NBN3 Wireless plan needs 4G spectrum fast-track

[Don McKenzie]

NBN3 Wireless plan needs 4G spectrum fast-track
Sep 1, 2010 12:58 PM

A wireless National Broadband Network proposal aired late yesterday [pdf] called for the expedited release of 4G
spectrum by regulators as well as access to Telstra backhaul and mobile towers to cut out further costs.

http://www.itnews.com.au/News/230696,nbn3-wireless-plan-needs-4g-spectrum-fast-track.aspx

A coalition of dark fibre owners and ISP chiefs from Pipe Networks, BigAir, Vocus, AAPT and others issued the manifesto
under the guise of the Alliance for Affordable Broadband.

The Alliance sought to take advantage of the uncertain future of the NBN in its current form and proposed changes it
claimed could cut the network cost to as low as $3 billion.

==============

Quoting from the PDF proposal:
http://www.vocus.com.au/media/AAB_Final2.pdf

In short, we believe that a mix of technologies and a market based approach will deliver the best outcome. We believe
that an alternative national broadband network, let‟s call it NBNv3, could look something like this:

1) 4G national wholesale network coverage, to 98% of Australians, at up to 100mbps;
2) Fibre or equivalent high speed broadband for backhaul, school, hospitals, and most businesses, at speeds up to 1Gbps;


Cheers Don...

==============


--
Don McKenzie

Site Map: http://www.dontronics.com/sitemap
E-Mail Contact Page: http://www.dontronics.com/email
Web Camera Page: http://www.dontronics.com/webcam
No More Damn Spam: http://www.dontronics.com/spam

These products will reduce in price by 5% every month:
http://www.dontronics-shop.com/minus-5-every-month.html

 

On Sep 2, 4:56 am, Don McKenzie <5...@2.5A> wrote:

NBN3 Wireless plan needs 4G spectrum fast-track
Sep 1, 2010 12:58 PM

A wireless National Broadband Network proposal aired late yesterday [pdf] called for the expedited release of 4G
spectrum by regulators as well as access to Telstra backhaul and mobile towers to cut out further costs.

Access to Telstra Infrastructure? One reason it's good is and not
underinvessted in is that its not overloaded by cheap plans

 

[son of a bitch]

I thought we all agreed that wireless was fucked as a Mainstream
Broadband system regardless of how many G's you put out there,
3G, 4G, 5G or 69G's.

 

[Rob]

On 2/09/2010 9:39 AM, son of a bitch wrote:

I thought we all agreed that wireless was fucked as a Mainstream
Broadband system regardless of how many G's you put out there,
3G, 4G, 5G or 69G's.

Big cities have fibre - its the country areas (that last 10% of the
population) that need a sensible priced access to a faster broadband.

 

[son of a bitch]

On 2010/09/02 10:45, Rob wrote:

On 2/09/2010 9:39 AM, son of a bitch wrote:
I thought we all agreed that wireless was fucked as a Mainstream
Broadband system regardless of how many G's you put out there,
3G, 4G, 5G or 69G's.



Big cities have fibre - its the country areas (that last 10% of the
population) that need a sensible priced access to a faster broadband.

It would still faster to strap the email to a Carrier Pigeon.

 

[son of a bitch]

On 2010/09/02 11:29, son of a bitch wrote:

On 2010/09/02 10:45, Rob wrote:
On 2/09/2010 9:39 AM, son of a bitch wrote:
I thought we all agreed that wireless was fucked as a Mainstream
Broadband system regardless of how many G's you put out there,
3G, 4G, 5G or 69G's.



Big cities have fibre - its the country areas (that last 10% of the
population) that need a sensible priced access to a faster broadband.

It would still faster to strap the email to a Carrier Pigeon.

And more reliable

 

[son of a bitch]

On 2010/09/02 11:37, son of a bitch wrote:

On 2010/09/02 11:29, son of a bitch wrote:
On 2010/09/02 10:45, Rob wrote:
On 2/09/2010 9:39 AM, son of a bitch wrote:
I thought we all agreed that wireless was fucked as a Mainstream
Broadband system regardless of how many G's you put out there,
3G, 4G, 5G or 69G's.



