Slashdot Mirror

It was never about saving money but making a point of differentiation from Labour at the 2013 election, which, like the last election, was a very close race.

Also, it was sabotage, but presumably as a matter of collusion between the Liberals and the higher-ups at Telstra and Foxtel, as well as Rupert Murdoch himself. Fun fact: Telstra and News Corp. (i.e. Murdoch) each own 50% of Foxtel, who hold a virtual monopoly on satellite and cable TV in Australia. Interestingly, throughout the 2013 election period News Corp. was highly critical of Labour while tending to champion the Liberal Party's policies--most likely a significant factor in them winning the election. https://www.crikey.com.au/2013...

In 2014 it was announced that rather than decommissioning Telstra's technically unsuitable copper network and HFC network (that Foxtel relies upon), the assets would be transferred to NBN Co for indefinite maintenance. https://www.gizmodo.com.au/201...

It comes to no great surprise that the former opposition communications minister during the 2013 election, now-Prime Minister--Mr. Turnbull himself--has been in communication with Telstra, through all of this and appears to have intentions to privatise NBN Co and possibly sell it off to Telstra for no apparent economic benefit. https://www.crikey.com.au/2016... http://www.nbnco.com.au/corpor...

Former ABC technology journalist Nick Ross, one of the few journalists who bothered to cover the NBN situation in any great depth, came out last year claiming he was "gagged" by his superiors for reporting critically of the obviously flawed Liberal NBN. https://delimiter.com.au/2016/...

Stephen Ellis, former NBN advisor under Turnbull's NBN, last year transitioned to a senior advisor role at Telstra with a spokesperson stating "We have engaged Mr Ellis as a consultant on a specific project to advise Telstra on longer term policy reform options. We will not be commenting further". http://www.theage.com.au/victo...

The Liberal NBN policy has been a knowing scam since day one. "Business as usual", indeed.

The Australian list is very like the UK list:
"61 agencies apply for metadata access" (18/01/2016)
https://delimiter.com.au/2016/...

Re " What's the point in encrypting the phone if the government already has access to all information it sends or receives?" part to a lot of different federal, state, city gov and NGO groups for free.
61 agencies apply for metadata access (18/01/2016)
https://delimiter.com.au/2016/...
The other part is who owns the phone can be linked back to a version of the 100 point check with photo ID https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The "Are they looking for photos or files created on the mobile device?" is a big "yes".
The "why" is a result of generations of communist hunting in the 1950's at a state and federal level, the need to track all anti Vietnam war protesters in the 1960's and their views on the mil draft, to keep public views on US bases in Australia positive, 1980's anti Apartheid groups, environmentalist got seen as a gateway issue to more communists.
A lot of issues shaped the need to have total control over all aspects of Australian communications. Encryption does not help surveillance so its is seen as a negative. The mass import of US tame, junk turn key trapdoor and backdoor ready encryption works wonders for the gov as a standard.

The point of weak encryption in is to keep out other users, the press and keep conversations private from the public yet still be reversible in real time for any level of gov. The other issue is the lack of skilled undercover agents that can keep their cover in different faith, political, criminal and cult like groups of interest. Australia bought into the US view of signals intelligence been the key to any issue and placed less effort on funding gov infiltrators. So the phone and data encryption has to stay weak and ready for tracking, inspection, collection. The undercover art has been lost and replaced with a total trust in generations deep packed inspection to find users using terms, words, phrases and been of a set of hops from other interesting people. The other option is to "buy" informants who always have the perfect story to sell and hope they have a list of digital connections.

With the OS having root over any keystrokes before "encryption apps" and a company having designer links in CA.
Re: "ecrypted and unlocked by its manufacturer or operating system vendor" would be covered by laws like the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA)...
As for devices been super secure, recall the years of news about "Cops Say They Can Access Encrypted Emails (January 11, 2016 )
https://motherboard.vice.com/r...
Note the access news going back a few years...

