Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Everyone can see for themselves that you are delusional.annily wrote
Rod Speed wrote
annily wrote
Rod Speed wrote
annily wrote
Rod Speed wrote
annily wrote
Rod Speed wrote
annily wrote
Rod Speed wrote
annily wrote
Rod Speed wrote
annily wrote
Rod Speed wrote
annily wrote
Rod Speed wrote
annily wrote
B J Foster wrote
annily wrote
B J Foster wrote
annily 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.
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.
ROTFL. Much of the copper is crap,
Thats a lie, hardly any of the copper is crap.
Not a lie, an opinion.
Its a lie because you dont have a shred of evidence to
substantiate that opinion.
It's not a lie because I believe it to be true,
That doesnt stop it being a lie, particularly when the lie
is spewed by someone else and you are stupid enough to buy
that lie.
Your lack of understanding of the meaning of "lie" is beyond
belief.
We'll see...
I wasn't even aware of the claim being spewed by someone
else,
Another lie.
Another unsubstantiated statement.
Another lie.
so I couldn't have bought it.
Another lie.
Another unsubstantiated statement.
Another lie.
and you haven't provided any evidence to the contrary.
Another lie. The evidence to the contrary is the huge
numbers who have a viable adsl service.
And what about those who haven't?
Doesnt qualify as MUCH OF THE COPPER, liar.
And of course you snipped my comment
I didnt snip a damned thing, you silly little pathological
liar.
Well then, my comments must have accidentally disappeared from
your quoted material,
Everyone can see for themselves that none of your comments have
disappeared from the quoted material, you silly little
pathological liar.
Oh can they?
Yep.
This link provides the evidence to back up my claim:
Everyone can see that that proves what I said, you silly little
pathological liar.
You're incredible.
You're just pathetic, you silly little pathological liar.
Even though the link clearly proves that I did update my comment to
say "OK, some of the copper connections are crap", and that comment
subsequently disappeared from what you quoted in reply
That link doesnt show that, you silly little pathological liar.
So you can't read now?
Everyone can see for themselves that I can read fine, you silly little pathological liar.
No. Everyone can see for themselves that you did.(even after you had quoted it twice), you continue to try to
bullshit by saying that I never said it.
I never ever said anything like that, you silly little pathological liar.
Of course you did, liar.
Everyone can see for themselves that I never ever did, you silly little pathological liar.
On 24/08/2010 5:41 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
kreed wrote
Rod Speed<rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
annily wrote
B J Foster wrote
annily wrote
Rod Speed wrote
annily wrote
And that is a bare faced lie. Most dont even pay for the highest speed available on the copper.
Again not a lie. Many people DO want more than 24 Mbps.
That's all I said. Your statement ("most...) doesn't contradict mine.
Many eh?
Yes. That's my opinion.
Pity you dont have a shred of evidence to actually substantiate that opinion.
Higher speeds than that have been available on the cable system for quite a
while now and fuck all have actually been stupid enough to sign up for that.
That proves that sweet fuck all want those higher speeds, you silly little pathological liar.
Agree.
The download (and some times even uploads are included in the quota)
limits and the steep rise in prices per GB to get more reasonable limts
make a lot of the higher speed plans a joke in GB / $ value.
You can get pretty decent GB/$ value if you want it, you just cant get the higher speeds as well.
You end up with an analogy like this
You can have the choice of the use of a used Commodore that
you can drive as much and as fast (within legal limits) as you like
You can have the choice of the use of a Ferrari with a limit of
100km distance a month after which its 40km/ hr speed limited.
That analogy falls down badly with the ADSL2+ which has very decent download limits like with say TPG etc.
You dont even pay all that much per month for that.
You dont however get speeds better than 24Mbs that route.
Thats a lot better than a used Commodore.
Unless you only drive to the shops once a week, (and maybe
to church on Sunday) and never aspire to going any further
afield than you are going to go with the Commodore deal.
The higher volume TPG plans are a lot better than that.
This is my view on the broadband situation in this country.
Its a pretty distorted view. The TPG ADSL2+ plans are nothing like
a drive to the shops once a week and maybe to church on sunday.
Finally, dumping the huge $ amounts quoted into this NBN plan can only
make this situation worse, and drive costs higher and value for money lower.
Depends on how its paid for. If part of what was obtained by flogging
off Telstra was used to pay for it, it would be perfectly possible to
charge say $50/month total and provide say a 180GB limit per month.