Big cities have fibre - its the country areas (that last 10% of the
population) that need a sensible priced access to a faster broadband.

It would still faster to strap the email to a Carrier Pigeon.

And more reliable

And cheaper

 

[Rod Speed]

Rob wrote

son of a bitch wrote

I thought we all agreed that wireless was fucked as a Mainstream
Broadband system regardless of how many G's you put out there,
3G, 4G, 5G or 69G's.

Big cities have fibre - its the country areas (that last 10% of the
population) that need a sensible priced access to a faster broadband.

Wrong, the bulk of that 10% have access to very decent broadband right now if they want it.

 

[Mr.T]

"Rob" <mesamine@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4c7ef3c4$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

On 2/09/2010 9:39 AM, son of a bitch wrote:
I thought we all agreed that wireless was fucked as a Mainstream
Broadband system regardless of how many G's you put out there,
3G, 4G, 5G or 69G's.

Big cities have fibre - its the country areas (that last 10% of the
population) that need a sensible priced access to a faster broadband.

Actually, the biggest use of mobile broadband is in the cities, and probably
always will be. Firstly because people don't want to be tied to a fibre all
the time. Secondly because many country areas have no mobile broadband
access anyway.

The HUGE use of mobile phones compared to fixed land-line phones these days
should be enough of an indication as to what most people really want. Too
bad stupid politicians have NO idea.

MrT.

 

[Rod Speed]

Mr.T wrote

Rob <mesamine@gmail.com> wrote
son of a bitch wrote

I thought we all agreed that wireless was fucked as a Mainstream
Broadband system regardless of how many G's you put out there,
3G, 4G, 5G or 69G's.

Big cities have fibre - its the country areas (that last 10% of the
population) that need a sensible priced access to a faster broadband.

Actually, the biggest use of mobile broadband is in the cities,

Yes.

and probably always will be.

Yes, because that is where most people are. Duh.

Firstly because people don't want to be tied to a fibre all the time.

All that means is that plenty will use both.

Secondly because many country areas have no mobile broadband access anyway.

That is just plain wrong. The bulk of country areas have NextG access.

The HUGE use of mobile phones compared to fixed land-line phones these
days should be enough of an indication as to what most people really want.

There is massively more use of fixed line broadband.

And I bet that will continue too, if only because the thruput is massively higher with fixed line broadband.

Too bad stupid politicians have NO idea.

Good match for you.

 

[son of a bitch]

On 2010/09/02 01:00, Mr.T wrote:

"Rob"<mesamine@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4c7ef3c4$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
On 2/09/2010 9:39 AM, son of a bitch wrote:
I thought we all agreed that wireless was fucked as a Mainstream
Broadband system regardless of how many G's you put out there,
3G, 4G, 5G or 69G's.

Big cities have fibre - its the country areas (that last 10% of the
population) that need a sensible priced access to a faster broadband.


Actually, the biggest use of mobile broadband is in the cities, and probably
always will be. Firstly because people don't want to be tied to a fibre all
the time. Secondly because many country areas have no mobile broadband
access anyway.

The HUGE use of mobile phones compared to fixed land-line phones these days
should be enough of an indication as to what most people really want. Too
bad stupid politicians have NO idea.

MrT.

That is what wireless is good for, for people are Mobile but still
need intermittent access. Using it in Fixed Location as your only
access, you'd need to get your head red.

 

[SG1]

"son of a bitch" <bitchin_2008@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4c7efdfd$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

On 2010/09/02 10:45, Rob wrote:
On 2/09/2010 9:39 AM, son of a bitch wrote:
I thought we all agreed that wireless was fucked as a Mainstream
Broadband system regardless of how many G's you put out there,
3G, 4G, 5G or 69G's.



Big cities have fibre - its the country areas (that last 10% of the
population) that need a sensible priced access to a faster broadband.