Also recall the issue of why any backdoors are really bad for any nations telco system:
SISMI-Telecom scandal, an illegal domestic surveillance program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and the
Greek wiretapping case 2004–05 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...–05
Weaken any encryption and any staff, ex mil, ex staff, ex contractor, former telco or gov staff, other nations staff, anyone with skills or the cash can get the same deep access...

Also note the news from Australia about who gets that no court needed "law enforcement" role long term locally.
61 agencies apply for metadata access (18/01/2016)
https://delimiter.com.au/2016/...
"... a comprehensive list of agencies which had applied to receive accreditation as enforcement agencies under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act, which will give them access to make metadata requests."

Most likely if it was advertised to a "All Windows Machines" collection, then only computers in that collection would have been it.

The task sequence was most likely configured to be mandatory/assigned and thus initiated automatically with little to no intervention.

If that collection included the "unknown computers" collection then if those machines PXE booted and PXE support was enabled, then those could have been hit as well.

The safest way to advertise a task sequence is to the Unknown Computers collection, (or a collection specifically for imaging) and not make the advertisement mandatory. There are reasons to advertise it to a collection with computers, one being that you can re-image a computer without having to remove it from ConfigManager (since you are advertising to UNKNOWN computers). This is really handy especially for the guys doing the re/imaging of computers. Saves a lot of time.

But as we see here, there is a huge danger. You can reduce the threat by advertising the task sequence to only media and PXE.. that prevents it from showing up on production workstation. You can also configure the advertisement to only run on an OS you don't have in production, again, making the advertisement optional rather than mandatory helps too. But there are situations where you do need to have it mandatory so extra caution applies.

I've not worked with deploying a task sequences to running computers, but you can do them where they will copy the users files offline. Then the boot image is downloaded and the system reboots to that and performs the wipe, install, etc. Then once the system is back up, it copies the users files back (for something like xp to 7 upgrades)

SCCM is a great tool, but like any great tool, it can do great bad if you are not careful. Happened to this company a few years ago. http://delimiter.com.au/2012/0...

btw, here are the steps you should follow should you be lucky enough to experience it :)
http://blogs.technet.com/b/system_center_configuration_manager_operating_system_deployment_support_blog/archive/2011/10/27/how-to-remediate-an-incorrectly-deployed-osd-task-sequence-in-system-center-configuration-manager-2007.aspx/

Google in Australia, naturally, does the same thing. a few years ago, they paid approximately $AU74,000 in tax on about $AU1,000,000,000 in revenue. Yes it's not profit, but the metrics just tell you that it's woefully inadequate for such movement of money. Article for further reading

http://delimiter.com.au/2013/12/12/please-accept-apologies-wrong-turnbull/ hints at the politics.
Better than the telcos in the US was going to be the optical to almost all homes with wireless towers and sat for some.
Every telco, isp would then be on the same network and have to offer real options to every person wanting telco/net/POTS (plain old telephone service)
National, international best effort vs dedicated, cost, data caps - but it would have cut out several 'Bell' like entities from the copper, HFC revenue streams and allow new media (HDTV, streaming) players into Australia.
The other option was to keep part of the copper and place many new cooled, powered optical nodes in suburbia and let the 'Bell' look after the copper, rent/sell HFC and keep any revenue streams and protect existing HDTV (pay tv).
http://delimiter.com.au/2013/12/12/delimiter-publishes-internal-nbn-co-fttn-analysis/
In the end the costs of all the new cooled, powered optical nodes in suburbia added up in terms of telco/eletrical skill sets needed, speed was low due to low diameter, old, cut, long, shared copper lines.
Faults where fixed to making a voice call standard - can you dial emergency services, make a POTS call? Over time many quick fixes to an old copper network :)
With the new slow HFC, copper and token optical plan the 'Bell' like entities are now as safe as any in the USA and milking existing revenue streams with no real bandwidth for new HD media.
So HFC will be open to more telcos but at what cost, speed? When you pack in 'all' of the streets with new bandwidth needs on limited HFC - you get very 'old' problems of one shared link back to optical - just one line for many people in many homes with many new download and up load needs.
Australia is now as safe for existing media and telcos as the USA and without any upgrade vision to optical at a huge cost to buy/rent into very old limited networks.
All optical for many in Australia would have been paid back over decades with low repair costs. The upfront cost was not low but now Australia will be paying big for copper and HFC...

