Australia's National Broadband Network To Go Ahead

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Australia's National Broadband Network To Go Ahead

Posted by timothy on Thursday September 9, 2010 @02:38PM from the beware-coriolis-effect dept.

angry tapir writes "After weeks of a hung parliament following the Australian federal election, the incumbent Labor Party has garnered enough support among independent MPs to form a minority government. Broadband was central to clinching the independents' support. Labor's victory means the $43 billion National Broadband Network will push ahead. The policy has generally been popular among ISPs and telcos — though some rebel operators preferred a policy that emphasized wireless technologies, similar to the proposals put forward by Labor's opponents. The primarily fiber-based NBN is set to offer Australians 1Gbps broadband."

222 comments

What's the point... by Deathnerd · 2010-09-09 14:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

Of having broadband if you can't watch some good ol' small breasted porn?
1. Re:What's the point... by bistromath007 · 2010-09-09 14:44 · Score: 0, Redundant
  
  My thoughts exactly. Australia has no use for broadband, as they aren't allowed to do anything with it.
2. Re:What's the point... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 14:49 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  We can do anything anyone else can do with it.
  The "small breasted porn" issue is incorrect sensationalism, and the idiotic filter idea - which was never going to get through the senate previously - will now not even make it past the house of reps, so I'd be very surprised if we heard anything about it again in the near to medium future.
3. Re:What's the point... by pitchpipe · 2010-09-09 14:53 · Score: 1
  
  Australia has no use for broadband, as they aren't allowed to do anything with it.
  Yes the DO! Imagine THIS at 1 Gbps! Hey, it's legal, he has no breasts.
  
  --
  Look where all this talking got us, baby.
4. Re:What's the point... by blackraven14250 · 2010-09-09 15:03 · Score: 1
  
  Who cares about small breasted porn?
5. Re:What's the point... by twostix · 2010-09-09 16:23 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  It doesn't have to get through the house of anything.
  The department will argue that any filtering on it's own network is an operational issue well outside of the purvey of the house and completely under the responsibility of the department and minister.
  Understand?
  Government departments don't need legislation to enable them to make decisions regarding the technical operations of their departments so unless the law that allows the NBN *specifically restricts* the implementation of a filter the department can and will demand the ISP implement filtering.
  They will simply say "you don't have a right to download illegal material over the public network" if you complain.
  I really wish people understood how the public service / executive and government work under our system, it really is very important.
6. Re:What's the point... by EdIII · 2010-09-09 16:31 · Score: 1
  
  Yes the DO! Imagine THIS at 1 Gbps! Hey, it's legal, he has no breasts.
  That does not mean there are not people out there fapping away to Barney the Dinosaur. Trust me on that.
  The whole breast issue is idiotic. What we need is a fapability index. Anything over a .08 fapability index gets instantly rejected by the routers themselves. Of course training the computers and creating the index will require enormous amounts of manpower.
  Of course being the good, honest, pure, God fearing Christian that I is, I am willing to do my part in creating the index. Are YOU?
7. Re:What's the point... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 16:48 · Score: 0
  
  Anyone who likes Asian chicks.
8. Re:What's the point... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 16:55 · Score: 0
  
  Is that really the average ISP's relationship to the NBN? I've been hearing quite a few people say this, but it does not seem correct to me.
  Many ISPs here resell internet access via Telstra's ADSL (which seems like a roughly analogous situation), but I doubt they'd automatically inherit Telstra's filter.
  I reckon the NBN would be the wrong level at which to insert any sort of filter; ISPs know what their traffic means, whereas the NBN infrastructure probably won't.
9. Re:What's the point... by rtb61 · 2010-09-09 16:56 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Go here http://abc.com.au/ and then here http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/ActCompilation1.nsf/all/search/2E7F5179D6598E8DCA2574730019A00B. As for fibre broadband network legislation is required to enable it, and unless language stipulating censorship is included then it can't happen and that legislation is amended. Government departments can not act outside of legislation unless that legislation incorporates that out of bounds operation, as for freedom of speech in Australia that is more complex http://www.aph.gov.au/LIBRARY/pubs/rn/2001-02/02rn42.htm.
  The biggest threat high bandwidth internet has politically, is an end to campaign contributions to pay for commercial broadcasting purposes. Every politician and every political party will be able to upload their message, speeches, supporting performance (on permanent record) to government hosted web sites (local, state and federal) which every citizen can freely access. No more for profit political commercials now that cripples the influence of the rich via mass media and promotes independent politicians as well as enabling smaller political parties to gain access to the electorate upon an equal basis. Additional every single sitting of any legislative body can be recorded, uploaded and accessed by anybody at any time.
  Plus think of fun stuff it will enable, web hosted multi site parties, were web cams and big screen TV's can link together multiple locations around the world, for that family reunion Christmas (many sleepless day/night opportunities in there) etc.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
10. Re:What's the point... by Matt_R · 2010-09-09 16:57 · Score: 1
  
