Singapore - Infrastructure -1Gbps fibre NBN

[annily]

Tom wrote:

On 20/08/2010 11:31 AM, annily wrote:
......
Why? It fulfils a need for higher speeds than will ever be possible
over copper (and probably wireless too).


Why do you need such speed in Au, the (possibly) only country that have
monthly download/upload limits? Do you want to be able to use your
monthly allowance in an hour or two?

Tom

I don't want the extra speed at all, but some people will. What makes
you think that quotas won't increase to match the speed?

--
Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia,
which probably influences my opinions.

 

[Rod Speed]

Tom wrote

annily wrote

Why? It fulfils a need for higher speeds than will ever be possible over copper (and probably wireless too).

Why do you need such speed in Au, the (possibly) only country that have monthly download/upload limits?

Its nothing like the only country with monthly volume limits.

And there are some truly unlimited plans too.

Do you want to be able to use your monthly allowance in an hour or two?

Some do. They prefer to get what they want seconds after they decide they want it.

 

[B J Foster]

annily wrote:

B J Foster wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Aug 18, 11:17 pm, B J Foster <bjfos...@yahoo.co.invalid> wrote:
Don McKenzie wrote:
...

Option #5, Phoneline. Who still has phonelines? Isn't this last-century
technology.


Pretty much everyone still has phone lines. I can't think of anyone I
know who doesn't have a home phone on copper lines.

I read somewhere in the context of Telstra's financial results, that
a large percentage of Australians (early adopters) had *no* *fixed*
*line* phone service - they had gone completely mobile.


And probably an even larger percentage does have a fixed line.

Early adopters set the trend. Early adopters are going fully wireless.

In that context, it's stupid to build *another* fixed line solution.

It is pointless and wasteful to build FTTP where ADSL exists.

Why? It fulfils a need for higher speeds than will ever be possible over
copper (and probably wireless too).

 

[B J Foster]

Rod Speed wrote:

Rob wrote
B J Foster wrote
kreed wrote
B J Foster <bjfos...@yahoo.co.invalid> wrote
Don McKenzie wrote

Option #5, Phoneline. Who still has phonelines? Isn't this last-century technology.

Pretty much everyone still has phone lines. I can't think of anyone
I know who doesn't have a home phone on copper lines.

I read somewhere in the context of Telstra's financial results, that
a large percentage of Australians (early adopters) had *no* *fixed*
*line* phone service - they had gone completely mobile.

Yep Ill agree with that - several of my friends (the y and older
generations thats 80yrs old.) are mobile and wireless BB only.

Its still a much smaller minority than those who have a fixed line.

When the Model-T Ford first rolled off a production line, the majority
of people were still using public transport.

If a Labor government had been in charge they would have built
high-speed train lines which would have stood idle only a few years later.

Not only will the silly NBN not meet our needs, but it is also the most
expensive solution. Why not do the "last mile" with wireless?

$43 billion will stimulate a lot of economic activity in the sector, but
it will be wasted. As a voter, I'd prefer if they'd expand coal-handling
facilities. It's a no-brainer.

The simple fact of the matter is that Labor and Conroy have no ideas
other than to spend, spend and spend - and then 3 years later, they
start looking for ways to tax. "Oh, we're running out of money. Oh, what
can we tax?". Bloody morons.

Conclusion: The NBN is a white-elephant

Agree

 

[B J Foster]

Rod Speed wrote:

B J Foster wrote
kreed wrote
B J Foster <bjfos...@yahoo.co.invalid> wrote
Don McKenzie wrote

Option #5, Phoneline. Who still has phonelines? Isn't this last-century technology.

Pretty much everyone still has phone lines. I can't think of anyone I know who doesn't have a home phone on copper
lines.

I read somewhere in the context of Telstra's financial results, that
a large percentage of Australians (early adopters) had *no* *fixed*
*line* phone service - they had gone completely mobile.

Just because some fool claims something, doesnt make it gospel.

There are certainly some who have gone completely mobile,

Go look up "early adopter" in te dictionary and then come and discuss it.

most obviously those with capped mobile plans that are now
very common, who effectively dont pay any marginal cost for
an extra call, and those who share accomodation or move quite
a bit etc, but thats got nothing to do with 'early adopters' since
fuck all dont have a mobile anymore.

Labor is building a white elephant.

Doesnt meant that everyone who uses mobiles for voice use it for net access, stupid.

The NBN aint a white elephant, just a very expensive way to improve fixed line broadband.

Considering that data transmission rates like now would have been at the highest levels of science fiction when
copper phone lines were first put into use, they have turned out to be an incredibly
resilient system, when you look at the data speeds via ADSL
that these "ancient" lines can provide even now, on top of their
traditional use as a telephone line.

For that matter electricity, and literally thousands of inventions we use everyday and rely on are "last century
technology"

It is pointless and wasteful to build FTTP where ADSL exists.

Nope, the speeds are much faster than anything ADSL can do.

If broadband was such a point of difference then it would be an important factor in buying a home. It isn't.

Because almost all houses have decent broadband available now.

Labor are just wasting our grandchildren's taxes

You dont know that and they wouldnt be doing that if they spent
part of what was obtained by flogging off Telstra on the NBN.

and spending our retirement savings on a white elephant.

Another pig ignorant lie.

Conclusion: The NBN is a white-elephant

Agree

 

[dechucka]

"B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:i4mpov$bbe$1@bjf.motzarella.org...