http://delimiter.com.au/2013/12/12/please-accept-apologies-wrong-turnbull/ hints at the politics.
Better than the telcos in the US was going to be the optical to almost all homes with wireless towers and sat for some.
Every telco, isp would then be on the same network and have to offer real options to every person wanting telco/net/POTS (plain old telephone service)
National, international best effort vs dedicated, cost, data caps - but it would have cut out several 'Bell' like entities from the copper, HFC revenue streams and allow new media (HDTV, streaming) players into Australia.
The other option was to keep part of the copper and place many new cooled, powered optical nodes in suburbia and let the 'Bell' look after the copper, rent/sell HFC and keep any revenue streams and protect existing HDTV (pay tv).
http://delimiter.com.au/2013/12/12/delimiter-publishes-internal-nbn-co-fttn-analysis/
In the end the costs of all the new cooled, powered optical nodes in suburbia added up in terms of telco/eletrical skill sets needed, speed was low due to low diameter, old, cut, long, shared copper lines.
Faults where fixed to making a voice call standard - can you dial emergency services, make a POTS call? Over time many quick fixes to an old copper network :)
With the new slow HFC, copper and token optical plan the 'Bell' like entities are now as safe as any in the USA and milking existing revenue streams with no real bandwidth for new HD media.
So HFC will be open to more telcos but at what cost, speed? When you pack in 'all' of the streets with new bandwidth needs on limited HFC - you get very 'old' problems of one shared link back to optical - just one line for many people in many homes with many new download and up load needs.
Australia is now as safe for existing media and telcos as the USA and without any upgrade vision to optical at a huge cost to buy/rent into very old limited networks.
All optical for many in Australia would have been paid back over decades with low repair costs. The upfront cost was not low but now Australia will be paying big for copper and HFC...

Replacing that was expected to cost about $5,000 or now $7,000 per house at today's costs

Oh look, a leak from late September that shows you to be completely wrong! I'd respond to the rest of your nonsense as well, but you're a shill and that would be wasting my time.

Subscription TV is delivered by satellite in virtually all areas of Australia, save for small sections of urban Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. Far more cost effective for such a big and sparsely settled continent. So the cable footprint would be lucky to cover 5 or 10% of the population.

It's actually about 28% of the population. http://delimiter.com.au/2013/02/15/turnbull-confirms-hfc-areas-last-to-get-fttn-if-at-all/

It may go back to the days of film, music (physical, expensive and had to be copied) .
So you had the heavy lifting of regional languages, fonts, packaging, censorship and media distribution done by locals - say in Canada or UK or Australia or Spain.
e.g. select groups and individuals got very, very rich getting "used" US cinema "film" months later and showing it months later in their region.
They thought this dreamy captured market would go on forever with neat digital legal deals for their regions.
The Australian pay tv vs digital downloads was one example.
http://delimiter.com.au/2013/05/14/foxtel-locks-up-game-of-thrones-no-more-fast-tracked-itunes-downloads/

The internet will just flow around the sites like paywalls. The brands using the tech will be interfacing with peoples computers and their user experience.
The content producers seem to hope they can out bandwidth and out price any 3rd party web 2.0 rental or shop with quality, cost and convenience.
Do the DRM from the content producer people understand the reality of HFC and optical cable networks?
They will have locked away broadcast content on their networks. Recall http://delimiter.com.au/2013/05/14/foxtel-locks-up-game-of-thrones-no-more-fast-tracked-itunes-downloads/
Web based DRM is not only taking over the end users computer its messing with existing global monopoly pricing structures too :)
Sell the next must watch series direct or wait until regional cable networks allow you to sell direct with DRM on the internet?
If you have been gifted a regional monopoly pricing structure would you allow some distant firm to sell DRM content direct to your captive public first?
Its quality lobbying time. Wont someone think of the tax base, online privacy, hackers, inappropriate content, DRM used for self radicalisation broadcasts, and all the local jobs?