  and the idiotic filter idea - which was never going to get through the senate previously - will now not even make it past the house of reps, so I'd be very surprised if we heard anything about it again in the near to medium future.
  They're still trying.. http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/conroys-net-filter-still-alive-and-kicking-20100910-1540s.html
  Independent MP Rob Oakeshott, the Opposition and the Greens have all come out against the policy, leaving it effectively dead in the water.
11. Re:What's the point... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 17:06 · Score: 0
  
  Indeed. This is a problem in the United States as well, where we have to view small breasted porn though Tor, which is only slightly faster than dialup.
12. Re:What's the point... by Cassius+Corodes · 2010-09-09 17:07 · Score: 1
  
  That's quite not how it works - the government passes certain kinds of legislation (known as enabling acts) that grants specific groups the ability to "fill in the details" within a set area. They absolutely do need legislation to allow them to do this and for NBNCo or the minister to regulate internet content they would need a specific provision say that they are to develop regulations on content that is allowed to pass through the service.
  
  Now the question is whether current legislation has already allowed them to do this - but they certainly cannot say that its is outside the purvey of the house or that they haven't specifically denied it so they are allowed!
  
  --
  Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
13. Re:What's the point... by batkiwi · 2010-09-09 17:35 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  1. NBN is not a government department. I really wish people would understand how the NBN is structured, it really is very important. It will not be run by dept of innovation or any other department.
  2. Government departments rely on legislation as a backing and don't make unilateral decisions. It more works the opposite of how you describe. If there is legislation stating that they MAY do something, then they might or might not. If there's no legislation stating that they may then they won't.
  An easy example is the immigration department. The law states that the minister MAY grant citizenship if you fall into X/Y/Z categories. Based on this legislation:
  -if you fall into X/Y/Z immigration department might or might not grant you citizenship
  -if you do not fall into X/Y/Z categories, the immigration department WILL NOT grant you citizenship. They are not empowered to even though there's nothing in legislation stating they can't.
  You're obviously not a public servant...
14. Re:What's the point... by exomondo · 2010-09-09 17:55 · Score: 1
  
  The department will argue that any filtering on it's own network is an operational issue well outside of the purvey of the house and completely under the responsibility of the department and minister.
  What 'department'? Wtf are you on about? If you're referring to the NBN Co. as 'the department' then you really do have no idea what you're talking about.
  
  They will simply say "you don't have a right to download illegal material over the public network" if you complain.
  Who is 'they'? You seem to be under the impression there are some people in some department that have ultimate influence over the NBN Co.
  
  I really wish people understood how the public service / executive and government work under our system, it really is very important.
  It's also very important to realise the difference between NBN Co. and a government department, a difference that is obviously too difficult for you to comprehend.
15. Re:What's the point... by timmarhy · 2010-09-09 18:34 · Score: 0, Interesting
  
  oooh wonderful, so we are paying 43 BILLION of tax payers money to create a private company that can rape it's cusomters without any fear of them going else where or even answering to the government??? i'm very reassured now.
  