Rod Speed wrote:
Rob wrote
B J Foster wrote
kreed wrote
B J Foster <bjfos...@yahoo.co.invalid> wrote
Don McKenzie wrote

Option #5, Phoneline. Who still has phonelines? Isn't this
last-century technology.

Pretty much everyone still has phone lines. I can't think of anyone
I know who doesn't have a home phone on copper lines.

I read somewhere in the context of Telstra's financial results, that
a large percentage of Australians (early adopters) had *no* *fixed*
*line* phone service - they had gone completely mobile.

Yep Ill agree with that - several of my friends (the y and older
generations thats 80yrs old.) are mobile and wireless BB only.

Its still a much smaller minority than those who have a fixed line.

When the Model-T Ford first rolled off a production line, the majority of
people were still using public transport.

If a Labor government had been in charge they would have built high-speed
train lines which would have stood idle only a few years later.

like all those high speed rail links around the world are?

 

[B J Foster]

dechucka wrote:

"B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:i4mpov$bbe$1@bjf.motzarella.org...
Rod Speed wrote:
Rob wrote
B J Foster wrote
kreed wrote
B J Foster <bjfos...@yahoo.co.invalid> wrote
Don McKenzie wrote

Option #5, Phoneline. Who still has phonelines? Isn't this
last-century technology.

Pretty much everyone still has phone lines. I can't think of anyone
I know who doesn't have a home phone on copper lines.

I read somewhere in the context of Telstra's financial results, that
a large percentage of Australians (early adopters) had *no* *fixed*
*line* phone service - they had gone completely mobile.

Yep Ill agree with that - several of my friends (the y and older
generations thats 80yrs old.) are mobile and wireless BB only.

Its still a much smaller minority than those who have a fixed line.

When the Model-T Ford first rolled off a production line, the majority
of people were still using public transport.

If a Labor government had been in charge they would have built
high-speed train lines which would have stood idle only a few years
later.

like all those high speed rail links around the world are?

Those are inter-city links. Fibre is *absolutely* the right technology
for inter-city links. Do try to think next time before you post.

The NBN will not meet our needs for mobility and fibre is the most
expensive conceivable solution for the "last mile". Wireless is just to
obvious for egotistical emotional Labor idiots to contemplate.

$43 billion spent on a fibre last mile will be wasted. Why are they not
expanding coal-handling facilities? It's a no-brainer.

Labor has no ideas other than to spend, spend and spend.

Vote out the stuck-up arrogant fools before we go bankrupt. Conroy last
on the Vic senate paper.

 

[dechucka]

"B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:i4mslc$7jg$1@bjf.motzarella.org...

dechucka wrote:

"B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:i4mpov$bbe$1@bjf.motzarella.org...
Rod Speed wrote:
Rob wrote
B J Foster wrote
kreed wrote
B J Foster <bjfos...@yahoo.co.invalid> wrote
Don McKenzie wrote

Option #5, Phoneline. Who still has phonelines? Isn't this
last-century technology.

Pretty much everyone still has phone lines. I can't think of anyone
I know who doesn't have a home phone on copper lines.

I read somewhere in the context of Telstra's financial results, that
a large percentage of Australians (early adopters) had *no* *fixed*
*line* phone service - they had gone completely mobile.

Yep Ill agree with that - several of my friends (the y and older
generations thats 80yrs old.) are mobile and wireless BB only.

Its still a much smaller minority than those who have a fixed line.

When the Model-T Ford first rolled off a production line, the majority
of people were still using public transport.

If a Labor government had been in charge they would have built
high-speed train lines which would have stood idle only a few years
later.

like all those high speed rail links around the world are?

Those are inter-city links. Fibre is *absolutely* the right technology for
inter-city links. Do try to think next time before you post.

You used an analogy which was just plain stupid

 

[B J Foster]

dechucka wrote:

"B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:i4mslc$7jg$1@bjf.motzarella.org...
dechucka wrote:

"B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:i4mpov$bbe$1@bjf.motzarella.org...
Rod Speed wrote:
Rob wrote
B J Foster wrote
kreed wrote
B J Foster <bjfos...@yahoo.co.invalid> wrote
Don McKenzie wrote

Option #5, Phoneline. Who still has phonelines? Isn't this
last-century technology.

Pretty much everyone still has phone lines. I can't think of anyone
I know who doesn't have a home phone on copper lines.

I read somewhere in the context of Telstra's financial results, that
a large percentage of Australians (early adopters) had *no* *fixed*
*line* phone service - they had gone completely mobile.

Yep Ill agree with that - several of my friends (the y and older
generations thats 80yrs old.) are mobile and wireless BB only.

Its still a much smaller minority than those who have a fixed line.

When the Model-T Ford first rolled off a production line, the
majority of people were still using public transport.

If a Labor government had been in charge they would have built
high-speed train lines which would have stood idle only a few years
later.

like all those high speed rail links around the world are?

Those are inter-city links. Fibre is *absolutely* the right technology
for inter-city links. Do try to think next time before you post.

You used an analogy which was just plain stupid

Rubbish. Fibre is perfect for inter-city and undersea links, it is
stupid for the "last mile". Get that? Stupid. Did I mention that using
fibre to build faster fixed-line solution is stupid? Using fibre to
build a faster fixed-line solution is stupid. Just like running a
high-speed train to your door. Got it? Stupid!


Fibre is the most expensive conceivable solution for the "last mile".
Only Labor idiots would overlook the obvious: Wireless is cheap and you
get none of this:
http://annsgarden.com/poles/JP0-Hooper3.jpg


Instead of spending $43 billion on a white-elephant, why not spend a
mere $800 million on expanding port facilities? It's a no-brainer.