The "greater good" is we now know most hardware and the big brands are junk. Their coders, testers and engineers are too trusting or fake.
If an intelligence agency can get in, so can any other friendly intelligence agencies, people who where with friendly intelligence groups and now work for cash, people who can afford to hire ex intelligence agency staff, foreign front companies who can exploit weakness for national gain, crime or blackmail.
Everything you want good generational encryption for has be reduced to junk for a cheap 10 year "look" into the use of the web.
The only people who did not know where the herds of end users of the expensive US junk brands who had to upgrade version after version.
Even countries like Australia knew and their top staff would have been warned re "negotiate a trade agreement".
http://delimiter.com.au/2013/10/08/attorney-general-briefed-prism-two-months-snowden-leaks/
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-08/australia-prepared-briefing-on-prism-spying-program/5004290
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2013/s3864183.htm
The UK's message seems to be late - everybody knew via public or State sources. Historical documents or government advisors.
Like the Airlift of Evil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunduz_airlift or the arming of the Syrian 'freedom' fighters - even the optics of the local events was known.

However, you can quite easily get a family of four on a modest income to pay $10 a month for Netflix.

Which is a good idea, but it assumes that you live in a country that has access to Netflix or an equivalent service. Most of us living outside of the US don't.

For the rest of us, there's the local cable TV monopoly (who abuse that monopoly to stop legal download services competing with them) ... or Bittorrent.

"Hey honey, I'm going to McDonald's to grab a bite to eat, be back in 10!"
(A few hours later)
"... Umm, honey, how did you manage to spend $710 dollars at McDonalds?"

But let's be fair, the actual breakdown is probably more along these lines:

            $6 Happy meal (expected budget)
            $250 consultants and managers haranguing you about how you are hungrier than expected
            $200 to replace provided hamburger with a specialty burger
            $250 "expert eating" trainers who advise you on the how to insert hamburger into mouth
            $4 extra hamburger you ate because the above three took so much time lecturing you that you got hungry again

IBM only got $25 million of that $1.2 billion. The rest was a result of "the state failing to properly articulate its requirements or commit to a fixed scope."

Lets do the math:
FTTN will need power and optical rolled out into suburbia.
Each node will be ejecting fancy new vectoring or better tech into existing final very old copper runs of 200~2000m.
Australia will have have to look hard at each adsl user. That long run of existing adsl copper from the 500m-4 km exchange/rim (~digital loop carrier) will have fight with the new nodes.
What will a new 300m-2km run of vectoring copper do to existing adel 1/2 users?
Hint - every user will have to get a node connection for internet if vectoring is used near existing adsl connections:)
Thats a lot of nodes to build out in suburbia per 500-2000m suburban copper loops.
The short runs of copper are corroded, crushed or have a few too many joins and will need ongoing care.
Australia did over provision copper, but that was a long time ago ~100% redundancy (~2.5 pairs per home) is now very low.
What is left is over used or of unknown quality re low number of working pairs.
http://www.abc.net.au/technology/articles/2012/11/27/3642266.htm
Our solder joints are old, oxidisation is ongoing, alien crosstalk (ATX)....copper diameter (in Australia 0.4mm is common)... the list of copper issues in the ground is Australia is not like some 'new' lab network.
http://www.ti.com/sc/docs/products/network/vdslwp.pdf has some numbers over longer runs on page 32.
http://delimiter.com.au/2012/04/30/fttn-a-huge-mistake-says-ex-bt-cto/

Your username and brand of bullshit seems familiar. Do you troll the discussion forums at http://bc.whirlpool.net.au in your spare time?

- Corporate plan predictions were a worst case scenario. Uptake of 100mbps services, for example, have been far higher
- The biggest expenses in any network rollout are always the actual wiring. Fiddling with the endpoints won't save as much money as you'd think. Also, fewer POIs was actually the original plan. It was changed in consultation with the ACCC because of the costs to ISPs.
- ARPU is not the same as wholesale connection costs. The latter are incredibly unlikely to rise over time. In fact, if you take inflation into account, they are projected to drop over time.