  --
  If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
16. Re:What's the point... by twostix · 2010-09-09 18:35 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Lol very naive, legislation creates the basic outline of an area that the government may move into. Anything reasonably in that area of responsibility if not specifically denied in the legislation is completely up to the department and minister, ceo / executive and minister *until the government says otherwise*.
  The legislation doesn't mention the technical setup, the topography the subnets, how many switches, which brand of switches and servers, anti-virus policies and spam policies or anything else to do with the technical runnings of the network.
  That's because it will be up to the department to come up with those policies and implement all those in the normal course of its operation.
  Are you saying the ISP will offer no inline anti-spam, anti-virus measures because they're not specifically outlined in the legislation?
  No?
  The department can do anything it likes regarding the day to day operations of its area of responsibility, and I can well assure you having been employed in three federal departments, brother, sister in-law, ex-wife, father in-law, mother in-law and various friends currently employed by the Commonwealth Government, policy decisions far bigger than implementing anti-childporn filters on public networks are made by public servants in The Nations Capital every single day.
  There will be a policy decision made to implement filtering on the public network, that's how these things work, they will justify it in front of the Senate the same way they justify most of the things that government departments get away with that they have no authority for, if the Senate doesn't like it they will ask the government to implement legislation to stop it.
  That's way the Australian Federal Government operates.
17. Re:What's the point... by dakameleon · 2010-09-09 18:51 · Score: 1
  
  Censorship is a government responsibility, and to enable it in new media requires government legislation. So they can't censor it unless they're trying to claim it as an existing media, at which point it can be challenged in court.
  
  --
  Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
18. Re:What's the point... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 19:00 · Score: 0
  
  Small breasts were never banned. It's a complete fabrication (not even a distortion of the truth) intended to make the government look bad. This gets pointed out a lot, but it seems that people are too stuck in anti-government mode to notice.
19. Re:What's the point... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 19:55 · Score: 0
  
  Not all Asian chicks... there are lots of busty girls in Japanese porn. They are probably the most breast obsessed culture.
20. Re:What's the point... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 20:40 · Score: 0
  
  East-Asian porn should be OK.
  No legal issues when my wife and me made our child in Australia. She is a normal breasted East-Asian.
  No one complained about her breasts at the hospital and the kid got a lot of milk.
21. Re:What's the point... by deniable · 2010-09-09 23:03 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't have to get through the house of anything.
  The department will argue that any filtering on it's own network
  What network? The 'department' has a badly run network that has nothing to do with the NBN as that's owned by a separate company. The government hopes to privatise that company once they've spent enough tax money on it.
  
  Government departments don't need legislation to enable them to make decisions.
  What? The department can't order paperclips without enabling legislation, even if it's only a supply bill.
  
  I really wish people understood how the public service / executive and government work under our system, it really is very important.
  So do I but I'm not seeing it here.
22. Re:What's the point... by deniable · 2010-09-09 23:07 · Score: 1
  
  Even better, they'll figure out that it's too expensive to run and sell what's already built to private shareholders. NBN Co is the new Telecom.
23. Re:What's the point... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 23:24 · Score: 0
  
  Just so we're abundantly clear on this, DSD had an interesting part to play in the conceptualisation of the NBN. No points for guessing what it included.
24. Re:What's the point... by Atryn · 2010-09-10 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  The biggest threat high bandwidth internet has politically, is an end to campaign contributions to pay for commercial broadcasting purposes. Every politician and every political party will be able to upload their message, speeches, supporting performance (on permanent record) to government hosted web sites (local, state and federal) which every citizen can freely access. No more for profit political commercials now that cripples the influence of the rich via mass media and promotes independent politicians as well as enabling smaller political parties to gain access to the electorate upon an equal basis. Additional every single sitting of any legislative body can be recorded, uploaded and accessed by anybody at any time.
  
  Wow, that is optimistic. Maybe it is vastly different in Australia... Are all the people there struggling to find messages from politicians? Frustrated at their inability to access political speeches due to their lack of broadband? Just because every politician can upload their media and every citizen can access it DOES NOT mean that political paid ads will go away. The paid ads are there to INTERRUPT the viewer of a mainstream show and CATCH them with the message that they would never seek out on their own.
  
