Coalition unveil their broadband and internet policy

[CSP]

the LNP broadband plan is like building a major 2 lane highway that will accomodate the traffic for the next 5 or even 10 years, but then they will have to rip it up and rebuild it all in 10 years time when the traffic exceeds the highways capacity - which in the long run costs even more than doing it right the first time. Technology is moving so fast, data transfer rate demand has increased exponentially over the last 5 years and it will continue to.

Yes but it is better to build the major two lane highway now and upgrade in X years then it is to build a minor one lane highway (Coalition plan) now and be even worse off later. And fiber optic connections can go even faster with upgrades to the sending and receiving stations in the future.

Wireless technology just won't cut it, latency would be horrible and it just won't be good enough for business districts, also can you imagine living next to one, it would have to be much more powerful than a mobile broadcasting tower and people don't even like living next to them.

Also the definition of 'rural' bug me, I live in the middle of the 3rd latgest council in Australia, Moreton Bay Regional Council, and technically we are classified as rural, WTF?

Sorry this might be a bit of a rhetorical question, but do you guys even read policy?

 

[acarmody]

I've just read the transcript of the debate with Kerry O'Brien and Tony Abbott, and frankly I don't think Abbott knows what his policy is. He got grilled, majorly. Bent over even.

Tasmania has had quite a bit of success with the NBN, if Tasmania can do it, imagine what Melbourne or Sydney could achieve.

 

[CSP]

Kerry O'Brien is a self absorbed Labor lover. And Tony Abbott isn't a technology professional and doesn't need to be. There are experts that need to know the details. Tony Abbott could do better on talking points, but he's an economist and managing the economy is what he'll be good at.

 

[acarmody]

Yeah I guessed that Kerry was with the Labor party just by reading the way he attacked Abbott.

 

[JBDrifter]

I agree with most here that 12Mb/s is enough for households (currently using 1.5Mb/s and coping ok... definitely not loving it but it does the job) but I personally think the fibre upgrade is necessary. The fibre network will be much more reliable than the current copper network, especially as time goes on and the copper degrades. Fibre will need to be laid eventually anyway, the way I see it.. so the logical thing would be to lay it down now. Do the job once and do it right. If they go ahead with the libs plan, all they're doing is putting a bandaid fix on the current problem, and it will end up costing more in the long run because the job is done twice.

As for Japan having more advanced technology by the time we've all got 100Mb/s connections in our homes (lets say in 8 years time)... this really can't be used as an argument to not install fibre here. Whatever new technology they might have, I can guarantee it will still be using fibre. The only changes would be to the hardware at each end of the fibre cable. So if we wanted to utilise the newer technology, all we'd have to do is simply upgrade the hardware at the exchanges and use compatible modems in our homes. Much like the advances in technology on the current copper network (56Kb dial-up -> ADSL1 -> ADSL2+), the copper network has always been there and hasn't changed, they've simply done upgrades to the equipment that transmit and receive the signals.


Well that is just how I see it all anyway... I may be completely wrong, but I don't really care because it is, for the most part, out of my hands as to what will actually happen. We can all argue endlessly about what the better option is, but it won't ever change anything. The only input we actually have is our one measly vote.

 

[DanVN]

I have 38Mbit and its sometimes to slow for me, each to thier own i guess

 

[50LTRv8]

the LNP broadband plan is like building a major 2 lane highway that will accomodate the traffic for the next 5 or even 10 years, but then they will have to rip it up and rebuild it all in 10 years time when the traffic exceeds the highways capacity - which in the long run costs even more than doing it right the first time. Technology is moving so fast, data transfer rate demand has increased exponentially over the last 5 years and it will continue to.

And the best thing about fiber is that it is only the transfer medium, the transmission technologies can be changed/upgraded at anytime

 

[Calaber]

And the best thing about fiber is that it is only the transfer medium, the transmission technologies can be changed/upgraded at anytime

Look, the NBN might be the best option, and might well be far superior to the Liberals' proposal, but can Australian afford to commit itself to a further $43 billion, RIGHT AT THIS TIME? How much debt is finally too much for Labor supporters to accept? Obviously, with $57 billion accumulated at the moment, by adding another $43 billion, the Labor supporters are happy to accept $100 billion worth of debt, just to have a flash new broadband network which will cope with all forseeable needs for years to come, when there are cheaper alternatives, that are not as effective long term but appropriate for today, and which are far more affordable.

This is the bit I don't get with Labor and its supporters. When does the debt stop accumulating - what is the final figure they will think is the limit? Surely, when we already owe so much, and so many other critical infrastructure items are in need of replacing or upgrading (think railways, highways, dams, hospitals, power stations), a "world's best practice" broadband network is NOT the most important infrastructure need in this country at present.

 

[wraith]

The other thing is with fibre optic cable it can handle a lot more bandwidth thus enabling you to potentially receive television/austar/foxtel through it as well as the phone and also the internet. Assuming it's fibre to the home of course.

 

[Jesterarts]

Look, the NBN might be the best option, and might well be far superior to the Liberals' proposal, but can Australian afford to commit itself to a further $43 billion, RIGHT AT THIS TIME? How much debt is finally too much for Labor supporters to accept? Obviously, with $57 billion accumulated at the moment, by adding another $43 billion, the Labor supporters are happy to accept $100 billion worth of debt, just to have a flash new broadband network which will cope with all forseeable needs for years to come, when there are cheaper alternatives, that are not as effective long term but appropriate for today, and which are far more affordable.

This is the bit I don't get with Labor and its supporters. When does the debt stop accumulating - what is the final figure they will think is the limit? Surely, when we already owe so much, and so many other critical infrastructure items are in need of replacing or upgrading (think railways, highways, dams, hospitals, power stations), a "world's best practice" broadband network is NOT the most important infrastructure need in this country at present.

Spot on, couldn't agree with you more! I can only imagine in my wettest of dreams was 43 billion could do if invested in rail infrastructure.

I work in an IT business, internet speeds cause me no issue, what does cause me issue it not knowing what time I can expect to arrive at work every morning.

If a goverment said "We're going to invest $43 billion in public transport infrastructure" they would win my vote and the election hands down.