It would still faster to strap the email to a Carrier Pigeon.

Lots of hawks in my neck of the woods.

 

[Rod Speed]

son of a bitch wrote

Mr.T wrote
Rob <mesamine@gmail.com> wrote
son of a bitch wrote

I thought we all agreed that wireless was fucked as a Mainstream
Broadband system regardless of how many G's you put out there,
3G, 4G, 5G or 69G's.

Big cities have fibre - its the country areas (that last 10% of the
population) that need a sensible priced access to a faster broadband.

Actually, the biggest use of mobile broadband is in the cities, and
probably always will be. Firstly because people don't want to be
tied to a fibre all the time. Secondly because many country areas
have no mobile broadband access anyway.

The HUGE use of mobile phones compared to fixed land-line phones
these days should be enough of an indication as to what most people
really want. Too bad stupid politicians have NO idea.

That is what wireless is good for, for people are Mobile but still
need intermittent access. Using it in Fixed Location as your only
access, you'd need to get your head red.

That is just plain wrong, particularly if you dont need much volume.

Wireless is just as good as fixed broadband for everything except large downloads
and is a lot easier if you move around much from one place you are living to another
or want to do the browsing at more than one place most days like home and work etc.

 

[son of a bitch]

On 2010/09/02 04:46, Rod Speed wrote:

son of a bitch wrote
Mr.T wrote
Rob<mesamine@gmail.com> wrote
son of a bitch wrote

I thought we all agreed that wireless was fucked as a Mainstream
Broadband system regardless of how many G's you put out there,
3G, 4G, 5G or 69G's.

Big cities have fibre - its the country areas (that last 10% of the
population) that need a sensible priced access to a faster broadband.

Actually, the biggest use of mobile broadband is in the cities, and
probably always will be. Firstly because people don't want to be
tied to a fibre all the time. Secondly because many country areas
have no mobile broadband access anyway.

The HUGE use of mobile phones compared to fixed land-line phones
these days should be enough of an indication as to what most people
really want. Too bad stupid politicians have NO idea.

That is what wireless is good for, for people are Mobile but still
need intermittent access. Using it in Fixed Location as your only
access, you'd need to get your head red.

That is just plain wrong, particularly if you dont need much volume.

Wireless is just as good as fixed broadband for everything except large downloads
and is a lot easier if you move around much from one place you are living to another
or want to do the browsing at more than one place most days like home and work etc.

Having it in House as a Fixed Service, shared by several PC's, it's
going to really suck.

If you're in a House where the Fridge is Connected to Internet, using
TIVO, X-Box / PayStation, 2 Laptops for the Kids and a Desktop, you
might find it a Tad Slow and then there's the Microshit Updates and
Virus Scanner Updates and the Kids downloading Pirate Music from
Limewire.

 

[atec77]

On 2/09/2010 11:29 AM, son of a bitch wrote:

On 2010/09/02 10:45, Rob wrote:
On 2/09/2010 9:39 AM, son of a bitch wrote:
I thought we all agreed that wireless was fucked as a Mainstream
Broadband system regardless of how many G's you put out there,
3G, 4G, 5G or 69G's.



Big cities have fibre - its the country areas (that last 10% of the
population) that need a sensible priced access to a faster broadband.

It would still faster to strap the email to a Carrier Pigeon.
pigsA

--
X-No-Archive: Yes

 

[Rod Speed]

son of a bitch wrote

Rod Speed wrote
son of a bitch wrote
Mr.T wrote
Rob<mesamine@gmail.com> wrote
son of a bitch wrote

I thought we all agreed that wireless was fucked as a Mainstream
Broadband system regardless of how many G's you put out there,
3G, 4G, 5G or 69G's.

Big cities have fibre - its the country areas (that last 10% of the population) that need a sensible priced
access to a faster broadband.

Actually, the biggest use of mobile broadband is in the cities, and
probably always will be. Firstly because people don't want to be
tied to a fibre all the time. Secondly because many country areas
have no mobile broadband access anyway.