  --
  Come play Moral Decay!
25. Re:What's the point... by commodore64_love · 2010-09-10 01:47 · Score: 1
  
  >>>The "small breasted porn" issue is incorrect sensationalism,
  Not really. I've read multiple articles about women having their topless photos taken off the net, because the police assumed they were underage teens, when in fact they were legal 20-something adults. It isn't sensationalism if the event is actually happening.
  .
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
26. Re:What's the point... by commodore64_love · 2010-09-10 01:58 · Score: 1
  
  So naive.
  The US-FCC simply decided one day to censor radio and television. They did not need any prior Congressional law to make this decision. Similarly the FTC decided a few years ago that porn sites can only be accessed if "age verified" using credit cards, or else the owner of said site could face prosecution for allowing minors to view his material. Again they acted independently, without needed prior legislation.
  A more recent decision by the FCC will allow them to take channels 26 through 51 away from TV Broadcast and sell them to Wireless/cellular companies. Even if you think that's a good idea, the fact the unelected FCC made this decision without prior Congressional approval (or the approval of the people in general) is troublesome.
  This is how modern unelected bureaucrats operate. Give them an inch, and they take a mile.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
27. Re:What's the point... by commodore64_love · 2010-09-10 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  >>>NBN is not a government department.
  I wish I could believe you but I've heard the same about the USPS and BBC (not part of government), and yet USPS has a dot-gov website and the BBC uses government police to collect their ~$250 per year tax. To say these organizations are not part of government sounds like political fiction.
  Wikipedia describes NBN as "government-owned corporation" so basically it's like US Amtrak - which is part of the government.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
28. Re:What's the point... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 03:08 · Score: 0
  
  It doesn't have to get through the house of anything.
  The department will argue that any filtering on it's own network is an operational issue well outside of the purvey of the house and completely under the responsibility of the department and minister.
  Understand?
  Government departments don't need legislation to enable them to make decisions regarding the technical operations of their departments so unless the law that allows the NBN *specifically restricts* the implementation of a filter the department can and will demand the ISP implement filtering.
  They will simply say "you don't have a right to download illegal material over the public network" if you complain.
  I really wish people understood how the public service / executive and government work under our system, it really is very important.
  This is untrue.
  The filtering requires that ISPs implement it, and the Government cannot coerce them into implementing filtering without legislation.
  The broadband network could in theory proceed without legislation, but without legislation it would lose $43b and the government will use legislation to prop up its commercial viability.
  I would point to the extreme abuse of power and process that occurred when the Government forced Telstra to come on board by denying it the right to bid for mobile spectrum (an entirely unrelated subject)through exercising its regulatory power over radio communication. That Telstra did not take this to the High Court - because it didn't want to piss-off the government - was a failing of our system.
29. Re:What's the point... by BrokenHalo · 2010-09-10 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  There will be a policy decision made to implement filtering on the public network...
  
  Actually, I'd say the censorship issue must be dead in the water. Even if Conroy retains his ministerial seat, given the Labor party's newly tenuous hold on government, it just doesn't have the numbers to ram that through. This can't be compared with the national broadband network, which is such an irrestible carrot for the independent members of parliament who hold the balance of power for their rural or regional electorates.
  
  So I've heard some of my (urban-centric) friends whine about "what difference is the NBN going to make to me" given their nice, comfortable ADSL2+ connections, but I spend enough time away from the cities to have seen at first hand how the regions have been left behind.
30. Re:What's the point... by dakameleon · 2010-09-12 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  This is Australia we're talking about. The Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) is part of the Attorney-General's department, and enforces laws, it does not create them.
  The filter has been pushed to the ACMA (Australian Communications and Media Authority), but that has no legal ability to censor communications at present. Therefore, in order to enable this, Australian law requires that it be the result of a specific act of parliament.
  