Corse its very arguable that that is the best use of $50B instead of say hospitals etc.
If Telstra is involved except as one of many competitive
players on an even field - you can guarantee it.
No you cant, particularly if the NBN was paid for using part of what was obtained by flogging off Telstra.
Corse its all up in the air now if the coalition jumps into bed with the independants and dumps the NBN.
The problem with that is that the independent ADSL2 is only available on
exchanges in the cities and larger towns. Where I live, TPG only retails
Telstra's ADSL1 at a much higher price than TPG's own ADSL2 and with
much lower download limits. The only way to get ADSL2 around here is to
go with Telstra with lower download limits.
Thats perfectly possible for most.Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
kreed wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
kreed wrote
annily <ann...@annily.invalid> wrote
B J Foster wrote
annily wrote
B J Foster wrote
annily 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.
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.
ROTFL. Much of the copper is crap, and it won't support high enough speeds for many people.
Nothing wrong with copper lines.
They do limit the maximum speed with street distances.
No matter what grand plan they propose, its going to involve copper line at some point.
Wrong, not down the streets they dont with fibre.
Even Coax or Cat5/6 uses copper conductors.
And fibre doesnt.
ADSL 2 can go more than fast enough for the majority of people
Depends on whether you want to get DVDs and bluerays in seconds or not.
Depends on whether people actually need that
Corse they dont, they can always drive to the rental operation.
Or realise that there is no point in getting what will take an hour or more to watch
in seconds, you might as well just start watching it while its still downloading instead.
compared to the huge cost involved to the nation that
will probably take forever to pay back with interest.
(and ultimately paid by everyone via higher taxes / massive access
fees / reduced gov. services in other areas or a bit of both.).
That wouldnt be the case if part of what was obtained by flogging off Telstra was used to build it.
No need to download DVD video any faster than you can watch it.
Correct.
They probably will use crap "streaming" methods anyway.
It wont be crap and they already dont.
You couldn't even save the data size (4.3GB) of a typical
DVD to a hard drive in less than a few minutes regardless.
Correct.
I don't know how long it would even take to buffer it to RAM
on a typical home PC - assuming you had enough spare.
The short story is that there isnt any need for 1Gb for that.
The 8Mb that ADSL1 can do is fine to0, even 1.5Mb
is fine for downloading and watching simultaneously
tho not for blueray content.
That is true. I would be quite happy if it was practical to get 1.5Mb
where I am without high cost and ridiculously small download limits.
You dont need 1.5Mb for that.It would allow for things like use of internet at a better speed while being on a VOIP phone call,
Or that.the use of skype video calling etc for example.
Which is what most do right now.Does it really make any sense to be spending anything like
$50B just to avoid driving to the rental operation for bluerays ?
Not at all. Even if it takes a few hours to download a DVD size content
its more practical than dumping that much money into this scheme.
Alternatives would be to find a VCD quality or similar file (much smaller - faster) for download.
I believe all that is grossly overstated.It's probably a lot more feasible for a lot of people to wait or get a lower sized
download than the hassle of driving to the video store, time spent parking, going in,
finding the vid, paying, driving home etc, then doing it again to return it (if a rental).
Not to individual houses it hasnt.If they want more speed than that they can pay for a second or
3rd line & ADSL connection to double/triple their speed as needed.
Not practical compared with fibre.
The savings by using something that is already there would be enormous.
Yes, but the speed is much lower than with fibre.
True, but the cost would be massive for existing customers if they didn't need it.
That wouldnt be the case if part of what was obtained by flogging off Telstra was used to build it.
For new installations and developments - I think
that then it is practical to go with fibre from the start.
It isnt really with so much development happening in the existing suburbs with
individual houses being demolished and replaced with blocks of units etc.
That has been happening in parts of where I live
Wrong, that works fine with RIMs and CMUXes.In that case the telephone system in that area (most likely
copper) is not going to cope with the extra connections,
Only in the sense of more RIMs and CMUXes.and would need an upgrade to cope with the extra population density from these developments.
No it isnt with FTTP.When you are looking at major works for this that is the time
to start upgrading the area of the works to fibre service.
The big difference in cost is at each house.If you have to lay from scratch or do a major upgrade to lines,
its probably not going to be a huge difference in cost of laying
copper cable or laying fibre ?
That doesnt happen much with individual houses replaced by blocks of units.Would probably need a lot of work in that sort of growing area
with upgrades to electrical services, water, sewerage, gas etc.
