Opinion: Mr Turnbull, you need to do the numbers

S

Surfer

Guest
Opinion: Mr Turnbull, you need to do the numbers
Trevor Clarke (Computerworld)
09 August, 2010
http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/356221/opinion_mr_turnbull_need_do_numbers/


Malcolm Turnbull’s recent claim that Australians will not want a
100Mbps connection, as offered under Labor's National Broadband
Network, ignores the entire history of our access to the Internet and
is recklessly misleading.

And for a man who prides himself on his business acumen and record he
should be ashamed. Opposing the Federal Government’s National
Broadband Network (NBN) plan is one thing, but misleading the public –
intentionally or not – on the infrastructure that is supposed to
support our economy for close to the next 50 years is unforgivable.

Why do I say this is misleading? In the past few days the former
Coalition and Liberal leader told a Sydney audience that there was no
demand among households and small businesses for 100Mbps connection
speeds.

“The reality is, there simply isn’t demand at the household and every
small business level for Internet at that speed, at a price which
would make it even remotely financially viable,” Turnbull told a forum
he convened in Sydney today (Monday August 9) to discuss Labor’s
mandatory ISP-level Internet filter policy.

He continued to say the market for universal 100Mbps fibre Internet
was not there – but there was explosive demand for wireless broadband
– at which point he held up his Apple iPad device, on which he had
been Twittering during the forum proceedings.

(Notably, Joe Hockey also pulled out an iPad to make a point recently
too - is this a deliberate tactic?)

“This requires a very different sort of architecture,” Turnbull said
of wireless broadband, while also claiming the market would provide
the services consumers wanted.

Don’t seem like very controversial statements do they?

Yet, regardless of the debate over whether you think the government
should invest in telecommunications infrastructure or if the “market”
should be left to its own devices, Turnbull’s comments on speed and
wireless are short-sighted and don’t stack up when you look at the
empirical evidence. They also ignore the fact the NBN is not just for
consumers, as Computerworld Australia has pointed out previously.

Domestically, the best source of empirical evidence for Internet usage
is the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) and since the agency
started its Internet Activity Survey in 2000, Australians have
increasingly demanded faster and faster speeds.

The following – which Computerworld has outlined previously - paints
the real picture:

The December quarter, 2000, ABS Internet Activity Survey included the
following findings:

* We had 3.9 million Internet subscribers in total (3.4 million were households, the rest business and government)
* We downloaded an average of 286MB per month overall (1050 million megabytes in total). Households averaged 171MB while business and government subscribers managed an average of 912MB per month.
* 3.7 million Internet users, or 97 per cent of the total, had a 56Kbps dial up connection. The ABS did not have statistics for those using DSL at the time, but noted there were less than 40 ISPs (out of more than 600) providing the technology.

Going forward three years to the survey for the September quarter in
2003, the ABS found:

* A total of 5.2 million subscribers (with household subscribers accounting for 4.5 million of those).
* We downloaded and average of 901MB per month overall (for a total of 4665 million megabytes). Households averaged 739MB per month while business and government subscribers averaged 1963MB.
* The number of subscribers by download speed of access connection was collected for the first time. Using its broadband definition to include any connection of equal to or greater speed than 256Kbps, the ABS found there were 657,000 subscribers fitting this description at the end of September 2003.
* In the September quarter the number of dial up subscribers fell by two per cent to take the proportion of subscribers using this technology below 90 per cent for the first time to 4,522,000.
* In the same quarter, DSL subscribers grew by 78 per cent to 372,000; just over four per cent of total subscribers.
* Over three quarters of business and government subscribers (total of 696,000) received less than 256kbps. Only one per cent had a connection faster than 2Mbps.

The ABS Internet Activity Survey for the September 2006 quarter
published the following results:

* There were 6.65 million Internet subscribers (5.83 million were households).
* We downloaded an average 5435.79MB per month (for a total of 36,148 million megabytes). Households averaged 5045.45MB per month while business and government subscribers averaged 8210.96MB.
* Non-dial up subscribers accounted for 33,931 million megabytes of the total downloaded amount of data.
* Dial-up subscribers totalled 2.75 million, while non-dial up rose to 3.91 million.
* DSL was the dominant access technology with 2.99 million subscribers.
* Wireless began showing growth with 186,000 subscribers.
* 19 per cent of the total 820,000 business and government subscribers had a connection speed of 1.5Mbps or greater,
* 17 per cent of household subscribers (978,000) had a connection speed of 1.5Mbps or greater.
*

The most recent survey results were for the December quarter in 2009.
They showed:

* We had 9.1 million Internet subscribers (households accounted for 7,459,000).
* The average amount of data downloaded per month was roughly 14,909MB (for a rough total of 135,674 million megabytes or 135,674 terabytes). The ABS did not differentiate between households and business or government subscribers in this survey.
* Nearly 90 per cent of connections were non-dial up.
* DSL accounted for 51 per cent of connections; decreasing from 57 per cent in June 2009 when it was at 57 per cent, due to a sharp increase in mobile wireless via data card, dongle or USB modem (mobile phone data was not counted). This kind of connection increased to 2.8 million subscribers. Note, however, that the ABS does not collect data on whether these subscribers have both a DSL and wireless connection.
* There were 935,000 cable or fibre subscribers.
* For business and government subscribers the most common connection speed was 1.5Mbps to 8Mbps (913,000) with 42,000 getting 24Mbps or greater.
* For households, the most common connection was 1.5Mbps to 8Mbps (2,281,000), followed by 8Mbps to 24Mbps (1,766,000) and 512Kbps to 1.5Mbps (1,201,000). There were 469,000 connections with an advertised speed of 24Mbps or greater.

The ABS statistics clearly show Australian households and businesses /
government agencies have continued to adopt faster speeds and download
more data at a consistent rate.

The following graphs illustrate this point:
http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/356221/opinion_mr_turnbull_need_do_numbers/

Add to this the fact there is already demand across Japan, Singapore,
South Korea and several places in the US and Europe for even greater
speeds than 100Mbps – in many cases up to 1Gbps for consumers – and it
is patently clear Turnbull’s statements do not represent reality and
if we were to follow his prescription we would be left far behind the
rest of the world. They are also contradicted by pretty much every big
IT and telecommunications company in the world and a vast body of
research on ICT trends.

But what of the wireless demand trend you ask? Again, the statements
from the former Opposition leader are not entirely accurate and here
is an extract from something Computerworld has already published:

“While it has been well-established that we are enamoured by mobile
devices and are likely to continue buying them in the next few years –
added to the marginal decline in desktop sales - it doesn’t
necessarily mean we don’t want a fixed line Internet connection.
Drawing a definitive conclusion that because we like mobile devices we
only want mobile broadband connections is unwise.

“The first reason for this is none of the relevant statistics – which
have already outlined - tell us how many people own more than one kind
of device (both mobile and desk-based). It is very common for
consumers and commercial workers alike to own a smartphone, a laptop
and then also work on a desktop PC either at the office or at home.
Then there's the emerging tablet market – anecdotally, almost all the
iPad owners we have encountered in past months are using it as a
fourth device, rather than a replacement.

“Certainly there will be many variations on ownership and usage trends
– the potential combinations are numerous – but the data still
indicates a significant need for desktop PCs, which to date have only
connected via fixed line services. The ability to use mobile broadband
connections through these devices has increased, whether through
tethering a mobile phone, using a dongle or acquiring a fixed wireless
broadband service like vividwireless. However, there are few
statistics to prove this has become prevalent, particularly in
Australia; in fact, the demise of Unwired proves otherwise for the
urban-based majority of the population.

“The second reason you should be sceptical when people use the mobile
device popularity argument is that there is no evidence to support the
view that mobile devices only connect via mobile broadband
connections. On the contrary, it is reasonable to suppose many mobile
devices still connect to the Internet and download data via fixed-line
services, whether it be:

“

* Via a cable plugged directly into the device;
* Through a docking station on a desk;
* Across a wireless LAN or Wi-Fi connection enabled by a fixed line connection;
* Or via connecting a device such as a smartphone or tablet PC to another device such as a notebook or desktop PC to download files and update software; also known as tethering.

“In short, yes we do love the mobility trend and the exciting new
devices hitting the market but the data shows device preferences are
not a killer argument that can be used by those against a fibre optic
network.”

There is also a strong technological argument as to why wireless as a
technology is not as attractive for a high-speed national network as
fibre because of the consistency of service and upgrade path that the
latter provides. In any case, the existing copper network will need to
be replaced in the not too distant future and wireless networks still
need a significant fibre investment - something the Opposition seem
intent on avoiding discussing.