"level it may not be too bad."
What would the UK gov like to memory hole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_hole ?
Some past stories that would be so tempting to just filter down just a bit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_Gun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeknife
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/30/iraq-torture-allegations-uk-military-investigations-reopened
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2163799/UK-soldiers-beat-innocent-Iraqi-men-black-ops-jails-new-secret-justice-law-means-torture-hidden-forever.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/24/undercover-officers-police-chief-met
http://www.information-age.com/technology/mobile-and-networking/123457043/ee-and-ipsos-mori-face-privacy-backlash-over-mobile-data-analysis
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9750403/MI6-codebreaker-Gareth-Williams-probably-locked-himself-into-sports-bag.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9337175/Soldiers-sacked-days-before-pension-date.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2127453/M16-1m-bribe-silence-torture-victim-Spies-gave-dissident-Gaddafi-thugs.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/11/gchq-staff-war-crimes-drones
With some "filter controls" for a few days after publication and pay walls long term, an individual in the UK could have their news just reshaped a bit long term.
Ideas like the http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/jun/14/what-are-secret-courts will shut the press out from some UK court reporting.
This mass filter idea might be the next step.
Australia shows the mission creep eg just for a few suspected fraud sites.
http://delimiter.com.au/2013/05/16/global-eyes-are-watching-eff-condemns-australias-new-internet-filter/

In comparison, an Apple TV box has a much simpler user interface. However, the main problem with Apple TV is that it won't receive cable channels. If I could purchase a set top box that simply displayed a few key channels - then it would be game over.

Fortunately for them (if Canada is anything like Australia and the US), the utter stranglehold control the cable companies seem to have on all the content will ensure that they can continue to peddle their crappy wares and not have to deal with competition.

Our main cable provider here in Australia recently was able to stop iTunes from carrying Season 4 of Game of Thrones. They have some exclusive license to HBO content and are leveraging their weight (I assume by throwing giant bags of money at HBO) to stop anyone getting it unless they sign up for an expensive cable service.

Needless to say, not many people are interested in paying $60-90 a month (the first package I can see with GoT included is $75/mo, but there might be slightly cheaper options) for a bunch of channels that they're not really interested in just to get access to one show. And Australia has the highest rate of GoT piracy in the world.

Actually, the Greens voted against it, and tried to have it amended to increase oversight, to narrow the scope of when data can be collected, and to provide a way to refuse data requests from foreign nations with inadequate privacy safeguards. These amendments were voted down by both the Government and the Coalition.

This is why the RIAA and MPAA are attacking the Australian legal process and trying to have a bypass added just for them.

http://delimiter.com.au/2012/06/23/piracy-iinet-refutes-content-industry-doom-and-gloom/

http://delimiter.com.au/2012/06/18/australias-internet-freedom-being-eroded-greens-warn/

This is why the RIAA and MPAA are attacking the Australian legal process and trying to have a bypass added just for them.

http://delimiter.com.au/2012/06/23/piracy-iinet-refutes-content-industry-doom-and-gloom/

http://delimiter.com.au/2012/06/18/australias-internet-freedom-being-eroded-greens-warn/

Delimiter – an independent, Australia-focued tech news site – have been covering this story:

To your writer, a $2.2 million fine appears fairly ridiculous in the larger context of the issue, given the fact that Apple made some $4.88 billion in revenue from Australia in the past financial year. $2.2 million, in that context is less than a blip on Apple’s radar; and it’s certainly not a disincentive to do the same thing again. We’re talking about pocket change here.

However, as I’ve previously also written, there have been questions raised about this issue from the start of the legal process. Why, for instance, is the ACCC still pursuing Apple over the issue, when Apple has already agreed to give anyone who complains about its new iPad (of which we expect there will be almost nobody) a refund, and modified its 4G marketing materials quickly, as soon as it became apparent the wording was an issue? The whole issue seems like the regulator is making a mountain out of a molehill. I think Apple is probably being too nice to the ACCC on this one, in agreeing to pay a fine at all. Perhaps the amount it’s agreed to be fined is merely less than the cost of its legal team having to seriously fight the case.

