Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Work out who it is that will be using these services. And the answer is"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?
If you use Wireless in rural areas as suggested...."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.
On 2010/09/03 08:08, Mr.T wrote:
"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.
If you use Wireless in rural areas as suggested....
They you are going to have a school either having one wireless
connection shared across all PC's or all PC's with their own
wireless.
strawman
school normally are close to facilites hence will have coper and orthan a Fibre link or the speed of each PC will be that of a Dial-up
Modem. Both of these is Looney tunes. Unless each of these
schools only have ONE PC, and that is also Nuts.
it;s your suggestion thats nuts
Well, it would certainly be cheaper than they are forced to pay now for"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.
That is a meaningless statement.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
That is not very different to what those in the citys pay.
Another meaningless statment to hide a goal post shift.or lag.
There is no lag with other than satellite and most of that 10% dont use
satellite.
So you are suggesting that NBN fees would be a standard monthlyThat is just plain wrong, particularly if you dont need much volume.
Exactly, why should taxpayers subsidise movie downloads?
suck.
Doesnt mean that the taxpayers should be spending anything like $50B extra.Mr.T wrote
son of a bitch<bitchin_2008@yahoo.com> wrote
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?
Work out who it is that will be using these services. And the answer is - (Tada) Taxpayers!
No one is suggesting that for schools.On 2010/09/03 08:08, Mr.T wrote:
"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.
If you use Wireless in rural areas as suggested....
So is spending $50B for schools.They you are going to have a school either having one wireless
connection shared across all PC's or all PC's with their own
wireless. The cost of all the Wireless stations would be more than a Fibre link or the speed of each PC will be that
of a Dial-up Modem.
Both of these is Looney tunes.
Even tiny little one teacher schools, and there are fuck all of those now,Unless each of these schools only have ONE PC, and that is also Nuts.
No thanks, Telecom fucked that up the last time we were stupid enough to go that route.On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 08:09:40 +1000, Mr.T wrote:
"terryc" <newsninespam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:i5o042$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?
Well, it would certainly be cheaper than they are forced to pay now
for decent broadband, however, I am assured that there are cheaper
ways than that. Bottom line is that the backhaul should be in public
ownership as an equity service and to provide a "level playing field"
for competitive delivery of services.
You never ever could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.Rod Speed wrote
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
That is not very different to what those in the citys pay.
That is a meaningless statement.
Just another desperate attempt by you to bullshit your way outor lag.
There is no lag with other than satellite and most of that 10% dont use satellite.
Another meaningless statment to hide a goal post shift.
Nope, he is saying you lied.On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 08:08:15 +1000, Mr.T wrote:
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?
So you are suggesting that NBN fees would be a standard monthly
connection fee, aka sewerage/electricty/water service access fee, plus
another fee charged by the NBN to the ISP for data carried, which the
ISP allows for in their data plans?
We seem to have some price creep here up from $43B to $50B, anyway isn'tkeithr wrote
And the taxpayers should subsidise all that, WHY exactly?
Work out who it is that will be using these services. And the answer is - (Tada) Taxpayers!
Doesnt mean that the taxpayers should be spending anything like $50B extra.
Its always been a suspiciously precise number, particularly whenRod Speed wrote
keithr wrote
And the taxpayers should subsidise all that, WHY exactly?
Work out who it is that will be using these services. And the answer is - (Tada) Taxpayers!
Doesnt mean that the taxpayers should be spending anything like $50B extra.
We seem to have some price creep here up from $43B to $50B,
Where the hell is the other half coming from ?anyway isn't the theory that the taxpayer will only pick up half the bill?
keithr wrote
Rod Speed wrote
keithr wrote
And the taxpayers should subsidise all that, WHY exactly?
Work out who it is that will be using these services. And the answer is - (Tada) Taxpayers!
Doesnt mean that the taxpayers should be spending anything like $50B extra.