We’ve said time and time again that the general idea of having a
ubiquitous, scalable FTTP network as the backbone of the digital
economy for the next 50 years is something that really shouldn’t be in
question and that there is no reason the Opposition can’t take the
good elements of the NBN and turn it into a better plan – as the vast
majority of the industry are demanding.

To not do so and instead play politics through the low-level of public
knowledge about ICT and the value it brings to an economy is reckless
and risky.
 
There's nothing in favour of letting the government build a network. The last time that happened, we got the PMG and
then Telecom. Yuck!
 
Neil Gerace wrote:
There's nothing in favour of letting the government build a network.
The last time that happened, we got the PMG and then Telecom. Yuck!
**You have zero clue. Before Telecom was sold off, Australia had one of the
least expensive, most efficient telephone systems in the world. Now we have
competition, quality has slipped.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
 
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 03:34:00 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

Neil Gerace wrote:
There's nothing in favour of letting the government build a network.
The last time that happened, we got the PMG and then Telecom. Yuck!

**You have zero clue. Before Telecom was sold off, Australia had one of the
least expensive, most efficient telephone systems in the world. Now we have
competition, quality has slipped.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au


I worked for the PMG until 1974 as a Radio tech.
The differance then to Telstra today is that the PMG actually had
staff who knew how to do their job.
They knew how the entire network worked and could fix anything that
broke.
Today, Telstra has no people left with any technical expertise.
As for the NBN , most people will use anything the Govt "gives" them.
Whether they need it is another matter.
My next door neighbour is an elderly lady who isnt even on the Net.
Simply doesnt want it as she doesnt own a computer.
 
On 15/08/2010 2:57 AM, Neil Gerace wrote:
There's nothing in favour of letting the government build a network. The
last time that happened, we got the PMG and then Telecom. Yuck!

I wouldn't mind a slightly higher speed , I really want more data and a
price reduction
I do not want the proposed network or the privation again of the
network at anything like the debt level mentioned

--
X-No-Archive: Yes
 
On 15/08/2010 3:34 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Neil Gerace wrote:
There's nothing in favour of letting the government build a network.
The last time that happened, we got the PMG and then Telecom. Yuck!

**You have zero clue. Before Telecom was sold off, Australia had one of the
least expensive, most efficient telephone systems in the world.

Liar , it was predatory and often inefficient in the extreme and was
and to some extent disconnected from peoples wants and needs
Now we have
competition, quality has slipped.
competition has offered alternatives which telstra fails to meet

--
X-No-Archive: Yes
 
Trevor Wilson wrote:
Neil Gerace wrote:
There's nothing in favour of letting the government build a network.
The last time that happened, we got the PMG and then Telecom. Yuck!

**You have zero clue. Before Telecom was sold off, Australia had one of the
least expensive, most efficient telephone systems in the world.
Least expensive because it was one of the least capable.

Now we have
competition, quality has slipped.
That's because the government monopoly, which had 100 years' head start on the rest of the market, couldn't deal with it.
 
atec77 wrote:
On 15/08/2010 3:34 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Neil Gerace wrote:
There's nothing in favour of letting the government build a network.
The last time that happened, we got the PMG and then Telecom. Yuck!

**You have zero clue. Before Telecom was sold off, Australia had one
of the
least expensive, most efficient telephone systems in the world.


Liar , it was predatory and often inefficient in the extreme and was
and to some extent disconnected from peoples wants and needs
Now we have
competition, quality has slipped.
competition has offered alternatives which telstra fails to meet

They forget in the mid eighties, Sixty Minutes had a segment/story about
how it took 18 months for a domestic phone to be connected and it was
illegal to buy any phone and connect it, despite electronics shops
selling phones.

If you had a fax machine and connected it, the phone
line rental cost more purely because it was a fax line. Every phone tech
knew in their hearts it was physically impossible to get higher data
speeds than 2400 baud as the lines didn't have the physical bandwidth.
 
Surfer wrote:

Opinion: Mr Turnbull, you need to do the numbers
Trevor Clarke (Computerworld)
09 August, 2010
http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/356221/opinion_mr_turnbull_nee
d_do_numbers/


Malcolm Turnbull’s recent claim that Australians will not want a
100Mbps connection, as offered under Labor's National Broadband
Network, ignores the entire history of our access to the Internet and
is recklessly misleading.

And for a man who prides himself on his business acumen and record he
should be ashamed. Opposing the Federal Government’s National
Broadband Network (NBN) plan is one thing, but misleading the public –
intentionally or not – on the infrastructure that is supposed to
support our economy for close to the next 50 years is unforgivable.

Why do I say this is misleading? In the past few days the former
Coalition and Liberal leader told a Sydney audience that there was no
demand among households and small businesses for 100Mbps connection
speeds.

“The reality is, there simply isn’t demand at the household and every
small business level for Internet at that speed, at a price which
would make it even remotely financially viable,” Turnbull told a forum
he convened in Sydney today (Monday August 9) to discuss Labor’s
mandatory ISP-level Internet filter policy.

He continued to say the market for universal 100Mbps fibre Internet
was not there – but there was explosive demand for wireless broadband
– at which point he held up his Apple iPad device, on which he had
been Twittering during the forum proceedings.

(Notably, Joe Hockey also pulled out an iPad to make a point recently
too - is this a deliberate tactic?)

“This requires a very different sort of architecture,” Turnbull said
of wireless broadband, while also claiming the market would provide
the services consumers wanted.

Don’t seem like very controversial statements do they?

Yet, regardless of the debate over whether you think the government
should invest in telecommunications infrastructure or if the “market”
should be left to its own devices, Turnbull’s comments on speed and
wireless are short-sighted and don’t stack up when you look at the
empirical evidence. They also ignore the fact the NBN is not just for
consumers, as Computerworld Australia has pointed out previously.

Domestically, the best source of empirical evidence for Internet usage
is the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) and since the agency
started its Internet Activity Survey in 2000, Australians have
increasingly demanded faster and faster speeds.

The following – which Computerworld has outlined previously - paints
the real picture:

The December quarter, 2000, ABS Internet Activity Survey included the
following findings:

* We had 3.9 million Internet subscribers in total (3.4 million
were households, the rest business and government) * We
downloaded an average of 286MB per month overall (1050 million
megabytes in total). Households averaged 171MB while business and
government subscribers managed an average of 912MB per month. *
3.7 million Internet users, or 97 per cent of the total, had a 56Kbps
dial up connection. The ABS did not have statistics for those using
DSL at the time, but noted there were less than 40 ISPs (out of more
than 600) providing the technology.

Going forward three years to the survey for the September quarter in
2003, the ABS found:

* A total of 5.2 million subscribers (with household subscribers
accounting for 4.5 million of those). * We downloaded and
average of 901MB per month overall (for a total of 4665 million
megabytes). Households averaged 739MB per month while business and
government subscribers averaged 1963MB. * The number of
subscribers by download speed of access connection was collected for
the first time. Using its broadband definition to include any
connection of equal to or greater speed than 256Kbps, the ABS found
there were 657,000 subscribers fitting this description at the end of
September 2003. * In the September quarter the number of dial up
subscribers fell by two per cent to take the proportion of
subscribers using this technology below 90 per cent for the first
time to 4,522,000. * In the same quarter, DSL subscribers grew
by 78 per cent to 372,000; just over four per cent of total
subscribers. * Over three quarters of business and government
subscribers (total of 696,000) received less than 256kbps. Only one
per cent had a connection faster than 2Mbps.

The ABS Internet Activity Survey for the September 2006 quarter
published the following results:

* There were 6.65 million Internet subscribers (5.83 million were
households). * We downloaded an average 5435.79MB per month (for
a total of 36,148 million megabytes). Households averaged 5045.45MB
per month while business and government subscribers averaged
8210.96MB. * Non-dial up subscribers accounted for 33,931
million megabytes of the total downloaded amount of data. *
Dial-up subscribers totalled 2.75 million, while non-dial up rose to
3.91 million. * DSL was the dominant access technology with 2.99
million subscribers. * Wireless began showing growth with
186,000 subscribers. * 19 per cent of the total 820,000 business
and government subscribers had a connection speed of 1.5Mbps or
greater, * 17 per cent of household subscribers (978,000) had a
connection speed of 1.5Mbps or greater. *

The most recent survey results were for the December quarter in 2009.
They showed:

* We had 9.1 million Internet subscribers (households accounted
for 7,459,000). * The average amount of data downloaded per
month was roughly 14,909MB (for a rough total of 135,674 million
megabytes or 135,674 terabytes). The ABS did not differentiate
between households and business or government subscribers in this
survey. * Nearly 90 per cent of connections were non-dial up.
* DSL accounted for 51 per cent of connections; decreasing from 57
per cent in June 2009 when it was at 57 per cent, due to a sharp
increase in mobile wireless via data card, dongle or USB modem
(mobile phone data was not counted). This kind of connection
increased to 2.8 million subscribers. Note, however, that the ABS
does not collect data on whether these subscribers have both a DSL
and wireless connection. * There were 935,000 cable or fibre
subscribers. * For business and government subscribers the most
common connection speed was 1.5Mbps to 8Mbps (913,000) with 42,000
getting 24Mbps or greater. * For households, the most common
connection was 1.5Mbps to 8Mbps (2,281,000), followed by 8Mbps to
24Mbps (1,766,000) and 512Kbps to 1.5Mbps (1,201,000). There were
469,000 connections with an advertised speed of 24Mbps or greater.