Labor idiots.

Vote Conroy last on the Vic senate paper.

 

[dechucka]

"B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:i4n09d$aqk$1@bjf.motzarella.org...

dechucka wrote:

"B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:i4mslc$7jg$1@bjf.motzarella.org...
dechucka wrote:

"B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:i4mpov$bbe$1@bjf.motzarella.org...
Rod Speed wrote:
Rob wrote
B J Foster wrote
kreed wrote
B J Foster <bjfos...@yahoo.co.invalid> wrote
Don McKenzie wrote

Option #5, Phoneline. Who still has phonelines? Isn't this
last-century technology.

Pretty much everyone still has phone lines. I can't think of
anyone
I know who doesn't have a home phone on copper lines.

I read somewhere in the context of Telstra's financial results,
that
a large percentage of Australians (early adopters) had *no* *fixed*
*line* phone service - they had gone completely mobile.

Yep Ill agree with that - several of my friends (the y and older
generations thats 80yrs old.) are mobile and wireless BB only.

Its still a much smaller minority than those who have a fixed line.

When the Model-T Ford first rolled off a production line, the majority
of people were still using public transport.

If a Labor government had been in charge they would have built
high-speed train lines which would have stood idle only a few years
later.

like all those high speed rail links around the world are?

Those are inter-city links. Fibre is *absolutely* the right technology
for inter-city links. Do try to think next time before you post.

You used an analogy which was just plain stupid

Rubbish. Fibre is perfect for inter-city and undersea links, it is stupid
for the "last mile". Get that? Stupid. Did I mention that using fibre to
build faster fixed-line solution is stupid? Using fibre to build a faster
fixed-line solution is stupid. Just like running a high-speed train to
your door. Got it? Stupid!

Actually it's a good idea

 

[B J Foster]

dechucka wrote:

"B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:i4n09d$aqk$1@bjf.motzarella.org...
dechucka wrote:

"B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:i4mslc$7jg$1@bjf.motzarella.org...
dechucka wrote:

"B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:i4mpov$bbe$1@bjf.motzarella.org...
Rod Speed wrote:
Rob wrote
B J Foster wrote
kreed wrote
B J Foster <bjfos...@yahoo.co.invalid> wrote
Don McKenzie wrote

Option #5, Phoneline. Who still has phonelines? Isn't this
last-century technology.

Pretty much everyone still has phone lines. I can't think of
anyone
I know who doesn't have a home phone on copper lines.

I read somewhere in the context of Telstra's financial results,
that
a large percentage of Australians (early adopters) had *no*
*fixed*
*line* phone service - they had gone completely mobile.

Yep Ill agree with that - several of my friends (the y and older
generations thats 80yrs old.) are mobile and wireless BB only.

Its still a much smaller minority than those who have a fixed line.

When the Model-T Ford first rolled off a production line, the
majority of people were still using public transport.

If a Labor government had been in charge they would have built
high-speed train lines which would have stood idle only a few
years later.

like all those high speed rail links around the world are?

Those are inter-city links. Fibre is *absolutely* the right
technology for inter-city links. Do try to think next time before
you post.

You used an analogy which was just plain stupid

Rubbish. Fibre is perfect for inter-city and undersea links, it is
stupid for the "last mile". Get that? Stupid. Did I mention that using
fibre to build faster fixed-line solution is stupid? Using fibre to
build a faster fixed-line solution is stupid. Just like running a
high-speed train to your door. Got it? Stupid!

Actually it's a good idea

Actually it's dumb and ugly and stupid:
http://annsgarden.com/poles/JP0-Hooper3.jpg

 

[dechucka]

"B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:i4n3qu$890$4@bjf.motzarella.org...

dechucka wrote:

"B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:i4n09d$aqk$1@bjf.motzarella.org...
dechucka wrote:

"B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:i4mslc$7jg$1@bjf.motzarella.org...
dechucka wrote:

"B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:i4mpov$bbe$1@bjf.motzarella.org...
Rod Speed wrote:
Rob wrote
B J Foster wrote
kreed wrote
B J Foster <bjfos...@yahoo.co.invalid> wrote
Don McKenzie wrote

Option #5, Phoneline. Who still has phonelines? Isn't this
last-century technology.

Pretty much everyone still has phone lines. I can't think of
anyone
I know who doesn't have a home phone on copper lines.

I read somewhere in the context of Telstra's financial results,
that
a large percentage of Australians (early adopters) had *no*
*fixed*
*line* phone service - they had gone completely mobile.

Yep Ill agree with that - several of my friends (the y and older
generations thats 80yrs old.) are mobile and wireless BB only.

Its still a much smaller minority than those who have a fixed line.

When the Model-T Ford first rolled off a production line, the
majority of people were still using public transport.

If a Labor government had been in charge they would have built
high-speed train lines which would have stood idle only a few years
later.

like all those high speed rail links around the world are?

Those are inter-city links. Fibre is *absolutely* the right technology
for inter-city links. Do try to think next time before you post.

You used an analogy which was just plain stupid

Rubbish. Fibre is perfect for inter-city and undersea links, it is
stupid for the "last mile". Get that? Stupid. Did I mention that using
fibre to build faster fixed-line solution is stupid? Using fibre to
build a faster fixed-line solution is stupid. Just like running a
high-speed train to your door. Got it? Stupid!