We seem to have some price creep here up from $43B to $50B,
Its always been a suspiciously precise number, particularly when
its some of the most important figures were never know when it
was specified, like how much Telstra would be paid, whether the
entire copper pair system would be scrapped so consumers wont
have any choice on whether they use the NBN if they want a fixed
line service, what price end users will be charged etc. And EVERY
SINGLE ONE of those govt of clowns major projects has cost
a lot more than was originally claimed, most obviously with the
home insulation scheme, the schools building program, the
green loans and green power schemes.
anyway isn't the theory that the taxpayer will only pick up half the bill?
Where the hell is the other half coming from ?
Nope, quite a bit of it comes from those who pay no federal income tax.Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
keithr wrote
Rod Speed wrote
keithr wrote
And the taxpayers should subsidise all that, WHY exactly?
Work out who it is that will be using these services. And the
answer is - (Tada) Taxpayers!
Doesnt mean that the taxpayers should be spending anything like $50B extra.
We seem to have some price creep here up from $43B to $50B,
Its always been a suspiciously precise number, particularly when
its some of the most important figures were never know when it
was specified, like how much Telstra would be paid, whether the
entire copper pair system would be scrapped so consumers wont
have any choice on whether they use the NBN if they want a fixed
line service, what price end users will be charged etc. And EVERY
SINGLE ONE of those govt of clowns major projects has cost
a lot more than was originally claimed, most obviously with the
home insulation scheme, the schools building program, the
green loans and green power schemes.
anyway isn't the theory that the taxpayer will only pick up half the bill?
Where the hell is the other half coming from ?
In the end, it ALL comes from the taxpayer,
You aint established that there will necessarily be higher broadband prices,or from higher broadband prices
Thats just plain wrong, its a tiny part of the cost of whatwhich end up in a small way contributing to higher wages and prices
Those whose entire income is welfare dont pay for it.which we all get stiffed with one way or another.
They dont have to do that if they can get Telstra to agree to flog them the copper pair network.Short of them doing something like physically seizing and nationalising Telstra
Not even possible legally.or anyone else with a network with no compensation to the shareholders
What I said in a lot more words.and using their network it isnt going to come from anywhere else.
When I lived in Newcastle NBN3 was a tv station, am I missing somethingOn 3/09/2010 3:23 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
keithr wrote
And the taxpayers should subsidise all that, WHY exactly?
Work out who it is that will be using these services. And the answer
is - (Tada) Taxpayers!
Doesnt mean that the taxpayers should be spending anything like $50B
extra.
We seem to have some price creep here up from $43B to $50B, anyway isn't
the theory that the taxpayer will only pick up half the bill?
NO, the answer is only SOME taxpayers.And the taxpayers should subsidise all that, WHY exactly?
Work out who it is that will be using these services. And the answer is
- (Tada) Taxpayers!
ONLY IF you ignore the taxes needed to pay the $43Billion. That's theAnd spending another $43Billion will reduce the cost, HOW exactly?
Well, it would certainly be cheaper than they are forced to pay now for
decent broadband,
Not quite the full story. The private sector would simply cherry pick the"keithr" <keith@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
news:4c803ecf@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
And the taxpayers should subsidise all that, WHY exactly?
Work out who it is that will be using these services. And the answer is
- (Tada) Taxpayers!
NO, the answer is only SOME taxpayers. In any case if exactly the same
people were paying, AND they actually wanted to pay, then private
industry would get on with the job WITHOUT any need for government to be
involved.
which cross subsidies?The whole NBN is about providing the same cross subsidies that were
considered wrong when Telstra was 100% government owned.
more wrong when left to private enterprise IMO.
MrT.
There arent necessarily any taxes needed to pay for that, most obviouslyterryc <newsninespam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote
And spending another $43Billion will reduce the cost, HOW exactly?
Well, it would certainly be cheaper than they are forced to pay now for decent broadband,
ONLY IF you ignore the taxes needed to pay the $43Billion.
Not necessarily, particularly if they get much of that $43B back when they flog off the NBN.That's the trouble with governments, it's all about shifting costs around
Its MUCH more complicated than that mindless conspiracy theory.to make it impossible to work out how much anything REALLY costs us.