The ABS statistics clearly show Australian households and businesses /
government agencies have continued to adopt faster speeds and download
more data at a consistent rate.

The following graphs illustrate this point:
http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/356221/opinion_mr_turnbull_nee
d_do_numbers/

Add to this the fact there is already demand across Japan, Singapore,
South Korea and several places in the US and Europe for even greater
speeds than 100Mbps – in many cases up to 1Gbps for consumers – and it
is patently clear Turnbull’s statements do not represent reality and
if we were to follow his prescription we would be left far behind the
rest of the world. They are also contradicted by pretty much every big
IT and telecommunications company in the world and a vast body of
research on ICT trends.

But what of the wireless demand trend you ask? Again, the statements
from the former Opposition leader are not entirely accurate and here
is an extract from something Computerworld has already published:

“While it has been well-established that we are enamoured by mobile
devices and are likely to continue buying them in the next few years –
added to the marginal decline in desktop sales - it doesn’t
necessarily mean we don’t want a fixed line Internet connection.
Drawing a definitive conclusion that because we like mobile devices we
only want mobile broadband connections is unwise.

“The first reason for this is none of the relevant statistics – which
have already outlined - tell us how many people own more than one kind
of device (both mobile and desk-based). It is very common for
consumers and commercial workers alike to own a smartphone, a laptop
and then also work on a desktop PC either at the office or at home.
Then there's the emerging tablet market – anecdotally, almost all the
iPad owners we have encountered in past months are using it as a
fourth device, rather than a replacement.

“Certainly there will be many variations on ownership and usage trends
– the potential combinations are numerous – but the data still
indicates a significant need for desktop PCs, which to date have only
connected via fixed line services. The ability to use mobile broadband
connections through these devices has increased, whether through
tethering a mobile phone, using a dongle or acquiring a fixed wireless
broadband service like vividwireless. However, there are few
statistics to prove this has become prevalent, particularly in
Australia; in fact, the demise of Unwired proves otherwise for the
urban-based majority of the population.

“The second reason you should be sceptical when people use the mobile
device popularity argument is that there is no evidence to support the
view that mobile devices only connect via mobile broadband
connections. On the contrary, it is reasonable to suppose many mobile
devices still connect to the Internet and download data via fixed-line
services, whether it be:

“

* Via a cable plugged directly into the device;
* Through a docking station on a desk;
* Across a wireless LAN or Wi-Fi connection enabled by a fixed
line connection; * Or via connecting a device such as a
smartphone or tablet PC to another device such as a notebook or
desktop PC to download files and update software; also known as
tethering.

“In short, yes we do love the mobility trend and the exciting new
devices hitting the market but the data shows device preferences are
not a killer argument that can be used by those against a fibre optic
network.”

There is also a strong technological argument as to why wireless as a
technology is not as attractive for a high-speed national network as
fibre because of the consistency of service and upgrade path that the
latter provides. In any case, the existing copper network will need to
be replaced in the not too distant future and wireless networks still
need a significant fibre investment - something the Opposition seem
intent on avoiding discussing.

We’ve said time and time again that the general idea of having a
ubiquitous, scalable FTTP network as the backbone of the digital
economy for the next 50 years is something that really shouldn’t be in
question and that there is no reason the Opposition can’t take the
good elements of the NBN and turn it into a better plan – as the vast
majority of the industry are demanding.

To not do so and instead play politics through the low-level of public
knowledge about ICT and the value it brings to an economy is reckless
and risky.
I think Turnbull is pretty savvy regarding the internet.

He was smart enough to set up OzEmail and then sell it for $60 million.

He's streets above the Conroy wantabe.

And yes, the figures show wireless is where (business) people are
heading.

How many small businesses need 100 Mbps? Not that many I suspect. Most
want mobility.

If they need 100 Mbps so badly then how are they operating now?




--
 
Trevor Wilson wrote
Neil Gerace wrote

There's nothing in favour of letting the government build a network.
The last time that happened, we got the PMG and then Telecom. Yuck!

You have zero clue.
We'll see...

Before Telecom was sold off, Australia had one of the least expensive, most efficient telephone systems in the world.
Easy to claim. Pity you cant actually substantiate that claim on price alone.

Now we have competition, quality has slipped.
But the price of calls hasnt. And the quality hasnt slipped much anyway.
 
On Aug 15, 8:53 am, maur...@tpg.com.au (Mauried) wrote:
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 03:34:00 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"

tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
Neil Gerace wrote:
There's nothing in favour of letting the government build a network.
The last time that happened, we got the PMG and then Telecom. Yuck!

**You have zero clue. Before Telecom was sold off, Australia had one of the
least expensive, most efficient telephone systems in the world. Now we have
competition, quality has slipped.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

I worked for the PMG until 1974 as a Radio tech.
The differance then to Telstra today is that the PMG actually had
staff who knew how to do their job.
They knew how the entire network worked and could fix anything that
broke.
Today, Telstra has no people left with any technical expertise.
That is true. I have several friends who had that knowledge and
experience from various
parts of Telstra and PMG. Sadly they are getting near retirement age,
in another 20 years will be gone
and that knowledge will be gone with them.

Telecom seemed to make a big effort to get rid of these people during
the late 1980's through the 1990's.
I don't know why.


As for the NBN , most people will use anything the Govt "gives" them.
Whether they need it is another matter.
My next door neighbour is an elderly lady who isnt even on the Net.
Simply doesnt want it as she doesnt own a computer.

There are still plenty like that. There are still a large number who
still have and only use the basic phone service/features that was
around 30 years back.
 
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 00:57:12 +0800, Neil Gerace wrote:

There's nothing in favour of letting the government build a network. The
last time that happened, we got the PMG and then Telecom. Yuck!
and almost all had a standard cost for a telephone install where ever you
were. Shit hit the fan when the accountants started running the place in
the 70's.
 
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 07:28:15 +0800, Neil Gerace wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:
Neil Gerace wrote:
There's nothing in favour of letting the government build a network.
The last time that happened, we got the PMG and then Telecom. Yuck!

**You have zero clue. Before Telecom was sold off, Australia had one of
the least expensive, most efficient telephone systems in the world.

Least expensive because it was one of the least capable.
Nope, that that describes parts of the USA today.
You want screwed. Look at what happened in the USa when ma bell was
broken up.
>
 
On Aug 15, 2:16 am, Surfer <n...@spam.net> wrote:
Opinion: Mr Turnbull, you need to do the numbers
Trevor Clarke (Computerworld)
09 August, 2010http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/356221/opinion_mr_turnbull_ne...

Malcolm Turnbull’s recent claim that Australians will not want a
100Mbps connection, as offered under Labor's National Broadband
Network, ignores the entire history of our access to the Internet and
is recklessly misleading.

And for a man who prides himself on his business acumen and record he
should be ashamed. Opposing the Federal Government’s National
Broadband Network (NBN) plan is one thing, but misleading the public –
intentionally or not – on the infrastructure that is supposed to
support our economy for close to the next 50 years is unforgivable.

Why do I say this is misleading? In the past few days the former
Coalition and Liberal leader told a Sydney audience that there was no
demand among households and small businesses for 100Mbps connection
speeds.
I doubt that there is a big demand for something that fast, especially
at the sky-high price tag that
will come with it.

For the few businesses that need that speed, they can set up a
dedicated link for them, either wireless or fibre.
No doubt they already have this.

“The reality is, there simply isn’t demand at the household and every
small business level for Internet at that speed, at a price which
would make it even remotely financially viable,” Turnbull told a forum
he convened in Sydney today (Monday August 9) to discuss Labor’s
mandatory ISP-level Internet filter policy.

He continued to say the market for universal 100Mbps fibre Internet
was not there – but there was explosive demand for wireless broadband
– at which point he held up his Apple iPad device, on which he had
been Twittering during the forum proceedings.