  --
  Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
PEDOPHILE ALERT!!! PEDOPHILE ALERT!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 14:47 · Score: 1, Funny

This person is a pedophile. Please report him to the police.
What filter? by DMJC · 2010-09-09 14:47 · Score: 5, Informative

Greens/Liberals/Independants hold the balance of power and are all dead set against the filter. It's a dead scheme stop mentioning it. There will be no mandatory net filter in Australia. The ETS and mining tax are probably also going to get blocked. They don't have the numbers to pass that sort of legislation anymore.
1. Re:What filter? by MichaelSmith · 2010-09-09 14:50 · Score: 1
  
  They don't have the numbers to pass that sort of legislation anymore.
  I wonder if any legislation will get passed between now and the next election.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
2. Re:What filter? by Eskarel · 2010-09-09 14:50 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  While I agree with you, it's important to remember that the Liberals haven't actually said they won't support the filter. Joe Hockey has said they won't support the filter, but he is neither the leader, nor the communications minister.
  That said, the filter was always a dead scheme, which is why Labor never tried to push it through.
3. Re:What filter? by Rik+Rohl · 2010-09-09 15:03 · Score: 1
  
  Hopefully not!
4. Re:What filter? by Crypto+Gnome · 2010-09-09 15:18 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  If you're not passing any legislation, perhaps what you need is more fibre?
  
  --
  Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
5. Re:What filter? by zuperduperman · 2010-09-09 15:25 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Yep. They did come out against the filter fairly definitively in the end, however I still would not put it past them to have a "conscience vote" on it when it comes to the crunch - in which case even if less than 1/3 of them supported it it would still fly through the senate. Which is to say, it still entirely possible that this will happen.
  My biggest concern about the NBN is that it will make it extremely simple for a future government to implement such a policy, possibly without putting it through parliament. Heck, they would barely even need to tell anyone - just build it into the infrastructure of the NBN and nobody will notice until it gets turned on. The only reason there has been any debate about this at all is that the government had to get the ISPs on board who kicked up a fuss and leaked information about it all over the place.
6. Re:What filter? by Merls+the+Sneaky · 2010-09-09 15:31 · Score: 1
  
  There is also the possibility that the greens could horse trade censorship for carbon trading or some other environmental pet project they want. Remember these people are polititians.
7. Re:What filter? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 15:35 · Score: 0
  
  Joe Hockey was chosen to make the announcement of the Liberal Party's position on the filter, what he said represents the Liberal's position on the issue.
  - Anonymous Liberal Party Member
8. Re:What filter? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 15:38 · Score: 0
  
  The ETS and mining tax are probably also going to get blocked.
  Don't be silly, I reckon the level of the extra tax would be the sole subject of negotiation.
  If the mining tax is blocked, so is the NBN (and the current gov is gone). Because the mining tax is the only source for the budget that is able to support the NBN (and still be able to reduce the current debt/deficit): it is the keystone of all Labor policies (which were cost-ed and found more black-hole-free than the coalition's ones. At least, so the Treasury said, isn't it?)
9. Re:What filter? by Tik0 · 2010-09-09 15:45 · Score: 1
  
  The greens support an ETS AND mining tax and have the numbers to pass them. They're going through.
10. Re:What filter? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 15:49 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  There will be no mandatory net filter in Australia
  Sure sure. The NBN is a way of giving the gumbiment a monopoly on Internet access in the country. You might get to choose your ISP but all your data are belong to the gumbiment sponsored fiber. This means they can poke in an more easily insert filtering/spying at any point they want.
  This just puts one of the big incumbent players in a better monopoly position than they already are and gives the government more control than they're prepared to admit that it really does.
  And finally, access to some network is a luxury item. Why should my hard earned tax dollars subsidize it when the hospital system in this country is a shambles. Public transport is a joke, and the government is too cheap to build a two way road; they build one that changes direction in the middle of the day. There's far more important things to spend money on and $43B could real good in the country rather than letting a bunch of yokels get a subsidized luxury item.
11. Re:What filter? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 15:51 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Actually, I attended the National IT Debate just before the election and the liberal minister for communications did explicitly say that the Liberals were against the filter and would prefer to return to the old Howard policy of providing filtering software for free that people could install on their own computer (and thus not affect others)
12. Re:What filter? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 16:02 · Score: 0
  
  And honestly I seriously doubty anyone in the Labor party ever really supported it - they were just waving it around because they needed that Family First fruitcake Feldman's vote in the upper house to pass their legislation. The moment that clown is marched out the door next year and the green senators take their seats, the Labor party will basically come out and admit it was all a charade.
13. Re:What filter? by twostix · 2010-09-09 16:18 · Score: 0
  