Actually it's a good idea

Actually it's dumb and ugly and stupid:
http://annsgarden.com/poles/JP0-Hooper3.jpg

It's a good idea and now aesthetics seems to be your major problem. All that
stuff should have been underground years ago but some government without
vision took the cheap ugly option.

 

[B J Foster]

dechucka wrote:

"B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:i4n3qu$890$4@bjf.motzarella.org...
dechucka wrote:

....

Actually it's dumb and ugly and stupid:
http://annsgarden.com/poles/JP0-Hooper3.jpg

It's a good idea and now aesthetics seems to be your major problem. All
that stuff should have been underground years ago but some government
without vision took the cheap ugly option.

Labor will take the cheap ugly option when they are 100% overbudget and
100% late. They will *force* us to put up with ugly pole-based fibres
using the Telecommunications Act.

I already have this shit in my street:
http://annsgarden.com/poles/JP0-Hooper3.jpg

Because the Hawke Labor government allowed Telstra and Optus to save
money this way.

Wireless is cheap, easy, quick and simple.

Any Greenie who votes for Labor needs to have their brain examined.

 

[dechucka]

"B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:i4n722$cjq$1@bjf.motzarella.org...

dechucka wrote:

"B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:i4n3qu$890$4@bjf.motzarella.org...
dechucka wrote:

...

Actually it's dumb and ugly and stupid:
http://annsgarden.com/poles/JP0-Hooper3.jpg

It's a good idea and now aesthetics seems to be your major problem. All
that stuff should have been underground years ago but some government
without vision took the cheap ugly option.

Labor will take the cheap ugly option when they are 100% overbudget and
100% late. They will *force* us to put up with ugly pole-based fibres
using the Telecommunications Act.

I already have this shit in my street:
http://annsgarden.com/poles/JP0-Hooper3.jpg

Than a little bit more won't matter

Because the Hawke Labor government allowed Telstra and Optus to save money
this way.

That's private enterprise for you taking the cheap ugly way. Abbot's going
to use private enterprise isn't he?

Wireless is cheap, easy, quick and simple.

Who is promising wireless?

Any Greenie who votes for Labor needs to have their brain examined.

Yeah they could vote for the Liberals

 

[Arm's Length]

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 20:46:41 +1000
Tom <tom@no.spam.invalid> wrote:

On 20/08/2010 11:31 AM, annily wrote:
......
Why? It fulfils a need for higher speeds than will ever be possible
over copper (and probably wireless too).


Why do you need such speed in Au, the (possibly) only country that
have monthly download/upload limits? Do you want to be able to use
your monthly allowance in an hour or two?

With all due respect, such as you are stating in your response is
simplistic reasoning at the best. Whilst I concur with your expressed
sentiments that Australia has a highly restrictive upload/download
limit, nonetheless to argue that higher speed is not needed or
desirable is dubious and based on partial considerations as to the
reasons behind a person's need for speed.

As a matter of fact, the logical conclusion of your argument is that
there was no need to go from horses or the horse and carriage because
in the end we would still get to our destination and cars are too
expensive to be viable. Needs facilitates a divergence from the well
trodden and worn roads and byways of the past.

Your need and your viewpoint are tired to you as an individual in a
veritable sea of individuals and, therefore, are not necessarily
applicable to another in the outplaying of their life. Your argument,
then, is self-defeating and not at all as cogent as it may appear at a
prima facie rendering.

It would be better, I admit, if Australian businesses and
governments were not so greedy and miserly. No rational person would
deny such a presentment. But the argument for the need for speed cannot
be limited to such an argument and bound to it as an absolutism.
personally, I would like to see the movement of this nation along the
lines of not such a fettered system for the end-user pertaining to
download/upload limits and a leap undertaken in the development of
super-fast broadband. the two could conceivably go hand-in-hand. Not
that it likely to, because Australian business as its governments are
extraordinarily greedy entities. There is no harm in dreaming, albeit
tied to a realistic realism.

Your response is similar in kind to the age-old viewpoint of the
invalidity in your mind of someone else's needs and wishes, as
legitimate as they may be, when they do not conform to yours.

I, similar to others, would like to download and upload faster to save
time whenever time is something that has to be considered. Not all of
us are fortunate to have all the time on our hands and are in a life
situation to take our time in downloading or doing whatsoever is our
fancy within the time-frames we may have to work with in our lives.
Some of us even share the Internet connection with family member,
friends or in share accommodation. All of this, alongside other
factors, enter into the equation. In other words, your needs are not
necessarily another person's needs. Each one's needs are legitimate,
irrespective of the opinions of those who may be totally and solely
immersed in their own limited viewpoint. Some people really do need to
open up to the rest of the world to realise that the world is not tied
to their preferences. It is only by doing so that a refreshingly
enlarged perspective of life is gained.

It never ceases to amaze me that some people cannot see that we are all
individuals with individual needs. It's rather a simple fact of life,
but one that is persistently overlooked by a certain type of person
who would have the whole world the same as they are without any
deviation from the artificial mental construct. There is a certain
mentality in some people that refuses to get or to hold onto the
concept of individual choice motivated from individual needs. These
people are they who try with all their might to convince others that
they are not needful of that which they have decided to undertake or
the stance they hold is wrong. Primarily, such a detractor and
paramount negator of individuality refuses to get beyond themselves,
thinking as they do that everyone should think and do as they. The life
principle of individuality is an anathema to them.