They are about to go after Google for tax evasion - a few politicians were (rightly) outraged when it became public knowledge that Google only paid $74k in tax on the multiple billions which Australian people and companies paid to them for services provided in Australia.

Multiple billions?

Try about one.

Actually I did find a statement as to what servers were affected: From The ABC didn't sack bit coin miner

The ABC stipulated that its Grandstand Sports website was affected by the Bitcoin operation for a short period, but there was no further impact on the broadcaster’s website or its distribution operations.

Hardly a "federal" server unless the government is in on sports.

Not plain wrong, not even vanilla wrong. If I am to be any kind wrong may it be a kind of wild fig and truffle wrong that no one likes but everyone orders when they are on a first date to appear sophisticated and worldly.
I present words of others ( Australian others) on this particular issue when talking of messages from the US leaked by wikileaks:
"“AFACT and MPAA worked hard to get Village Roadshow and the Seven Network to agree to be the public Australian faces on the case to make it clear there are Australian equities at stake, and this isn’t just Hollywood “bullying some poor little Australian ISP,” the cable quoted the US Embassy as writing.
...
iiNet, the cable claimed, had been targeted because the ISP was “big enough to be important”, as the third-largest ISP in Australia. The MPAA didn’t go after Telstra, the cable claimed, because the telco was “the big guns” and had “the financial resources and demonstrated willingness to fight hard and dirty, in court and out."
http://delimiter.com.au/2011/08/30/wikileaks-cable-outs-secret-iitrial-background/
Well that does lend weight to idea that they thought they could bully, and that the financing was critical in deciding which ISP to target.
From the Sydney Morning Herald (Australian Author):
"It seems the MPAA deliberately avoided picking a fight with the more powerful Telstra, instead hoping for a quick victory against the smaller iiNet which could set a national and perhaps even international legal precedent to aid the Americans in their global fight against piracy" http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/computers/blogs/gadgets-on-the-go/afact-uncle-sams-puppet-in-iinet-trial-20110902-1jp4w.html

I am not alone in having formed the opinion that this matter was motivated by a desire to influence things overseas.
The references are provided so that you can see the basis from which I was representing the perceptions and intentions of the MPAA in this matter. I am going to also assume when you insisted that " you are just plain wrong" you intended that the MPAA and associated parties are just plain wrong, and that the cultural misunderstanding was on their part as well.
I did not state that Australia was singled out, we both know they weren't. I didn't state that Australia was actually the best choice either, the facts as you quite rightly pointed out, are proof of the issues with trying to slip something through in Australia. I am very proud of the efforts of the government regarding smoking (especially the ban in clubs etc) I just wish more people would quit. Thanks for the update on how that issue is progressing

Personally, I think they are barking up the wrong tree and this is not the best solution to their issue. I think this trend towards the legal department being a profit center through patents and other actions is not beneficial to markets or companies (designers and engineers have lower pay rates than lawyers).

:-)

According to documents released under Freedom of Information, the Attorney-General wants a "solution" to "be educative and aim to change the social norms."

That's right. They want to force "education" onto the population to make them want to prop up the content industry's failing business models.

Of course, only industry groups were invited to this meeting. I have to say, Ludlam is the reason that I voted greens in the last election.

The plan has been rejected by all the major Australian content organizations. They're still waiting for the iiNet v AFACT High Court judgment, since it will have a significant impact on the playing field.

http://delimiter.com.au/2011/11/29/bugger-off-content-industry-tells-isps-on-piracy/ (There are some more related articles on the site)

Ahh, I see you're not good at reading, let me help you out.

You mean Conroy, not the Labor party.

Completely wrong. The beginnings of these policies started with Kim Beazley. Additionally, if it's not a Labor party policy, then you need to tell the Prime Minister that, and you might ask them to update their pages. While you can say the most recent ones are crafted and pushed by Conroy, it does have the support of "the party", where its leader and strategists speak for what the party supports.