The HUGE use of mobile phones compared to fixed land-line phones
these days should be enough of an indication as to what most people
really want. Too bad stupid politicians have NO idea.

That is what wireless is good for, for people are Mobile but still
need intermittent access. Using it in Fixed Location as your only
access, you'd need to get your head red.

That is just plain wrong, particularly if you dont need much volume.

Wireless is just as good as fixed broadband for everything except
large downloads and is a lot easier if you move around much from one place you are living to another or want to do
the browsing at more than one place most days like home and work etc.

Having it in House as a Fixed Service, shared by several PC's, it's going to really suck.

Depends entirely on what those PCs are doing.

If you're in a House where the Fridge is Connected to Internet, using
.. TIVO, X-Box / PayStation, 2 Laptops for the Kids and a Desktop, you
might find it a Tad Slow and then there's the Microshit Updates and Virus Scanner Updates and the Kids downloading
Pirate Music from Limewire.

You'll end up completely blind if you dont watch out, boy.

 

[terryc]

On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 11:59:28 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

Rob wrote
son of a bitch wrote

I thought we all agreed that wireless was fucked as a Mainstream
Broadband system regardless of how many G's you put out there, 3G, 4G,
5G or 69G's.

Big cities have fibre - its the country areas (that last 10% of the
population) that need a sensible priced access to a faster broadband.

Wrong, the bulk of that 10% have access to very decent broadband right
now if they want it.

Yep, let's just not look at the cost or lag.

 

[Rod Speed]

terryc wrote

Rod Speed wrote
Rob wrote
son of a bitch wrote

I thought we all agreed that wireless was fucked as a Mainstream
Broadband system regardless of how many G's you put out there, 3G,
4G, 5G or 69G's.

Big cities have fibre - its the country areas (that last 10% of the
population) that need a sensible priced access to a faster broadband.

Wrong, the bulk of that 10% have access to very decent broadband right now if they want it.

Yep, let's just not look at the cost

Thats not very different to what those in the citys pay.

or lag.

There is no lag with other than satellite and most of that 10% dont use satellite.

 

[Mr.T]

"son of a bitch" <bitchin_2008@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4c7f4bb8$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

Big cities have fibre - its the country areas (that last 10% of the
population) that need a sensible priced access to a faster broadband.

Actually, the biggest use of mobile broadband is in the cities, and
probably always will be. Firstly because people don't want to be
tied to a fibre all the time. Secondly because many country areas
have no mobile broadband access anyway.

The HUGE use of mobile phones compared to fixed land-line phones
these days should be enough of an indication as to what most people
really want. Too bad stupid politicians have NO idea.

That is what wireless is good for, for people are Mobile but still
need intermittent access. Using it in Fixed Location as your only
access, you'd need to get your head red.

That is just plain wrong, particularly if you dont need much volume.

Exactly, why should taxpayers subsidise movie downloads?

Wireless is just as good as fixed broadband for everything except large
downloads
and is a lot easier if you move around much from one place you are
living to another
or want to do the browsing at more than one place most days like home
and work etc.



Having it in House as a Fixed Service, shared by several PC's, it's
going to really suck.

So don't share it, dongles are cheap now, and most mobile phones are 3G
capable these days.

If you're in a House where the Fridge is Connected to Internet, using
TIVO, X-Box / PayStation, 2 Laptops for the Kids and a Desktop, you
might find it a Tad Slow and then there's the Microshit Updates and
Virus Scanner Updates and the Kids downloading Pirate Music from
Limewire.

And the taxpayers should subsidise all that, WHY exactly?

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

"terryc" <newsninespam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:i5o042$e1g$1@speranza.aioe.org...

Big cities have fibre - its the country areas (that last 10% of the
population) that need a sensible priced access to a faster broadband.

Wrong, the bulk of that 10% have access to very decent broadband right
now if they want it.

Yep, let's just not look at the cost or lag.

And spending another $43Billion will reduce the cost, HOW exactly?

MrT.