(Notably, Joe Hockey also pulled out an iPad to make a point recently
too - is this a deliberate tactic?)
No, its just a fact that whether you like it or not, a growing number
of people do use wireless
internet devices, I pads, I phones (and various clones) are big
sellers.

Many, many more want to but the price for wireless access is not
affordable in this country.
I avoid if purely for that reason, but there are many times it would
be convenient to have it - but not essential.


“This requires a very different sort of architecture,” Turnbull said
of wireless broadband, while also claiming the market would provide
the services consumers wanted.

Don’t seem like very controversial statements do they?

Yet, regardless of the debate over whether you think the government
should invest in telecommunications infrastructure or if the “market”
should be left to its own devices, Turnbull’s comments on speed and
wireless are short-sighted and don’t stack up when you look at the
empirical evidence. They also ignore the fact the NBN is not just for
consumers, as Computerworld Australia has pointed out previously.

Domestically, the best source of empirical evidence for Internet usage
is the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) and since the agency
started its Internet Activity Survey in 2000, Australians have
increasingly demanded faster and faster speeds.

The following – which Computerworld has outlined previously - paints
the real picture:

The December quarter, 2000, ABS Internet Activity Survey included the
following findings:

    * We had 3.9 million Internet subscribers in total (3.4 million were households, the rest business and government)
    * We downloaded an average of 286MB per month overall (1050 million megabytes in total). Households averaged 171MB while business and government subscribers managed an average of 912MB per month.
    * 3.7 million Internet users, or 97 per cent of the total, had a 56Kbps dial up connection. The ABS did not have statistics for those using DSL at the time, but noted there were less than 40 ISPs (out of more than 600) providing the technology.


Going forward three years to the survey for the September quarter in
2003, the ABS found:

    * A total of 5.2 million subscribers (with household subscribers accounting for 4.5 million of those).
    * We downloaded and average of 901MB per month overall (for a total of 4665 million megabytes). Households averaged 739MB per month while business and government subscribers averaged 1963MB.
    * The number of subscribers by download speed of access connection was collected for the first time. Using its broadband definition to include any connection of equal to or greater speed than 256Kbps, the ABS found there were 657,000 subscribers fitting this description at the end of September 2003.
    * In the September quarter the number of dial up subscribers fell by two per cent to take the proportion of subscribers using this technology below 90 per cent for the first time to 4,522,000.
    * In the same quarter, DSL subscribers grew by 78 per cent to 372,000; just over four per cent of total subscribers.
    * Over three quarters of business and government subscribers (total of 696,000) received less than 256kbps. Only one per cent had a connection faster than 2Mbps.

The ABS Internet Activity Survey for the September 2006 quarter
published the following results:

    * There were 6.65 million Internet subscribers (5.83 million were households).
    * We downloaded an average 5435.79MB per month (for a total of 36,148 million megabytes). Households averaged 5045.45MB per month while business and government subscribers averaged 8210.96MB.
    * Non-dial up subscribers accounted for 33,931 million megabytes of the total downloaded amount of data.
    * Dial-up subscribers totalled 2.75 million, while non-dial up rose to 3.91 million.
    * DSL was the dominant access technology with 2.99 million subscribers.
    * Wireless began showing growth with 186,000 subscribers.
    * 19 per cent of the total 820,000 business and government subscribers had a connection speed of 1.5Mbps or greater,
    * 17 per cent of household subscribers (978,000) had a connection speed of 1.5Mbps or greater.
*

The most recent survey results were for the December quarter in 2009.
They showed:

    * We had 9.1 million Internet subscribers (households accounted for 7,459,000).
    * The average amount of data downloaded per month was roughly 14,909MB (for a rough total of 135,674 million megabytes or 135,674 terabytes).. The ABS did not differentiate between households and business or government subscribers in this survey.
    * Nearly 90 per cent of connections were non-dial up.
    * DSL accounted for 51 per cent of connections; decreasing from 57 per cent in June 2009 when it was at 57 per cent, due to a sharp increase in mobile wireless via data card, dongle or USB modem (mobile phone data was not counted). This kind of connection increased to 2.8 million subscribers. Note, however, that the ABS does not collect data on whether these subscribers have both a DSL and wireless connection.
    * There were 935,000 cable or fibre subscribers.
    * For business and government subscribers the most common connection speed was 1.5Mbps to 8Mbps (913,000) with 42,000 getting 24Mbps or greater.
    * For households, the most common connection was 1.5Mbps to 8Mbps (2,281,000), followed by 8Mbps to 24Mbps (1,766,000) and 512Kbps to 1.5Mbps (1,201,000). There were 469,000 connections with an advertised speed of 24Mbps or greater.

The ABS statistics clearly show Australian households and businesses /
government agencies have continued to adopt faster speeds and download
more data at a consistent rate.

The following graphs illustrate this point:http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/356221/opinion_mr_turnbull_ne...

Add to this the fact there is already demand across Japan, Singapore,
South Korea and several places in the US and Europe for even greater
speeds than 100Mbps – in many cases up to 1Gbps for consumers – and it
is patently clear Turnbull’s statements do not represent reality and
if we were to follow his prescription we would be  left far behind the
rest of the world. They are also contradicted by pretty much every big
IT and telecommunications company in the world and a vast body of
research on ICT trends.

But what of the wireless demand trend you ask? Again, the statements
from the former Opposition leader are not entirely accurate and here
is an extract from something Computerworld has already published:

“While it has been well-established that we are enamoured by mobile
devices and are likely to continue buying them in the next few years –
added to the marginal decline in desktop sales - it doesn’t
necessarily mean we don’t want a fixed line Internet connection.
Drawing a definitive conclusion that because we like mobile devices we
only want mobile broadband connections is unwise.

“The first reason for this is none of the relevant statistics – which
have already outlined - tell us how many people own more than one kind
of device (both mobile and desk-based). It is very common for
consumers and commercial workers alike to own a smartphone, a laptop
and then also work on a desktop PC either at the office or at home.
Then there's the emerging tablet market – anecdotally, almost all the
iPad owners we have encountered in past months are using it as a
fourth device, rather than a replacement.

“Certainly there will be many variations on ownership and usage trends
– the potential combinations are numerous – but the data still
indicates a significant need for desktop PCs, which to date have only
connected via fixed line services. The ability to use mobile broadband
connections through these devices has increased, whether through
tethering a mobile phone, using a dongle or acquiring a fixed wireless
broadband service like vividwireless. However, there are few
statistics to prove this has become prevalent, particularly in
Australia; in fact, the demise of Unwired proves otherwise for the
urban-based majority of the population.

“The second reason you should be sceptical when people use the mobile
device popularity argument is that there is no evidence to support the
view that mobile devices only connect via mobile broadband
connections. On the contrary, it is reasonable to suppose many mobile
devices still connect to the Internet and download data via fixed-line
services, whether it be:

“

    * Via a cable plugged directly into the device;
    * Through a docking station on a desk;
    * Across a wireless LAN or Wi-Fi connection enabled by a fixed line connection;
    * Or via connecting a device such as a smartphone or tablet PC to another device such as a
...

read more ť

I would be more concerned about Turnbull support of a carbon tax,
(obviously he has connections to the big banks that are behind the AGW
(Man made carbon based global warming) scam.


On the other side, Labor's Conroy and his net filter makes Labor
unelectable IMHO.
 
On 15/08/2010 2:57 AM, Neil Gerace missed the point:
On 15/08/2010 2:16 AM, Surfer wrote:

Mr Turnbull, you need to do the numbers
Trevor Clarke (Computerworld)
09 August, 2010

http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/356221/opinion_mr_turnbull_need_do_numbers/


Malcolm Turnbull’s recent claim that Australians will not want a
100Mbps connection, as offered under Labor's National Broadband
Network, ignores the entire history of our access to the Internet and
is recklessly misleading.

And for a man who prides himself on his business acumen and record he
should be ashamed. Opposing the Federal Government’s National
Broadband Network (NBN) plan is one thing, but misleading the public –
intentionally or not – on the infrastructure that is supposed to
support our economy for close to the next 50 years is unforgivable.

Why do I say this is misleading? In the past few days the former
Coalition and Liberal leader told a Sydney audience that there was no
demand among households and small businesses for 100Mbps connection
speeds.

“The reality is, there simply isn’t demand at the household
and every small business level for Internet at that speed,
at a price which would make it even remotely financially
viable,” Turnbull told a forum he convened
in Sydney today (Monday August 9) to discuss Labor’s
mandatory ISP-level Internet filter policy.