Deputy comms minister Kate Lundy has been an outspoken critic of filtering

Partially wrong. She's been an outspoken critic of... THIS type of filter. She wants it to be an opt-out filter. She was however an outspoken critic of ISP level filtering... when LIBERAL was in power.

The contract was to buy that.

This is where the reading comprehension comes in. Even with the single line you quoted, in no way, can it be taken to mean 'they were paid to censor the internet'. Please re-read it. What it says is 'They censored the internet, at the same time as they were awarded a contract', not a contract for censoring the internet, but a contract for buying the infrastructure.

Please, keep up.

This is because they own 0% of the pits and ducts (or copper) that make up the last mile which is where the NBN is operating.

Now this is reasonably true, except that Agile (Internodes infrastructure company) does supply last mile connections for many rural communities. On top of this, they own a significant amount of interstate fiber, which is something the NBN also had in its deal, though to a lesser extent at this stage.

You dont actually understand what's going on here and should never have been modded up.

The thing I like about your post, is the arrogance it has, while being exceptionally wrong. It's almost like you're trolling me. Not sure if you're retarded, or trolling. I'm erring on the former.

Nice try, but you obviously haven't been keeping up with the local news.

The current government (The Australian Labor Party) has been trying to push through this form of censorship, to gain support from the religious zealots in the country. They need the religious zealots support, because they do not have a large enough majority to ram through what they want. This censorship plan was developed by minister Stephen Conroy, and at the previous election they had to ditch this plan, because it was so amazingly un-popular.

At the same time the Australian Labor Party has decided to "nationalize" (debatable as to whether the National Broadband Network is really nationalized or not) the internal internet infrastructure of Australia, by laying down billions of dollars, buying up a fuck load of fiber, and handing out a lot of contracts to roll out more fiber. This plan is being setup and run by minister Stephen Conroy, the exact same man who came up with the original legislative censorship plans, has now been given a fuck load of money, and authority. Telstra owns MOST of the infrastructure the government is looking to buy, as it was Australia's first (I think it was the first) telephony provider, which used to be nationalized, but was privatized in the late 90s.

At the same time Telstra started to censor the internet, they were awarded a very large favourable contract, from the government, to purchase this infrastructure from them. Both of these were announced in THE SAME WEEK. This is a mighty fine coincidence.

Now, you might say, but that's just a coincidence and doesn't mean anything. The company is just voluntarily deciding to censor the internet.

Well, in the same week another company, Optus, which is Australia's second largest telephony provider, was awarded a very large favourable contract for the purchase of their infrastructure handed to them, and in the same week, that company also decided to announce that they would voluntarily censor the internet with this same list, under a similar time frame.

So...
There are 2 companies, selling a large amount of equipment to the government, for very large amounts of money, with very favourable terms, and they both decided to announce, in the same week that these contracts were handed out, that they will voluntarily censor the internet.

That is FAR too great a coincidence.

Additionally, ISPs like Internode, which are the nerds choice of ISP, who also own a significant amount of infrastructure, and were active in dissenting against the prior censorship plans, have been told flat out that they will not be offered such favourable contracts for their infrastructure, in the same week these were awarded.

So yes, "technically", you're correct, but we all know that the government would have had a hand in this, especially because these plans were so wildly unpopular with the public, that any ISP that implements censorship of any kind, knows they will get backlash over it. In fact, Telstra knows it was going to get this backlash, and actually put off implementing it specifically because they were afraid of reprisals from LulzSec, AnonSec, Anonymous, and similar.

What ISP do you know, that voluntarily does things like this, which don't improve its profitability, which expose it to reprisal, and targeted attacks, without being forced to by government?

Not to mention, two of them at the same time.

The Australian Government, and their currently "unlimited" spending account, has EVERYTHING to do with this.

I have links for all the above, but there's too many, and I'm too lazy. Instead, just read Delimiter which has some of the best coverage on this.