Thats what we have been doing with RIMs and CMUXes.Existing copper services can be upgraded as maintenance
and renewal / replacement of unserviceable existing architecture
/ when there is sufficient demand in the area in question.
It isnt really practical compared with replacing the copper with fibre suburb by suburb etc.
Could prioritize suburbs that are due for upgrades, ageing infrastructure,
Still makes no sense to be going for FTTP.have lots of development happening (see above), or ones
with high rates of ADSL usage that would very likely use these
new faster services compared to areas where there were groups
that didnt use much internet, or only cheap, slow plans who aren't
likely to change for cost reasons. (ie: pensioners, low income areas etc)
We've already got that.Corse doing that costs an immense amount of money and
its very arguable indeed if that makes any sense at all
compared with say spending that money on hospitals etc.
That is true. There are plenty of other public services that need funds.
As I see it, getting as many across Australia as possible up to at least a
reasonably priced ADSL 1 / 2 standard should be what we need to look at.
Nope. Wireless makes a hell of a lot more sense.For areas that are too far from an exchange to
get ADSL, why not run a fibre link (or similar)
from exchange to the cable pits in question to provide
a local ADSL hub that is close enough to the subscribers
Thats what RIMs and CMUXes do.
or maybe use repeaters if there are not enough
lines in an area (rural) in question to justify fibre.
Its very arguable that that is viable.
Remote areas can use satellite or wireless
Even suburban areas use wireless right now.
- wireless shouldn't be a problem in remote areas as there isn't
much radio traffic to congest the band compared to the city.
The problem is that that approach doesnt work for the longer distances.
Satellite ?
You dont get anything like the thruput that way.
Or if there isn't an existing connection - use fibre.
Its never going to be economic to do long runs of fibre to individual propertys etc.
Would BPL (power line broadband) work in rural areas ?
Perfect for wireless. We do that right now with voice comms.Relatively few users per sq KM, therefore not much clutter or overload of the bandwidth ?
There is no problem with those in urban areas. 3G works fine.Not as many issues with possible radio interference
compared to using it in an urban area ?,
So does wireless and has the advantage of location being completely flexible.Gives coverage over a wide area without needing any extra cabling ?
Nope.Works from any power socket ?
Fast enough ?
Yes.AFAIK a majority of rural properties have mains electricity,
Nope.though probably a lot of SWER systems - do they work with BPL ?
They dont have to be very isolated for that to be practical.Ones that were very isolated would have to use satellite.
Correct.Don't see much other option.
Specially with Gillard being stupid enough to continue with it.Would cost a hell of a lot less than some of the silliness being talked about.
Yes, the NBN is certainly by far the most expensive approach.
At the end of the day, we don't have a choice.
Corse we have a choice, most obviously with spending
part of what was obtained by flogging off Telstra.
We will simply be stuck with the bill once more while
ignorant/corrupted public servants make a typically poor decision
on our behalf and at our expense.
Its not public servants that get to decide a damned thing, it was some stupid
politician called Rudd that was stupid enough to go the NBN route when he
discovered that he couldnt monster Telstra into building the FTTN system.
True. He is gone but his legacy lives on.
I cant see it ever happening with both majors opposing it.Same with the carbon pollution bullshit
That hasnt got a damned thing to do with public servants either.
And now that Labor has got the bums rush at the ballot box,
we wont be seeing any tax on carbon, you watch.
I hope to god you are right on that one.
TPG isnt.keithr <kei...@nowhere.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
kreed wrote
Rod Speed<rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
annily wrote
B J Foster wrote
annily wrote
Rod Speed wrote
annily wrote
And that is a bare faced lie. Most dont even pay
for the highest speed available on the copper.
Again not a lie. Many people DO want more than 24 Mbps.
That's all I said. Your statement ("most...) doesn't contradict mine.
Many eh?
Yes. That's my opinion.
Pity you dont have a shred of evidence to actually substantiate that opinion.
Higher speeds than that have been available on the cable system for quite a
while now and fuck all have actually been stupid enough to sign up for that.
That proves that sweet fuck all want those higher speeds, you silly little pathological liar.
Agree.
The download (and some times even uploads are included in the quota)
limits and the steep rise in prices per GB to get more reasonable
limts make a lot of the higher speed plans a joke in GB / $ value.
You can get pretty decent GB/$ value if you want it, you just cant
get the higher speeds as well.