  The NBN will be filtered, it's a state owned resource that the government is totally responsible for.
  The executive doesn't need legislation enabling it to filter a network that it owns and is in charge of. In fact the argument will be made that the government is *required* and has no choice but to filter illegal material such as child porn and illegal information and music downloads on a government owned network in order to conform to its own laws regarding classification.
  The government can't be seen breaking or facilitating the breaking of its own laws.
  The NBN will be filtered, most private ISPs will be pushed out of business and Labor, Telstra and the Department of Broadband will (for all intents and purposes) enjoy control of the Internet in Australia for the masses.
  Get it?
  One more time.
  In order for the Government to force private operators to implement a government filter requires legislation. The government will argue that any filtering on it's own network (the NBN) is an *operational decision* and at the purvey of the "private" ISP (lol), the department that is responsible for it and the minister responsible for the department. Anybody who doesn't like it can go use a separate private network, nobody is "forced" to use the NBN and nobody has a "right" to download unclassified and illegal material over the publics network, anymore than a person has a right to drive a car on a public road.
  Except what ISP will be able "compete" with the state owned, taxpayer subsidised, $10,000 a household network? Very few and they will have to charge far more once they lose half their customers to it.
  It's the height of naiveté to believe that Steven Conroy (who is in charge of the NBN and who masterminded it) who argued hard and passionately for Internet filtering as well as Labor who believe in censorship just "gave up" and won't make filtering mandatory on the STATE OWNED NETWORK. The Labor party and governments in general don't work that way, terribly sorry but the NBN will be filtered it's a foregone conclusion.
  Not to worry, some ISPs will survive and if you want to use their networks unfiltered you'll be able to, obviously losing most of their customers and the loss of their purchasing power for bandwidth compared to the NBN for offshore data will mean their prices will have to rise dramatically . I predict $150 a month for normal ADSL speeds and data packages if you wish to continue to use a private network.
  A monopoly ISP run on a state owned network. I can't believe geeks here are happy about that situation it took decades to wrest control of the phone system of the monopoly telco, now people who should no better are cheering for us to have something *worse*.
14. Re:What filter? by BigBadRich · 2010-09-09 16:54 · Score: 1
  
  Greens/Liberals/Independants hold the balance of power and are all dead set against the filter. It's a dead scheme stop mentioning it. There will be no mandatory net filter in Australia. The ETS and mining tax are probably also going to get blocked. They don't have the numbers to pass that sort of legislation anymore.
  Looks like Senator Conroy didn't get the memo, then: Doh!
15. Re:What filter? by breldis · 2010-09-09 16:56 · Score: 1
  
  bazinga!
16. Re:What filter? by captain+random · 2010-09-09 17:08 · Score: 1
  
  I disagree; NBNCo is not an ISP. I think it is more analogous to the case where Telstra resells access to its network via ADSL.
  
  It's the wrong level to insert a filter at, because the NBN should not know what its traffic means.
  
  Oh, and would you stop with the $1000000000 per household $80 billion dollar DEBT WASTE DEBT hysterics, would you?
  The first phase of the NBN pilot came in both ahead of schedule and under budget.
17. Re:What filter? by Sabriel · 2010-09-09 17:28 · Score: 1
  
  I suspect at least one problem with the idea of sneaking filtering into the NBN is that much of the opposition to filtering is coming from the same technical sector that would be needed to design and build it.
18. Re:What filter? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 17:44 · Score: 0
  The NBN will be filtered, it's a state owned resource that the government is totally responsible for.[...]
  I can't believe geeks here are happy about that situation
  As a geek, I'll still be able to use proxies, Tor and the like to get past their filter if I need to... so no drama.
  