Never trust News Corp. Here's some real journalism: http://delimiter.com.au/2011/06/25/telstra-proposes-to-filter-interpol-blacklist/

Not that the real answer is any better than what the Australian said, but the truth is what matters.

42Mbps is already available

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1599659/wall-street-journal-admits-ipad-sales-disappointing

http://www.itnewsafrica.com/?p=6709

http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/201014/5463/First-day-iPad-sales-fall-short-of-revised-expectations

http://www.totaltele.com/view.aspx?ID=454448

Wow. Four stories about how Apple didn't sell as many iPads as some analysts (not Apple) predicted!

2 million, 2 months. Fastest ever to $1 billion. But some analysts were off by a week or so (in light of a supply shortage, no less), oh no!

keep reading ...

http://www.smartcompany.com.au/information-technology/20100604-the-ipad-can-t-match-the-laptop-yet-but-when-it-can-the-world-will-change-kohler.html

http://www.zdnet.com.au/why-the-apple-ipad-will-fail-in-australia-339302686.htm

http://www.itwire.com/it-industry-news/strategy/38566-five-reasons-the-ipad-will-fail-in-australia

http://delimiter.com.au/2010/04/27/five-reasons-the-ipad-will-fail-in-australia/

http://www.marketingmag.com.au/news/view/ipad-over-hyped-2165

Three identical articles! And two opinions that match yours! Oh my, Apple is doomed!

2 million, 2 months, fastest to $1 billion, top selling tablet, etc., etc. You can quote all the bullshit articles you want, but you can't negate the simple fact that the iPad is off to a stellar start. You can't take the position that with a start like this, the iPad is going to fall flat and expect to be taken seriously. If it is going fail, there are no signs of it. In fact, all signs point to the opposite conclusion.

I'll repeat that: there are no signs at all that the iPad will fail. Just because you don't like it, that doesn't mean...

Fuck, I just realized, nobody can be that stupid. I've been trolled. I need to learn to pay better attention next time.

/end thread

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1599659/wall-street-journal-admits-ipad-sales-disappointing

http://www.itnewsafrica.com/?p=6709

http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/201014/5463/First-day-iPad-sales-fall-short-of-revised-expectations

http://www.totaltele.com/view.aspx?ID=454448

keep reading ...

http://www.smartcompany.com.au/information-technology/20100604-the-ipad-can-t-match-the-laptop-yet-but-when-it-can-the-world-will-change-kohler.html

http://www.zdnet.com.au/why-the-apple-ipad-will-fail-in-australia-339302686.htm

http://www.itwire.com/it-industry-news/strategy/38566-five-reasons-the-ipad-will-fail-in-australia

http://delimiter.com.au/2010/04/27/five-reasons-the-ipad-will-fail-in-australia/

http://www.marketingmag.com.au/news/view/ipad-over-hyped-2165

Apart from a bunch of data pages on locally prominent sports, Whirlpool is very much a now reference.

Delimiter seems to be aiming more for a sociological view of Australian IT.

For me the simple test was Microbee, the only locally developed computer which ever gained significant market share and which is prominent in Delimiter's wiki but absent from Whirlpool.

Clearly the publicity here is already doing some Delimiter good as there are already quite a few more pages and categories than when I looked a few hours ago, including one on Whirlpool.

Apart from a bunch of data pages on locally prominent sports, Whirlpool is very much a now reference.

Delimiter seems to be aiming more for a sociological view of Australian IT.

For me the simple test was Microbee, the only locally developed computer which ever gained significant market share and which is prominent in Delimiter's wiki but absent from Whirlpool.

Clearly the publicity here is already doing some Delimiter good as there are already quite a few more pages and categories than when I looked a few hours ago, including one on Whirlpool.

Seriously. Well, now there's like 19 or 20, but still: seriously.

I don't really have any complaint with this, but it's a teeny bit early to begin bragging about how much better than Wikipedia you are, eh?

http://www.delimiter.com.au/wiki/index.php?title=Neptune_Informatics - Look now they've been trolled, too. Rock.