It's similar in many respects to other aspects of computing. Many
times there is more than one way to do a thing, but some people would
have everyone do whatever it is, at all times, the way that they
personally do it. I have often-times encountered such people and
they are indeed a proverbial pain in the posterior. We should often
take the time to remember that the concept of preference always enters
into the equation, for preference is in many instances a personal
thing. It is forsooth a choice we make as an individual. Preference and
individualism are two terms of which are intimately related in the
life of sentient beings such as genus homo of Terra.

Are you going to argue against the need for speed of light space travel
just because you personally see no point to it? the same reasoning
applies to bandwidth and speed constraints of the Internet experience.

 

[Arm's Length]

On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 06:38:00 +1000
B J Foster <bjfoster@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:

In that context, it's stupid to build *another* fixed line solution.

The premise of your argument is fundamentally flawed. I, as a
consequence of this glaring flaw, unreservedly dispute your argument as
it stands in its contextual devaluing of progress as an essential
constituent of a thriving national life. Let us as a nation not
languish in mediocrity, as Australia so often is want to do to its
unparalleled detriment. Technologies beyond your ken and that of the
paltry intelligence of humans in the present generation and
undoubtedly far into the future, just as the emerging technologies, will
require a far more robust and less restrictive system to be practical
and workable.

Inasmuch as human practicality is wanting, so too is human
comprehension hampered by the all too familiar human mentality, not
to forget its manifestly dull wit, to which there never seems to be an
end at humanity's posturing using incredulous arguments of which
support the ineffective and drastically restrictive plan as their
magnum opus or finest offering. Familiarity, it could be said, breeds
contempt in the minds of humans as they espouse the familiar against
the unfamiliar and new. To not put too fine a point on it, disparate
contingencies tend to screw systems up insofar as their full capacity
goes. Compromise, in accordance with the principle of cause and effect,
develops a compromising facility. Contrary, then, to human conjecture,
money isn't everything.

The current fixed-line of copper can be rightly considered now as an
old technological construct and is not sufficient to society's needs in
the future, even though it appears to be sufficient for you
personally in the immediate present. Your perceived needs are not
necessarily the same as another's needs. Copper lines are incapable,
notwithstanding the tinkering thus far indulged in by humanity in the
development of DSL broadband as a veritable hack of the
outworn technology, of far higher capacities than such technologies as
optical fibre can offer in the ongoing development of the
technological side of human societal evolution. As I cogently argued in
a previous comment to the newsgroup, using poignant arguments and
examples, times and needs change. Technologies change, and society,
ipso facto, needs to change accordingly. At some point in time, then,
an alternative fixed-line development will have to be looked at,
proposed and summarily instituted. Change is a natural component of
life. In many respects, its the monetary system and the monetary-type
consciousness that holds humanity back.

Wireless is an option as an alternative choice for those who would take
it up for whatever reason they of themselves deem necessary or are
forced to accept through circumstances outside of their immediate
control, but wireless networking speed is currently constrained to the
capability of modern wireless technology and can be problematic insofar
as intermittent reception is concerned and the impact on it by related
and unrelated technologies. The latter problem can be detrimental to
certain usages. Now, please do not misinterpret me, for I value wireless
networking and more often than not utilise the technology myself, but
that usage is usually wireless connecting to a router-broadband modem
that is itself connected through a fixed-line service. The great
electrical engineer Nikola Tesla, of whom I greatly admire,
experimented with wireless technologies and even proposed the wireless
transmission of electricity, so it cannot be said of me that I am a
one-pointed thinker. Nonetheless, wireless is merely one of several
options of which can be considered by governments and businesses but
not as the sole option that is foisted on the whole community.

Considering your line of thinking, though, it would be similar to
saying it is pointless for a society to develop a monorail like Sydney
has (albeit a restricted development) because they already have the
rail, buses and ferries. Sometimes technologies and systems compliment
each other as a choice in society and have the positive effect of
creating a broadly-based societal offering.

Returning to high-speed broadband, though, I wouldn't like to see
wireless developed as the sole means or the primary means of a
solution to the high-speed broadband debate. Even as, I don't
hesitate in saying, I wouldn't like to see the development of a partial
endeavour that compromises truly high-speed broadband offered in
Australia as the only way to go. Optical fibre and copper wire don't
mix well in what is ostensibly a hybrid system. One has of necessity to
be careful in hybridising, as coupling two different technologies can
have and will have in this instance a negative impact on the capability
of the system. It is the same in the science of genetics, hybridisation
has to be carefully done to avoid potential incompatibilities,
limitations and problems of which could be experienced by the hybrid to
its distinct disadvantage and suffering. Copper wire technology can be
pushed only so far before we begin to hit its limits. Then, I assure
and warn you, it often-times requires a then necessarily enforced
reassessment of the situation and having to fork out more money in the
future to layout the infrastructure that should have been done in
accordance with the then capabilities in the first place.

Hybridisation is not all about negatives, as there are legitimate
scenarios for it to be effectively, efficiently and intelligently used.
With networks, though, hybridisation can be detrimental to the full
experience of the potential network capability. It all depends on the
type and extent of hybridisation. Optical fibre coupled to the
so-called last mile of a copper-based network cannot and will not
achieve the capability of a pure optical fibre to the house network.
That the antiquated technologies leading off the optical fibre to the
computer-related equipment can also have an undeniable restricting
impact on the network experience is itself true, but there is always
the possibility to minimise the impact if the pocketbook is sufficient
to the cause and the will of the person is likewise sufficient to
overcome some of the last barriers to the speed and bandwidth problem.