He continued to say the market for universal 100Mbps fibre Internet
was not there – but there was explosive demand for wireless broadband
– at which point he held up his Apple iPad device, on which he had
been Twittering during the forum proceedings.

(Notably, Joe Hockey also pulled out an iPad to make a point recently
too - is this a deliberate tactic?)

“This requires a very different sort of architecture,” Turnbull said
of wireless broadband, while also claiming the market would provide
the services consumers wanted.

Don’t seem like very controversial statements do they?

Yet, regardless of the debate over whether you think the government
should invest in telecommunications infrastructure or if the “market”
should be left to its own devices, Turnbull’s comments on speed and
wireless are short-sighted and don’t stack up when you look at the
empirical evidence. They also ignore the fact the NBN is not just for
consumers, as Computerworld Australia has pointed out previously.

Domestically, the best source of empirical evidence for
Internet usage is the Australian Bureau of
Statistics (ABS) and since the agency started its
Internet Activity Survey in 2000, Australians have
increasingly demanded faster and faster speeds.

The following – which Computerworld has outlined previously - paints
the real picture:

The December quarter, 2000, ABS Internet Activity Survey included the
following findings:

* We had 3.9 million Internet subscribers in total
(3.4 million were households, the rest business and
government)
* We downloaded an average of 286MB per month overall (1050
million megabytes in total). Households averaged 171MB while
business and government subscribers managed an average of
912MB per month.
* 3.7 million Internet users, or 97 per cent of the total,
had a 56Kbps dial up connection. The ABS did not have
statistics for those using DSL at the time, but noted
there were less than 40 ISPs (out of more than 600)
providing the technology.

Going forward three years to the survey for the September quarter in
2003, the ABS found:

* A total of 5.2 million subscribers (with household
subscribers accounting for 4.5 million of those).
* We downloaded and average of 901MB per month overall
(for a total of 4665 million megabytes). Households
averaged 739MB per month while business and
government subscribers averaged 1963MB.
* The number of subscribers by download speed of
access connection was collected for the first time.
Using its broadband definition to include any
connection of equal to or greater speed than 256Kbps,
the ABS found there were 657,000 subscribers fitting
this description at the end of September 2003.
* In the September quarter the number of dial up
subscribers fell by two per cent to take the proportion
of subscribers using this technology below 90 per cent
for the first time to 4,522,000.
* In the same quarter, DSL subscribers grew by 78 per
cent to 372,000; just over four per cent of total subscribers.
* Over three quarters of business and government subscribers
(total of 696,000) received less than 256kbps. Only one
per cent had a connection faster than 2Mbps.

The ABS Internet Activity Survey for the September 2006 quarter
published the following results:

* There were 6.65 million Internet subscribers (5.83 million
were households).
* We downloaded an average 5435.79MB per month (for a total
of 36,148 million megabytes). Households averaged 5045.45MB
per month while business and government subscribers
averaged 8210.96MB.
* Non-dial up subscribers accounted for 33,931 million
megabytes of the total downloaded amount of data.
* Dial-up subscribers totalled 2.75 million, while
non-dial up rose to 3.91 million.
* DSL was the dominant access technology with 2.99 million
subscribers.
* Wireless began showing growth with 186,000 subscribers.
* 19 per cent of the total 820,000 business and government
subscribers had a connection speed of 1.5Mbps or greater,
* 17 per cent of household subscribers (978,000) had a
connection speed of 1.5Mbps or greater.
*

The most recent survey results were for the December quarter in 2009.
They showed:

* We had 9.1 million Internet subscribers (households accounted
for 7,459,000).
* The average amount of data downloaded per month was roughly
14,909MB (for a rough total of 135,674 million megabytes or
135,674 terabytes). The ABS did not differentiate between
households and business or government subscribers in this
survey.
* Nearly 90 per cent of connections were non-dial up.
* DSL accounted for 51 per cent of connections; decreasing
from 57 per cent in June 2009 when it was at 57 per cent,
due to a sharp increase in mobile wireless via data card,
dongle or USB modem (mobile phone data was not counted).
This kind of connection increased to 2.8 million subscribers.
Note, however, that the ABS does not collect data on whether
these subscribers have both a DSL and wireless connection.
* There were 935,000 cable or fibre subscribers.
* For business and government subscribers the most common
connection speed was 1.5Mbps to 8Mbps (913,000) with 42,000
getting 24Mbps or greater.
* For households, the most common connection was 1.5Mbps to
8Mbps (2,281,000), followed by 8Mbps to 24Mbps (1,766,000)
and 512Kbps to 1.5Mbps (1,201,000). There were 469,000
connections with an advertised speed of 24Mbps or greater.

The ABS statistics clearly show Australian households and
businesses / government agencies have continued to adopt
faster speeds and download more data at a consistent rate.

The following graphs illustrate this point:

http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/356221/opinion_mr_turnbull_need_do_numbers/

Add to this the fact there is already demand across Japan,
Singapore, South Korea and several places in the US and
Europe for even greater speeds than 100Mbps –
in many cases up to 1Gbps for consumers – and it is patently
clear Turnbull’s statements do not represent reality and
if we were to follow his prescription we would be left far
behind the rest of the world. They are also contradicted
by pretty much every big IT and telecommunications company
in the world and a vast body of research on ICT trends.

But what of the wireless demand trend you ask? Again, the statements
from the former Opposition leader are not entirely accurate and here
is an extract from something Computerworld has already published:

“While it has been well-established that we are enamoured by
devices and are likely to continue buying them in the next
few years – added to the marginal decline in desktop sales
- it doesn’t necessarily mean we don’t want a fixed line
Internet connection.
Drawing a definitive conclusion that because we like
mobile devices we only want mobile broadband connections is unwise.

“The first reason for this is none of the relevant statistics
– which have already outlined - tell us how many people
own more than one kind of device (both mobile and desk-based).
It is very common for consumers and commercial
workers alike to own a smartphone, a laptop and then also
work on a desktop PC either at the office or at home.
Then there's the emerging tablet market – anecdotally, almost all the
iPad owners we have encountered in past months are using it as a
fourth device, rather than a replacement.

“Certainly there will be many variations on ownership and
usage trends – the potential combinations are numerous –
but the data still indicates a significant need for
desktop PCs, which to date have only connected via
fixed line services. The ability to use mobile broadband
connections through these devices has increased, whether
through tethering a mobile phone, using a dongle or
acquiring a fixed wireless broadband service
like vividwireless. However, there are few statistics
to prove this has become prevalent, particularly in
Australia; in fact, the demise of Unwired proves otherwise for the
urban-based majority of the population.

“The second reason you should be sceptical when people use
the mobile device popularity argument is that there is
no evidence to support the view that mobile devices
only connect via mobile broadband connections.
On the contrary, it is reasonable to suppose many mobile
devices still connect to the Internet and download data
via fixed-line services, whether it be:

“

* Via a cable plugged directly into the device;
* Through a docking station on a desk;
* Across a wireless LAN or Wi-Fi connection enabled by
a fixed line connection;
* Or via connecting a device such as a smartphone or
tablet PC to
another device such as a notebook or desktop PC to download
files and update software; also known as tethering.

“In short, yes we do love the mobility trend and the exciting new
devices hitting the market but the data shows device preferences are
not a killer argument that can be used by those against a fibre optic
network.”

There is also a strong technological argument as to why wireless as a
technology is not as attractive for a high-speed national network as
fibre because of the consistency of service and upgrade path that the
latter provides. In any case, the existing copper network will need to
be replaced in the not too distant future and wireless networks still
need a significant fibre investment - something the Opposition seem
intent on avoiding discussing.

We’ve said time and time again that the general idea of
having a ubiquitous, scalable FTTP network as the backbone
of the digital economy for the next 50 years is
something that really shouldn’t be in question
and that there is no reason the Opposition can’t take the
good elements of the NBN and turn it into a better plan – as the vast
majority of the industry are demanding.

To not do so and instead play politics through the low-level
of public knowledge about ICT and the value it
brings to an economy is reckless and risky.
Never mind the facts, or a considered argument, lets hear
an opinion from the Market Forces brought you the GFC brigade;


There's nothing in favour of letting the government build a network.
Except one small thing.... THE MARKET DIDN'T DO IT!
aAs with the recent Global Financial Crisis, the MARKET FAILED..
COMPLETELY to provide a solution, and so the government HAD to
STEP IN! 8^o

The option was, let the global economy go to shit in a basket
or.. shock horror.. make a decision as a SOCIETY to take action and
remove the credit freeze.

We chose government action and have the best performing economy in the
Western World.