You end up with an analogy like this
You can have the choice of the use of a used Commodore that
you can drive as much and as fast (within legal limits) as you like
You can have the choice of the use of a Ferrari with a limit of
100km distance a month after which its 40km/ hr speed limited.
That analogy falls down badly with the ADSL2+ which has very decent
download limits like with say TPG etc.
You dont even pay all that much per month for that.
You dont however get speeds better than 24Mbs that route.
Thats a lot better than a used Commodore.
Unless you only drive to the shops once a week, (and maybe
to church on Sunday) and never aspire to going any further
afield than you are going to go with the Commodore deal.
The higher volume TPG plans are a lot better than that.
This is my view on the broadband situation in this country.
Its a pretty distorted view. The TPG ADSL2+ plans are nothing like
a drive to the shops once a week and maybe to church on sunday.
Finally, dumping the huge $ amounts quoted into this NBN plan can only
make this situation worse, and drive costs higher and value for money lower.
Depends on how its paid for. If part of what was obtained by flogging
off Telstra was used to pay for it, it would be perfectly possible to
charge say $50/month total and provide say a 180GB limit per month.
Corse its very arguable that that is the best use of $50B instead of say hospitals etc.
If Telstra is involved except as one of many competitive
players on an even field - you can guarantee it.
No you cant, particularly if the NBN was paid for using part of
what was obtained by flogging off Telstra.
Corse its all up in the air now if the coalition jumps into bed
with the independants and dumps the NBN.
The problem with that is that the independent ADSL2 is only
available on exchanges in the cities and larger towns. Where I live,
TPG only retails Telstra's ADSL1 at a much higher price than TPG's
own ADSL2 and with much lower download limits. The only way to get
ADSL2 around here is to go with Telstra with lower download limits.
For you and Rod, that is the same situation where I live, and was referring to .
When I look on several non-Telstra providers webpages and enter my number,
they show that the exchange is ADSL 1 only - and plans are at a maximum of 1.5mb.
Voip works fine on that.would like this, but the cost and limits are too restrictive compared to the current situation.
I'm still on a 512 plan
And forcing Telstra to resell the ADSL2 thats already in your exchange would cost a hell of a lot less too.that was genuinely unlimited when I signed up, and seems to have
stayed unlimited, even though it was dropped a couple of years
back and since then only limited and/or shaped (same thing)
plans are now available from that provider on their webpage.
However, I would much rather live with it than be forced to go be
responsible as a taxpayer for billions for something that will no
doubt increase my speed but will likely cost more as a net user also.
Some gutless fuckwit pathological liar desperately cowering behind
annily desperately attempted to bullshit and lie its way out of its
predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.
The "BOT" is back. All Hail the bot.
Blah blah.Some gutless fuckwit pathological liar desperately cowering behind
annily desperately attempted to bullshit and lie its way out of its
predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.
Rod's usual crap when he loses an argument. He just has to have the lastSome gutless fuckwit pathological liar desperately cowering behind
annily desperately attempted to bullshit and lie its way out of its
predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.
On 25-08-10 12:27, Rod Speed wrote:
Some gutless fuckwit pathological liar desperately cowering behind
annily desperately attempted to bullshit and lie its way out of its
predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.
Rod's usual crap when he loses an argument. He just has to have the last
word, even if he's run out of arguments.
Now if you stopped feeding woddles I wouldn't see his mindless pap
I don't killfile him but after 2 relies he has lost it so that thread getsOn 25/08/2010 3:56 PM, annily wrote:
On 25-08-10 12:27, Rod Speed wrote:
Some gutless fuckwit pathological liar desperately cowering behind
annily desperately attempted to bullshit and lie its way out of its
predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.
Rod's usual crap when he loses an argument. He just has to have the last
word, even if he's run out of arguments.
Now if you stopped feeding woddles I wouldn't see his mindless pap
--
X-No-Archive: Yes
I don't killfile him but after 2 relies he has lost it so that thread getsOn 25/08/2010 3:56 PM, annily wrote:
On 25-08-10 12:27, Rod Speed wrote:
Some gutless fuckwit pathological liar desperately cowering behind
annily desperately attempted to bullshit and lie its way out of its
predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.
Rod's usual crap when he loses an argument. He just has to have the last
word, even if he's run out of arguments.
Now if you stopped feeding woddles I wouldn't see his mindless pap
--
X-No-Archive: Yes