To briefly pursue the notion of an acceptable hybridisation I would
like to add, I have an expensive at the time netbook on which I have
installed as a dual booting system a specialised Linux netbook OS
called Jolicloud that is a hybrid OS taking advantage of native
software alongside cloud computing. To have an entirely cloud-based
computing environment could be a disadvantage, especially from the
standpoint of not always being connected to the Net. A hybridisation of
the system in this instance is practical.

Returning to the gist of this posting. Sometimes going down the track of
the initially less expensive route ends up being the most expensive
route for a society to take down the timeline. Economic rationalism
doesn't always work as its promoters assume it to in every scenario or
undertaking, this is a lesson that should have been learned by humanity
a long time ago but obviously hasn't in respect to a vast majority of
humanity. Ostentatious waste is one thing, but miserliness while
viewing it as a rational form of economic rationalisation is something
completely different. As I stated elsewhere, if humanity is so
concerned about financial matters as to deprive society of the benefits
of what could be done with modern science and technology, then humanity
would be far better off without a monetary system in its societal
construct. Nothing could be more plain for those with the eyes to see
in a eyes-wide-open contextual representation of life. As I have voiced
in a foregoing paragraph, money isn't everything. It is, I realise,
difficult to get this point sufficiently appreciated by the majority of
humanity of whom are immersed in human concepts to the extent that they
are blinkered in their perspective.

Those who hold to the expense of fibre optic technology rarely if ever
consider the limitations of a hybrid system sufficiently enough in the
weight of their argument, always reference the present as against the
future needs and offer no fundamentally different and diverging
alternative to problem solving than the demeaning generalisations,
refutations and inconsistencies in their adopted stance. Logic is
unknown to them. The fundamental errors in reasoning are adopted by
them and continuously spewed out into the community as purported
salient points of overwhelming importance and interest. I assure you,
without any possibility of being rationally refuted, that
extraterrestrials with advanced knowledge and capabilities would not
compromise on their systems as humans like to do. For one thing and a
very important point it is too that humans could take advantage of,
they do not have a monetary system. But humans will continue in their
desire to continue their existence of the monetary system and all of
its encumbrances to society, the individual and life per se as it is
experienced by humans no matter the consequences or what anyone says to
elevate humanity beyond its limited thinking.

As a phreaker and member of 2600 Australia, I assuredly comprehend the
subtleties of adhering to a compromised version of what amounts to a
dysfunctional network and the never-ending road of continual patching
of old and outworn technological as well as the hybridisation of the
same. Multiple bottlenecks precipitate into the human experience
multiple and abiding problems. The array of problems that can
be encountered is astounding and astronomical in its scope.

The patchwork quilt is, as its name implies, comprised of patches.
there is no denying that a patchwork quilt can be beautiful, alluring
and functional. A patchwork network is an entity, so to speak, of a
very different nature indeed. Disparate contingencies tend to the
temporary and unworkable in networking.

Pursuant to the money theme in this debate, I hear no cry from the NBN
naysayers about the government expenditure amounting to multi-millions
of taxpayer's dollars a pop on professional sport. In a tight economic
climate it seems that funding professional sports to the tune of
multi-millions of dollars each time is acceptable to the community,
even as it seems to be acceptable to the government, all manner of
politicians, the media as well as all and sundry. That the total cost
of the NBN can be minimised without compromising the system's
capabilities is a point also that is often overlooked, a point I've
already considered somewhat in a previous posting to the newsgroup
pertaining to the NBN. Common sense is frequently lost on humans and
society suffers for it. The multi-millions of dollars spent on
professional sport could go to fund the essential and fund-repressed
services and infrastructure throughout the nation or the
state-territory concerned. Australia nigh on always cries poor for
essential services and infrastructure but thinks nothing of pouring
multi-millions of dollars into professional sport. This, even in a
small economy as for instance Tasmania has, is the prevailing paradigm
or the mindset of the politicians, governments, business, academics and
the non-thinking citizenry. Sport to them means everything, the
standard of life of the citizenry means nothing. Modern sport is not
truly sport anyway, for it's really a business of which passes for
sport. The one-track mindedness of humans is truly deplorable to see.

All in all, humans are stubborn in their refusal to extend their
thought world beyond the purely human conception of life as they see it
should be and must remain, in diametric opposition to that which it
could be if only they would make a reasonable effort to consider. If
anything, humans systems are miserably ineffectual and repressive
through an unnatural restrictiveness opposed to real intelligence.
Humans are in the main sticks-in-the-mud, as it were. And as such, they
are more or less unwilling to bend in being flexible through an
appropriate dexterity. Their purported logic displays similar traits.

 

[annily]

On 21-08-10 06:08, B J Foster wrote:

annily wrote:
B J Foster wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Aug 18, 11:17 pm, B J Foster <bjfos...@yahoo.co.invalid> wrote:
Don McKenzie wrote:
...

Option #5, Phoneline. Who still has phonelines? Isn't this
last-century
technology.


Pretty much everyone still has phone lines. I can't think of anyone I
know who doesn't have a home phone on copper lines.

I read somewhere in the context of Telstra's financial results, that
a large percentage of Australians (early adopters) had *no* *fixed*
*line* phone service - they had gone completely mobile.


And probably an even larger percentage does have a fixed line.


Early adopters set the trend. Early adopters are going fully wireless.

There will still be plenty of people who don't want wireless, regardless
of trends.

--
Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia,
which probably influences my opinions.

 

[B J Foster]

dechucka wrote:

"B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:i4n722$cjq$1@bjf.motzarella.org...
dechucka wrote:
....