We made the same smart decision when the Private sector FAILED to
develop a market DEFENCE FORCE, a Market HEALTH and EDUCATION system
a market Fire Brigade (now that was hilarious!) a market RAIL, ROAD and
POWER INFRASTRUCTURE.. ditto for telecommunications.

Now ONCE a massive network was built.. well then a bunch of privatising
parasites were happy to take it over.. and preside
over it's steady decline! B^p

Telstra's Share price, reflecting it's MARKET VALUE just declined
another 6%, taking it DOWN 60% since T2! 8^o

It's a pathetic shell of it's former self, and just got fined
$18,000,000 for UNCOMPETITIVE behaviour... B^D
...OOOOPs ...so much for the market BULLSHIT about how the private
sector = competition! B^D

And THAT is the technical infrastructure Abbott plans to use! B^p

A private MONOPOLY is an inefficient monopoly.. and we have all seen
the DECLINE in service quality and profligate waste since Howard Mk I's
privatisation..

Two broadband cables down my street.. complete DUPLICATION of the
service .. no fast broadband in other Melbourne suburbs.. despite the
CLEAR DEMAND demonstrated over time! That's BILLIONS WASTED by the
Coalition model.. Two administrtation overheads, two cable stringing
teams.. and NO CABLE BROADBAND at all in suburbs ...in CAPITOL
CITIES!!! 8^o

You can guess what it's like in rural and regional Australia..

So ADSL is the common solution.. put your hand up if you have this
weak compromise.. or wireless, more unreliable and slower than
cable broadband, in many areas where it's available.


The last time that happened, we got the PMG and then Telecom.

Because BEFORE that you had BUGGER ALL from the 'Market'! B^]


EXACTLY what Tony Abbott and the coalition propose you live with now!


Our market is just TOO SMALL!! WiFi was created here, but developed and
marketed O/S!

Have you seen the figures for migration from 54Kbps to ADSL, and cable
broadband.. millions of people have voted with their wallet and reject
the idea that the best solution is the LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR at the
Lowest investment the market will make.

If Defence was run that way you would all be speaking Japanese.

Tony Abbott - Steam powered broadband! B^D

http://www.tonyabbottisright.com/DisplayFile.aspx?img=/Posters/Tony_376_02465.jpg&w=880






--

# Subject: What is Abbott thinking?


http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/885/howardmkii.jpg



# Message-ID: <6Gd7o.2832$FH2.708@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>
# Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 00:00:23 +1000
#
# On 7/08/2010 11:10 PM, B J Foster wrote:
# >
# > The key attribute you need in a PM is intelligence
#
# http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4zmwqbBKYY&feature=related
#
# > Jeez, we'll need to be the lucky country if this guy is treasurer:
#
# http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYquo--5tl0




Tony Abbott: "You can’t trust what I say"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uS2V7S7Iv-Y


"Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has admitted
that unless the words coming from his mouth
are scripted, that voters cannot trust him
to tell the truth.

Tony AbbottTony Abbott told The 7.30 Report
last night that he will often say things that
are not ‘absolutely correct’ in the heat of
the moment and these should not be confused
with scripted and considered comments.

“I know politicians are going to be judged
on everything they say, but sometimes in the
heat of discussion you go a little bit further
than you would if it was an absolutely calm,
considered, prepared, scripted remark.

“Which is one of the reasons why the statements
that need to be taken absolutely as gospel truth
are those carefully prepared, scripted remarks.”

“All of us when we are in the heat of verbal combat,
so to speak, will sometimes say things that go a
little bit further,” Mr Abbott said.

Tony Abbott then went on to make ambiguous
references to how people can know whether he
is telling the truth or not, worsening the train
wreck of an interview with Kerry O’Brien.


Phony Tony caught out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc5ljcri6Nk&feature=related



”Mr Abbott has now confirmed you cannot trust
what he says because some things are real and
some things are not real,”

”There are two Tony Abbotts – and you’ll
never know which Tony Abbott is talking,
even in Parliament – the scripted Tony,
or the Tony Abbott swept away by the heat of discussion.”
 
On 15/08/2010 8:53 AM, Mauried wrote:
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 03:34:00 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

Neil Gerace wrote:
There's nothing in favour of letting the government build a network.
The last time that happened, we got the PMG and then Telecom. Yuck!

**You have zero clue. Before Telecom was sold off, Australia had one of the
least expensive, most efficient telephone systems in the world. Now we have
competition, quality has slipped.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au


I worked for the PMG until 1974 as a Radio tech.
The differance then to Telstra today is that the PMG actually had
staff who knew how to do their job.
They knew how the entire network worked and could fix anything that
broke.
Today, Telstra has no people left with any technical expertise.
That's fer sure!

Try and find anyone in that privatised madness who can actually
understand the services they supply, let alone assist with
technical support..


Press 1 for patronising cyberwaffle

Press 2 for another clueless twonk

Press 3 to be routed endlessly between zombies

Press 4 to be placed on hold till the Muzak loop breaks down.

Press 5 for advice on assisted suicide.


As for the NBN , most people will use anything the Govt "gives" them.
Whether they need it is another matter.
My next door neighbour is an elderly lady who isnt even on the Net.
Simply doesn't want it as she doesnt own a computer.
So she's as cyber literate as Tony Abbott!? B^D

Wow, another argument based on the personal experience
of a sample of 1.




--

# Subject: What is Abbott thinking?


http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/885/howardmkii.jpg



# Message-ID: <6Gd7o.2832$FH2.708@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>
# Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 00:00:23 +1000
#
# On 7/08/2010 11:10 PM, B J Foster wrote:
# >
# > The key attribute you need in a PM is intelligence
#
# http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4zmwqbBKYY&feature=related
#
# > Jeez, we'll need to be the lucky country if this guy is treasurer:
#
# http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYquo--5tl0




Tony Abbott: "You can’t trust what I say"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uS2V7S7Iv-Y


"Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has admitted
that unless the words coming from his mouth
are scripted, that voters cannot trust him
to tell the truth.

Tony AbbottTony Abbott told The 7.30 Report
last night that he will often say things that
are not ‘absolutely correct’ in the heat of
the moment and these should not be confused
with scripted and considered comments.

“I know politicians are going to be judged
on everything they say, but sometimes in the
heat of discussion you go a little bit further
than you would if it was an absolutely calm,
considered, prepared, scripted remark.

“Which is one of the reasons why the statements
that need to be taken absolutely as gospel truth
are those carefully prepared, scripted remarks.”

“All of us when we are in the heat of verbal combat,
so to speak, will sometimes say things that go a
little bit further,” Mr Abbott said.

Tony Abbott then went on to make ambiguous
references to how people can know whether he
is telling the truth or not, worsening the train
wreck of an interview with Kerry O’Brien.


Phony Tony caught out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc5ljcri6Nk&feature=related



”Mr Abbott has now confirmed you cannot trust
what he says because some things are real and
some things are not real,”

”There are two Tony Abbotts – and you’ll
never know which Tony Abbott is talking,
even in Parliament – the scripted Tony,
or the Tony Abbott swept away by the heat of discussion.”
 
I caught a glimpse of kreed <kenreed1999@gmail.com> on Sat, 14 Aug 2010
18:10:01 -0700 (PDT), writing in aus.education:

Why do I say this is misleading? In the past few days the former
Coalition and Liberal leader told a Sydney audience that there was no
demand among households and small businesses for 100Mbps connection
speeds.


I doubt that there is a big demand for something that fast, especially
at the sky-high price tag that
will come with it.

For the few businesses that need that speed, they can set up a
dedicated link for them, either wireless or fibre.
No doubt they already have this.
How do businesses go about setting up a dedicated high speed link?
I'm not interested in wireless but would be interested to learn if
private individuals can connect to the same fibre that you say
businesses: "No doubt they already have this"
--

Erik
 
"Neil Gerace" <grassynoel@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:4C67268F.70506@iinet.net.au...
Trevor Wilson wrote:
Neil Gerace wrote:
There's nothing in favour of letting the government build a network.
The last time that happened, we got the PMG and then Telecom. Yuck!

**You have zero clue. Before Telecom was sold off, Australia had one of
the least expensive, most efficient telephone systems in the world.

Least expensive because it was one of the least capable.

Now we have competition, quality has slipped.

That's because the government monopoly, which had 100 years' head start on
the rest of the market, couldn't deal with it.

In the mid 80's IIRC Telecom was the highest tax paying entity in Oz, but we
wont let that get it the way of an opinion will we....
 
On 15/08/2010 9:28 AM, Neil Gerace wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
Neil Gerace wrote:
There's nothing in favour of letting the government build a network.
The last time that happened, we got the PMG and then Telecom. Yuck!

