in place or you'll be in a position where you'll have to upgrade responding to need.

I don't frankly see that Australians will 'need' 100MBps in the next 10-20 years even. It might be fun to have but really thats it.

Apart from wanting to watch six channels of double-HD 3D TV simultaneously, what is going to drive the 'need' for 100MBps to the average household?
Why should the govt be involved in servicing that need?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Ty wrote:

Australians don't need speeds of 100MBps tomorrow, but they will eventually. Either you're going to be in a position where you have everything you need in place or you'll be in a position where you'll have to upgrade responding to need.

I don't frankly see that Australians will 'need' 100MBps in the next 10-20 years even. It might be fun to have but really thats it.

Apart from wanting to watch six channels of double-HD 3D TV simultaneously, what is going to drive the 'need' for 100MBps to the average household?
Why should the govt be involved in servicing that need?

I never would have thought back in the early 90s that my family's Amstrad computer would have 1/200th the memory of a flash drive I can buy for $2 today. In the late 90s I was perfectly content with 512 kilobit per second internet speeds, there was no need for anything better. Amazing how fast things change.

Technolgy is moving faster and faster and the demands we are placing on technology are getting more and more. Like I said, last year Australians used over 60% more Internet than they did the previous year, the year before that it was I believe 51% more.

History is full of people with little quaint comments about their predictions for the future be it Bill Gates' alleged "640K" quote or Thomas Watson's "I only see a world market for about five computers". If it's taught us anything it's that it is foolish to underestimate. I'd be interested to know if you're basing your 'I don't think Australians will need 100Mbps in the next 20 years' statement on but forgive me if I'm more inclined to trust the guy who's a CSIRO scientist.

Also you're being intentionally stupid and short-sighted if you are going to dismiss the capabilities of ultra fast broadband as being for entertainment purposes only.

As to why the Government should pay for it? First because its an investment and is expected to deliver a return for Australia and second because it's infrastructure no different from roads or power. Does the Government need to provide the service? No it doesn't, but it's certainly not a bad thing that they are.

Ty wrote:

I never would have thought back in the early 90s that my family's Amstrad computer would have 1/200th the memory of a flash drive I can buy for $2 today. In the late 90s I was perfectly content with 512 kilobit per second internet speeds, there was no need for anything better. Amazing how fast things change.

Technolgy is moving faster and faster and the demands we are placing on technology are getting more and more. Like I said, last year Australians used over 60% more Internet than they did the previous year, the year before that it was I believe 51% more.

History is full of people with little quaint comments about their predictions for the future be it Bill Gates' alleged "640K" quote or Thomas Watson's "I only see a world market for about five computers". If it's taught us anything it's that it is foolish to underestimate. I'd be interested to know if you're basing your 'I don't think Australians will need 100Mbps in the next 20 years' statement on but forgive me if I'm more inclined to trust the guy who's a CSIRO scientist.

Also you're being intentionally stupid and short-sighted if you are going to dismiss the capabilities of ultra fast broadband as being for entertainment purposes only.

As to why the Government should pay for it? First because its an investment and is expected to deliver a return for Australia and second because it's infrastructure no different from roads or power. Does the Government need to provide the service? No it doesn't, but it's certainly not a bad thing that they are.

Things move on, but people 'need' 3Ghz Quad Core computers and terabyte hard drives for what exactly?
Surfing the web and downloading email?

Business and industry have all the bandwidth available to them they want, until there is some world-changing application for the typical home which uses even a tenth of the available carrying capacity the govt should not be getting involved in providing infrastructure for the entertainment industry - IMO.

For a supposed engineer Dilbert is displaying the smarts equivalent to a 70 year old nun.

What's even more ironic is he's trying to argue this backwards point on a gaming forum, lulz.

Jaekus wrote:

For a supposed engineer Dilbert is displaying the smarts equivalent to a 70 year old nun.

He just understands the difference between 'need' and 'want' and questions why your government is asked to pay for peoples 'wants'.

Cybargs wrote:

Jay wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

For a supposed engineer Dilbert is displaying the smarts equivalent to a 70 year old nun.

He just understands the difference between 'need' and 'want' and questions why your government is asked to pay for peoples 'wants'.

I don't think you know how the NBN payment plan is going to work. NBN co is going to build the lines, then sell the lines to telcos and then NBN co will take all revenue and give it back to the government.

NBN Co's corporate plan estimates it will require A$27.5 billion in Government equity and raise an estimated A$13.4 billion in debt funding without government support, a total funding requirement of A$40.9 billion up to FY2021. Financial forecasts for NBN Co assuming a 7% Internal Rate of Return (IRR) expect the Government and Debt equity will be fully repaid including accrued interest by FY2040

The government already started the NBN project and they're not going to shut it down. pointless having a debate about it tbh.

If it was actually going to be profitable, they would've had no problem lining up private investors.