Labor will take the cheap ugly option when they are 100% overbudget
and 100% late. They will *force* us to put up with ugly pole-based
fibres using the Telecommunications Act.

I already have this shit in my street:
http://annsgarden.com/poles/JP0-Hooper3.jpg

Than a little bit more won't matter

Labor's spending policy in a nutshell:
'We're already broke, so spending more won't matter'

 

[B J Foster]

Arm's Length wrote:

On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 06:38:00 +1000
B J Foster <bjfoster@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:

In that context, it's stupid to build *another* fixed line solution.

The premise of your argument is fundamentally flawed. I, as a
consequence of this glaring flaw, unreservedly dispute your argument as
it stands in its contextual devaluing of progress as an essential
constituent of a thriving national life.

Spare me the garbage. I already have a cable connection. Why would I
want to pay for your silly NBN?

I have been paying for the cable for 15 years. You must be a Labor
supporter.

Let us as a nation not
languish in mediocrity, as Australia so often is want to do to its
unparalleled detriment. Technologies beyond your ken and that of the
paltry intelligence of humans in the present generation and
undoubtedly far into the future, just as the emerging technologies, will
require a far more robust and less restrictive system to be practical
and workable.

Blah blah blah. Where is the business case?

Inasmuch as human practicality is wanting, so too is human
comprehension hampered by the all too familiar human mentality, not
to forget its manifestly dull wit, to which there never seems to be an
end at humanity's posturing using incredulous arguments of which
support the ineffective and drastically restrictive plan as their
magnum opus or finest offering. Familiarity, it could be said, breeds
contempt in the minds of humans as they espouse the familiar against
the unfamiliar and new. To not put too fine a point on it, disparate
contingencies tend to screw systems up insofar as their full capacity
goes. Compromise, in accordance with the principle of cause and effect,
develops a compromising facility. Contrary, then, to human conjecture,
money isn't everything.

The current fixed-line of copper can be rightly considered now as an
old technological construct and is not sufficient to society's needs in
the future, even though it appears to be sufficient for you
personally in the immediate present. Your perceived needs are not
necessarily the same as another's needs. Copper lines are incapable,
notwithstanding the tinkering thus far indulged in by humanity in the
development of DSL broadband as a veritable hack of the
outworn technology, of far higher capacities than such technologies as
optical fibre can offer in the ongoing development of the
technological side of human societal evolution. As I cogently argued in
a previous comment to the newsgroup, using poignant arguments and
examples, times and needs change. Technologies change, and society,
ipso facto, needs to change accordingly. At some point in time, then,
an alternative fixed-line development will have to be looked at,
proposed and summarily instituted. Change is a natural component of
life. In many respects, its the monetary system and the monetary-type
consciousness that holds humanity back.

Wireless is an option as an alternative choice for those who would take
it up for whatever reason they of themselves deem necessary or are
forced to accept through circumstances outside of their immediate
control, but wireless networking speed is currently constrained to the
capability of modern wireless technology and can be problematic insofar
as intermittent reception is concerned and the impact on it by related
and unrelated technologies. The latter problem can be detrimental to
certain usages. Now, please do not misinterpret me, for I value wireless
networking and more often than not utilise the technology myself, but
that usage is usually wireless connecting to a router-broadband modem
that is itself connected through a fixed-line service. The great
electrical engineer Nikola Tesla, of whom I greatly admire,
experimented with wireless technologies and even proposed the wireless
transmission of electricity, so it cannot be said of me that I am a
one-pointed thinker. Nonetheless, wireless is merely one of several
options of which can be considered by governments and businesses but
not as the sole option that is foisted on the whole community.

Considering your line of thinking, though, it would be similar to
saying it is pointless for a society to develop a monorail like Sydney
has (albeit a restricted development) because they already have the
rail, buses and ferries. Sometimes technologies and systems compliment
each other as a choice in society and have the positive effect of
creating a broadly-based societal offering.

Returning to high-speed broadband, though, I wouldn't like to see
wireless developed as the sole means or the primary means of a
solution to the high-speed broadband debate. Even as, I don't
hesitate in saying, I wouldn't like to see the development of a partial
endeavour that compromises truly high-speed broadband offered in
Australia as the only way to go. Optical fibre and copper wire don't
mix well in what is ostensibly a hybrid system. One has of necessity to
be careful in hybridising, as coupling two different technologies can
have and will have in this instance a negative impact on the capability
of the system. It is the same in the science of genetics, hybridisation
has to be carefully done to avoid potential incompatibilities,
limitations and problems of which could be experienced by the hybrid to
its distinct disadvantage and suffering. Copper wire technology can be
pushed only so far before we begin to hit its limits. Then, I assure
and warn you, it often-times requires a then necessarily enforced
reassessment of the situation and having to fork out more money in the
future to layout the infrastructure that should have been done in
accordance with the then capabilities in the first place.

Hybridisation is not all about negatives, as there are legitimate
scenarios for it to be effectively, efficiently and intelligently used.
With networks, though, hybridisation can be detrimental to the full
experience of the potential network capability. It all depends on the
type and extent of hybridisation. Optical fibre coupled to the
so-called last mile of a copper-based network cannot and will not
achieve the capability of a pure optical fibre to the house network.
That the antiquated technologies leading off the optical fibre to the
computer-related equipment can also have an undeniable restricting
impact on the network experience is itself true, but there is always
the possibility to minimise the impact if the pocketbook is sufficient
to the cause and the will of the person is likewise sufficient to
overcome some of the last barriers to the speed and bandwidth problem.