**You have zero clue. Before Telecom was sold off, Australia had one
of the least expensive, most efficient telephone systems in the world.

Least expensive because it was one of the least capable.
What are you talking about.. there was no market alternatives!
Now we have competition, quality has slipped.

That's because the government monopoly, which had 100 years' head start
on the rest of the market, couldn't deal with it.

That makes no sense whatsoever.. the theory of market competition
states that better competitors should displace less effective players,
but as we all know the network is, by definition, a monopoly.

All that happened is that a government monopoly was replaced by a less
effective (measured by the markets OWN valuation) private monopoly,
profit driven, providing, as we have all experienced, SHIT technical
support because it minimises costs AND thus quality!

A friend of mine has a telstra phone which drops out. months
have gone by with no resolution..

When telstra has a problem with it's news server as happened recently,
no-one in their tech support knows what the hell Usenet is!!!!! B^D

Market efficiency? Don't make me laugh.. two broadband cables
down my street .. none a suburb away!

Natural monopolies, defence, fire brigade, police, national
infrastructure just require competent management and great
engineering.. what we get is duplicated Marketing and Sales twonks
selling poorly understood products, and the closure of Telecom's
Clayton Research lab because who the hell needs research! B^p



--

# Subject: What is Abbott thinking?


http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/885/howardmkii.jpg



# Message-ID: <6Gd7o.2832$FH2.708@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>
# Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 00:00:23 +1000
#
# On 7/08/2010 11:10 PM, B J Foster wrote:
# >
# > The key attribute you need in a PM is intelligence
#
# http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4zmwqbBKYY&feature=related
#
# > Jeez, we'll need to be the lucky country if this guy is treasurer:
#
# http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYquo--5tl0




Tony Abbott: "You can’t trust what I say"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uS2V7S7Iv-Y


"Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has admitted
that unless the words coming from his mouth
are scripted, that voters cannot trust him
to tell the truth.

Tony AbbottTony Abbott told The 7.30 Report
last night that he will often say things that
are not ‘absolutely correct’ in the heat of
the moment and these should not be confused
with scripted and considered comments.

“I know politicians are going to be judged
on everything they say, but sometimes in the
heat of discussion you go a little bit further
than you would if it was an absolutely calm,
considered, prepared, scripted remark.

“Which is one of the reasons why the statements
that need to be taken absolutely as gospel truth
are those carefully prepared, scripted remarks.”

“All of us when we are in the heat of verbal combat,
so to speak, will sometimes say things that go a
little bit further,” Mr Abbott said.

Tony Abbott then went on to make ambiguous
references to how people can know whether he
is telling the truth or not, worsening the train
wreck of an interview with Kerry O’Brien.


Phony Tony caught out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc5ljcri6Nk&feature=related



”Mr Abbott has now confirmed you cannot trust
what he says because some things are real and
some things are not real,”

”There are two Tony Abbotts – and you’ll
never know which Tony Abbott is talking,
even in Parliament – the scripted Tony,
or the Tony Abbott swept away by the heat of discussion.”
 
On 15/08/2010 2:57 AM, Neil Gerace missed the point:
On 15/08/2010 2:16 AM, Surfer wrote:

Mr Turnbull, you need to do the numbers
Trevor Clarke (Computerworld)
09 August, 2010

http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/356221/opinion_mr_turnbull_need_do_numbers/


Malcolm Turnbull’s recent claim that Australians will not want a
100Mbps connection, as offered under Labor's National Broadband
Network, ignores the entire history of our access to the Internet and
is recklessly misleading.

And for a man who prides himself on his business acumen and record he
should be ashamed. Opposing the Federal Government’s National
Broadband Network (NBN) plan is one thing, but misleading the public –
intentionally or not – on the infrastructure that is supposed to
support our economy for close to the next 50 years is unforgivable.

Why do I say this is misleading? In the past few days the former
Coalition and Liberal leader told a Sydney audience that there was no
demand among households and small businesses for 100Mbps connection
speeds.

“The reality is, there simply isn’t demand at the household
and every small business level for Internet at that speed,
at a price which would make it even remotely financially
viable,” Turnbull told a forum he convened
in Sydney today (Monday August 9) to discuss Labor’s
mandatory ISP-level Internet filter policy.

He continued to say the market for universal 100Mbps fibre Internet
was not there – but there was explosive demand for wireless broadband
– at which point he held up his Apple iPad device, on which he had
been Twittering during the forum proceedings.

(Notably, Joe Hockey also pulled out an iPad to make a point recently
too - is this a deliberate tactic?)

“This requires a very different sort of architecture,” Turnbull said
of wireless broadband, while also claiming the market would provide
the services consumers wanted.

Don’t seem like very controversial statements do they?

Yet, regardless of the debate over whether you think the government
should invest in telecommunications infrastructure or if the “market”
should be left to its own devices, Turnbull’s comments on speed and
wireless are short-sighted and don’t stack up when you look at the
empirical evidence. They also ignore the fact the NBN is not just for
consumers, as Computerworld Australia has pointed out previously.

Domestically, the best source of empirical evidence for
Internet usage is the Australian Bureau of
Statistics (ABS) and since the agency started its
Internet Activity Survey in 2000, Australians have
increasingly demanded faster and faster speeds.

The following – which Computerworld has outlined previously - paints
the real picture:

The December quarter, 2000, ABS Internet Activity Survey included the
following findings:

* We had 3.9 million Internet subscribers in total
(3.4 million were households, the rest business and
government)
* We downloaded an average of 286MB per month overall (1050
million megabytes in total). Households averaged 171MB while
business and government subscribers managed an average of
912MB per month.
* 3.7 million Internet users, or 97 per cent of the total,
had a 56Kbps dial up connection. The ABS did not have
statistics for those using DSL at the time, but noted
there were less than 40 ISPs (out of more than 600)
providing the technology.

Going forward three years to the survey for the September quarter in
2003, the ABS found:

* A total of 5.2 million subscribers (with household
subscribers accounting for 4.5 million of those).
* We downloaded and average of 901MB per month overall
(for a total of 4665 million megabytes). Households
averaged 739MB per month while business and
government subscribers averaged 1963MB.
* The number of subscribers by download speed of
access connection was collected for the first time.
Using its broadband definition to include any
connection of equal to or greater speed than 256Kbps,
the ABS found there were 657,000 subscribers fitting
this description at the end of September 2003.
* In the September quarter the number of dial up
subscribers fell by two per cent to take the proportion
of subscribers using this technology below 90 per cent
for the first time to 4,522,000.
* In the same quarter, DSL subscribers grew by 78 per
cent to 372,000; just over four per cent of total subscribers.
* Over three quarters of business and government subscribers
(total of 696,000) received less than 256kbps. Only one
per cent had a connection faster than 2Mbps.

The ABS Internet Activity Survey for the September 2006 quarter
published the following results:

* There were 6.65 million Internet subscribers (5.83 million
were households).
* We downloaded an average 5435.79MB per month (for a total
of 36,148 million megabytes). Households averaged 5045.45MB
per month while business and government subscribers
averaged 8210.96MB.
* Non-dial up subscribers accounted for 33,931 million
megabytes of the total downloaded amount of data.
* Dial-up subscribers totalled 2.75 million, while
non-dial up rose to 3.91 million.
* DSL was the dominant access technology with 2.99 million
subscribers.
* Wireless began showing growth with 186,000 subscribers.
* 19 per cent of the total 820,000 business and government
subscribers had a connection speed of 1.5Mbps or greater,
* 17 per cent of household subscribers (978,000) had a
connection speed of 1.5Mbps or greater.
*

The most recent survey results were for the December quarter in 2009.
They showed:

* We had 9.1 million Internet subscribers (households accounted
for 7,459,000).
* The average amount of data downloaded per month was roughly
14,909MB (for a rough total of 135,674 million megabytes or
135,674 terabytes). The ABS did not differentiate between
households and business or government subscribers in this
survey.
* Nearly 90 per cent of connections were non-dial up.
* DSL accounted for 51 per cent of connections; decreasing
from 57 per cent in June 2009 when it was at 57 per cent,
due to a sharp increase in mobile wireless via data card,
dongle or USB modem (mobile phone data was not counted).
This kind of connection increased to 2.8 million subscribers.
Note, however, that the ABS does not collect data on whether
these subscribers have both a DSL and wireless connection.
* There were 935,000 cable or fibre subscribers.
* For business and government subscribers the most common
connection speed was 1.5Mbps to 8Mbps (913,000) with 42,000
getting 24Mbps or greater.
* For households, the most common connection was 1.5Mbps to
8Mbps (2,281,000), followed by 8Mbps to 24Mbps (1,766,000)
and 512Kbps to 1.5Mbps (1,201,000). There were 469,000
connections with an advertised speed of 24Mbps or greater.

The ABS statistics clearly show Australian households and
businesses / government agencies have continued to adopt
faster speeds and download more data at a consistent rate.

The following graphs illustrate this point:

http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/356221/opinion_mr_turnbull_need_do_numbers/

Add to this the fact there is already demand across Japan,
Singapore, South Korea and several places in the US and
Europe for even greater speeds than 100Mbps –
in many cases up to 1Gbps for consumers – and it is patently
clear Turnbull’s statements do not represent reality and
if we were to follow his prescription we would be left far
behind the rest of the world. They are also contradicted
by pretty much every big IT and telecommunications company
in the world and a vast body of research on ICT trends.

But what of the wireless demand trend you ask? Again, the statements
from the former Opposition leader are not entirely accurate and here
is an extract from something Computerworld has already published:

“While it has been well-established that we are enamoured by
devices and are likely to continue buying them in the next
few years – added to the marginal decline in desktop sales
- it doesn’t necessarily mean we don’t want a fixed line
Internet connection.
Drawing a definitive conclusion that because we like
mobile devices we only want mobile broadband connections is unwise.

“The first reason for this is none of the relevant statistics
– which have already outlined - tell us how many people
own more than one kind of device (both mobile and desk-based).
It is very common for consumers and commercial
workers alike to own a smartphone, a laptop and then also
work on a desktop PC either at the office or at home.
Then there's the emerging tablet market – anecdotally, almost all the
iPad owners we have encountered in past months are using it as a
fourth device, rather than a replacement.

“Certainly there will be many variations on ownership and
usage trends – the potential combinations are numerous –
but the data still indicates a significant need for
desktop PCs, which to date have only connected via
fixed line services. The ability to use mobile broadband
connections through these devices has increased, whether
through tethering a mobile phone, using a dongle or
acquiring a fixed wireless broadband service
like vividwireless. However, there are few statistics
to prove this has become prevalent, particularly in
Australia; in fact, the demise of Unwired proves otherwise for the
urban-based majority of the population.

“The second reason you should be sceptical when people use
the mobile device popularity argument is that there is
no evidence to support the view that mobile devices
only connect via mobile broadband connections.
On the contrary, it is reasonable to suppose many mobile
devices still connect to the Internet and download data
via fixed-line services, whether it be:

“

* Via a cable plugged directly into the device;
* Through a docking station on a desk;
* Across a wireless LAN or Wi-Fi connection enabled by
a fixed line connection;
* Or via connecting a device such as a smartphone or
tablet PC to
another device such as a notebook or desktop PC to download
files and update software; also known as tethering.

“In short, yes we do love the mobility trend and the exciting new
devices hitting the market but the data shows device preferences are
not a killer argument that can be used by those against a fibre optic
network.”

There is also a strong technological argument as to why wireless as a
technology is not as attractive for a high-speed national network as
fibre because of the consistency of service and upgrade path that the
latter provides. In any case, the existing copper network will need to
be replaced in the not too distant future and wireless networks still
need a significant fibre investment - something the Opposition seem
intent on avoiding discussing.

We’ve said time and time again that the general idea of
having a ubiquitous, scalable FTTP network as the backbone
of the digital economy for the next 50 years is
something that really shouldn’t be in question
and that there is no reason the Opposition can’t take the
good elements of the NBN and turn it into a better plan – as the vast
majority of the industry are demanding.

To not do so and instead play politics through the low-level
of public knowledge about ICT and the value it
brings to an economy is reckless and risky.
Never mind the facts, or a considered argument, lets hear
an opinion from the Market-Forces-who-brought-you-the-GFC brigade;


There's nothing in favour of letting the government build a network.
Except one small thing.... THE MARKET DIDN'T DO IT! 8^o

Just like it never provided POWER, or water, roads, defence,
police, fire brigade or all the other ESSENTIAL SERVICES..

Interesting reflection on what's IMPORTANT in that name.

Fer fucks sake, when will people get over how cheap plastic novelty
skins for mobile phones have become!? pffffffft!

As with the recent Global Financial Crisis, the MARKET FAILED..
COMPLETELY to provide a solution, and so the government HAD to
STEP IN! 8^o

The option was, let the global economy go to shit in a basket
or.. shock horror.. make a decision as a SOCIETY to take action and
remove the credit freeze.

We chose government action and have the best performing economy in the
Western World.

We made the same smart decision when the Private Sector FAILED to
develop a market DEFENCE FORCE, a Market HEALTH and EDUCATION system
a market Fire Brigade (now that was hilarious!) a market RAIL, ROAD and
POWER INFRASTRUCTURE.. ditto for telecommunications.

Now ONCE a massive network was built.. well then a bunch of privatising
parasites were happy to take it over.. and preside
over it's steady decline! B^p

Telstra's Share price, reflecting it's MARKET VALUE just declined
another 6%, taking it DOWN 60% since T2! 8^o

It's a pathetic shell of it's former self, and just got fined
$18,000,000 for UNCOMPETITIVE behaviour... B^D
...OOOOPs ...so much for the market BULLSHIT about how the private
sector = competition! B^D

And THAT is the outdated infrastructure Abbott plans to use! B^p

What is his malfunction?? Wants to give his Telstra shares a leg up? B^D

A private MONOPOLY is an inefficient monopoly.. and we have all seen
the DECLINE in service quality and profligate waste since Howard Mk I's
privatisation..

Two broadband cables down my street.. complete DUPLICATION of the
service .. no fast broadband in other Melbourne suburbs.. despite the
CLEAR DEMAND demonstrated over time! That's BILLIONS WASTED by the
Coalition model.. Two administrtation overheads, two cable stringing
teams.. and NO CABLE BROADBAND at all in suburbs ...in CAPITOL
CITIES!!! 8^o

You can guess what it's like in rural and regional Australia..

So ADSL is the common solution.. put your hand up if you have this
weak compromise.. or wireless, more unreliable and slower than
cable broadband, in many areas where it's available.


The last time that happened, we got the PMG and then Telecom.

Because BEFORE that you had BUGGER ALL from the 'Market'! B^]


EXACTLY what Tony Abbott and the coalition propose you live with now!


Our market is just TOO SMALL!! WiFi was created here, but developed and
marketed O/S!

Have you seen the figures for migration from 54Kbps to ADSL, and cable
broadband.. millions of people have voted with their wallet and reject
the idea that the best solution is the LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR at the
Lowest investment the market will make.

If Defence was run that way you would all be speaking Japanese.

Tony Abbott - Steam powered broadband! B^D

http://www.tonyabbottisright.com/DisplayFile.aspx?img=/Posters/Tony_376_02465.jpg&w=880




--

# Subject: What is Abbott thinking?


http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/885/howardmkii.jpg



# Message-ID: <6Gd7o.2832$FH2.708@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>
# Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 00:00:23 +1000
#
# On 7/08/2010 11:10 PM, B J Foster wrote:
# >
# > The key attribute you need in a PM is intelligence
#
# http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4zmwqbBKYY&feature=related
#
# > Jeez, we'll need to be the lucky country if this guy is treasurer:
#
# http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYquo--5tl0




Tony Abbott: "You can’t trust what I say"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uS2V7S7Iv-Y


"Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has admitted
that unless the words coming from his mouth
are scripted, that voters cannot trust him
to tell the truth.

Tony AbbottTony Abbott told The 7.30 Report
last night that he will often say things that
are not ‘absolutely correct’ in the heat of
the moment and these should not be confused
with scripted and considered comments.

“I know politicians are going to be judged
on everything they say, but sometimes in the
heat of discussion you go a little bit further
than you would if it was an absolutely calm,
considered, prepared, scripted remark.

“Which is one of the reasons why the statements
that need to be taken absolutely as gospel truth
are those carefully prepared, scripted remarks.”

“All of us when we are in the heat of verbal combat,
so to speak, will sometimes say things that go a
little bit further,” Mr Abbott said.

Tony Abbott then went on to make ambiguous
references to how people can know whether he
is telling the truth or not, worsening the train
wreck of an interview with Kerry O’Brien.


Phony Tony caught out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc5ljcri6Nk&feature=related



”Mr Abbott has now confirmed you cannot trust
what he says because some things are real and
some things are not real,”

”There are two Tony Abbotts – and you’ll
never know which Tony Abbott is talking,
even in Parliament – the scripted Tony,
or the Tony Abbott swept away by the heat of discussion.”
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top