To briefly pursue the notion of an acceptable hybridisation I would
like to add, I have an expensive at the time netbook on which I have
installed as a dual booting system a specialised Linux netbook OS
called Jolicloud that is a hybrid OS taking advantage of native
software alongside cloud computing. To have an entirely cloud-based
computing environment could be a disadvantage, especially from the
standpoint of not always being connected to the Net. A hybridisation of
the system in this instance is practical.

Returning to the gist of this posting. Sometimes going down the track of
the initially less expensive route ends up being the most expensive
route for a society to take down the timeline. Economic rationalism
doesn't always work as its promoters assume it to in every scenario or
undertaking, this is a lesson that should have been learned by humanity
a long time ago but obviously hasn't in respect to a vast majority of
humanity. Ostentatious waste is one thing, but miserliness while
viewing it as a rational form of economic rationalisation is something
completely different. As I stated elsewhere, if humanity is so
concerned about financial matters as to deprive society of the benefits
of what could be done with modern science and technology, then humanity
would be far better off without a monetary system in its societal
construct. Nothing could be more plain for those with the eyes to see
in a eyes-wide-open contextual representation of life. As I have voiced
in a foregoing paragraph, money isn't everything. It is, I realise,
difficult to get this point sufficiently appreciated by the majority of
humanity of whom are immersed in human concepts to the extent that they
are blinkered in their perspective.

Those who hold to the expense of fibre optic technology rarely if ever
consider the limitations of a hybrid system sufficiently enough in the
weight of their argument, always reference the present as against the
future needs and offer no fundamentally different and diverging
alternative to problem solving than the demeaning generalisations,
refutations and inconsistencies in their adopted stance. Logic is
unknown to them. The fundamental errors in reasoning are adopted by
them and continuously spewed out into the community as purported
salient points of overwhelming importance and interest. I assure you,
without any possibility of being rationally refuted, that
extraterrestrials with advanced knowledge and capabilities would not
compromise on their systems as humans like to do. For one thing and a
very important point it is too that humans could take advantage of,
they do not have a monetary system. But humans will continue in their
desire to continue their existence of the monetary system and all of
its encumbrances to society, the individual and life per se as it is
experienced by humans no matter the consequences or what anyone says to
elevate humanity beyond its limited thinking.

As a phreaker and member of 2600 Australia, I assuredly comprehend the
subtleties of adhering to a compromised version of what amounts to a
dysfunctional network and the never-ending road of continual patching
of old and outworn technological as well as the hybridisation of the
same. Multiple bottlenecks precipitate into the human experience
multiple and abiding problems. The array of problems that can
be encountered is astounding and astronomical in its scope.

The patchwork quilt is, as its name implies, comprised of patches.
there is no denying that a patchwork quilt can be beautiful, alluring
and functional. A patchwork network is an entity, so to speak, of a
very different nature indeed. Disparate contingencies tend to the
temporary and unworkable in networking.

Pursuant to the money theme in this debate, I hear no cry from the NBN
naysayers about the government expenditure amounting to multi-millions
of taxpayer's dollars a pop on professional sport. In a tight economic
climate it seems that funding professional sports to the tune of
multi-millions of dollars each time is acceptable to the community,
even as it seems to be acceptable to the government, all manner of
politicians, the media as well as all and sundry. That the total cost
of the NBN can be minimised without compromising the system's
capabilities is a point also that is often overlooked, a point I've
already considered somewhat in a previous posting to the newsgroup
pertaining to the NBN. Common sense is frequently lost on humans and
society suffers for it. The multi-millions of dollars spent on
professional sport could go to fund the essential and fund-repressed
services and infrastructure throughout the nation or the
state-territory concerned. Australia nigh on always cries poor for
essential services and infrastructure but thinks nothing of pouring
multi-millions of dollars into professional sport. This, even in a
small economy as for instance Tasmania has, is the prevailing paradigm
or the mindset of the politicians, governments, business, academics and
the non-thinking citizenry. Sport to them means everything, the
standard of life of the citizenry means nothing. Modern sport is not
truly sport anyway, for it's really a business of which passes for
sport. The one-track mindedness of humans is truly deplorable to see.

All in all, humans are stubborn in their refusal to extend their
thought world beyond the purely human conception of life as they see it
should be and must remain, in diametric opposition to that which it
could be if only they would make a reasonable effort to consider. If
anything, humans systems are miserably ineffectual and repressive
through an unnatural restrictiveness opposed to real intelligence.
Humans are in the main sticks-in-the-mud, as it were. And as such, they
are more or less unwilling to bend in being flexible through an
appropriate dexterity. Their purported logic displays similar traits.

 

[B J Foster]

annily wrote:

On 21-08-10 06:08, B J Foster wrote:
annily wrote:
B J Foster wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Aug 18, 11:17 pm, B J Foster <bjfos...@yahoo.co.invalid> wrote:
Don McKenzie wrote:
...

Option #5, Phoneline. Who still has phonelines? Isn't this
last-century
technology.


Pretty much everyone still has phone lines. I can't think of anyone I
know who doesn't have a home phone on copper lines.

I read somewhere in the context of Telstra's financial results, that
a large percentage of Australians (early adopters) had *no* *fixed*
*line* phone service - they had gone completely mobile.


And probably an even larger percentage does have a fixed line.


Early adopters set the trend. Early adopters are going fully wireless.


There will still be plenty of people who don't want wireless, regardless
of trends.

ROTFL. They already have fixed line. Copper.