  A monopoly ISP run on a state owned network.
  I can predict the following:
  
  the federal state cannot run a monopoly. Thus, they will need (because of the legislation) to wholesale bandwidth to other ISP-es.
  I might be wrong, but I don't think that the filter will be applied to connection of the buyer ISP (which may use it for business purposes and require a level of reliability/speed/latency that cannot be met by a filtered connection). If I'm right, guess what the geek in me will do? Simply apply for a micro-ISP connection, which I'll be using to serve my "sole trader" business (registered and with ABN, all right)
19. Re:What filter? by dakameleon · 2010-09-09 17:57 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Enough with the FUD.
  The NBN is already being rolled out around Australia, and is available through much of Tasmania. It hasn't got a filter. The filtering is a separate piece of legislation that doesn't have the legs to get through the new parliament, with the Opposition and the Greens opposing it.
  It also does not exist under the exclusive executive oversight of the government. It is being set up along the lines of existing government-sponsored enterprises such as Australia Post or Medibank Private; furthermore, while the government will have a controlling stake the intent is for half the company to be privately owned & funded. The "$43 billion" headline figure only includes $26 billion of government funding, with the remainder expected to be raised from the market.
  NBN Co is ultimately responsible for the infrastructure, but the internet service provision is not part of its mandate - they might be providing the pipes, but it's ultimately up to the ISPs still to deliver the actual internet. See the NBN plans offered by iiNet in Tasmania, for instance.
  As for the idea that you could go back to using "normal ADSL" through the "private network", that's wrong too. The whole idea here is to rip up the old copper wherever possible and replace it with fiber. That is the dramatic dividend this will provide - telephony is going to totally change in Australia. That's what $11 billion is going to Telstra for.
  Get your facts right before you parrot this FUD.
  
  --
  Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
20. Re:What filter? by timmarhy · 2010-09-09 18:27 · Score: 0
  
  haha wtf?! if the government offered a company like norton a big fat juicy contract to build in a filter for the NBN, you think they would say no???? i want some of your drugs.
  
  --
  If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
21. Re:What filter? by Bifurcati · 2010-09-09 18:32 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Actually, the ETS (at least) has a reasonably good chance of being passed in some form. Yes, Labor will need the support of the Greens MPtwo independents, but Oakeshott will probably be in favour and Windsor, although opposing the existing scheme, is generally in favour of an emissions trading scheme. The Greens opposed the scheme originally because they knew it couldn't be passed even with their support, and thought they'd gain more political mileage by being the Extreme Left voice. Now that they're actually in a position of responsibility all of those guys are likely to play ball, with the Greens in particular keen to get something through the Senate (from July next year) while Labor still has government!
  
  --
  
  Physicist, consultant, science communicator
22. Re:What filter? by StrahdVZ · 2010-09-09 19:30 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  As stated on Q&A, the vast majority (at least 80%) of legislation is passed through the House of Reps unanimously. Only the contentious legislation is held up for debate.
  The ignorant masses need to watch quality current affairs and quality interviews once in a while rather than Today Tonight "OMG the Murdoch media empire said something bad about Labor so it must be true we're all going to die thanks to Labor now lets see how Masterchef is doing".
23. Re:What filter? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 20:20 · Score: 0
  
  The moment that clown is marched out the door next year and the green senators take their seats, the Labor party will basically come out and admit it was all a charade.
  You were on the money until that point. No they won't admit it was a charade. They will point out to the Christian Lobby that that evil Catholic Risky Mister Rabbit is in favour of child porn and that, despite the fact that La Gillardine is an atheist she is willing to bend over backwards to accommodate them (witness the school chaplains programme).
24. Re:What filter? by Capsaicin · 2010-09-09 20:39 · Score: 1
  
  The ETS and mining tax are probably also going to get blocked. They don't have the numbers to pass that sort of legislation anymore.
  BZZZZT! Wrong.
  Let's just examine the ETS (mining tax I wouldn't want to bet on just yet). First off both Windsor and Oakeshott support an ETS, as does Wilkie and obviously the Greens so:
  House of Reps: Labor 72; + Greens 1; + Wilkie + Windsor + Oakeshott = 76. 76 votes required so it passes the house.
  Senate: Labor 31 + Greens 9 = 40. 39 votes required, so it passes that house too.
  This parliament will be much more productive than you believe. But yes, the filter is DOOMED! Still they will force Abbott to vote it down to weaken his standing with Christian voters especially given now we have an atheist PM (which paradoxically is godsend to the Christian lobby).
  
  --
  Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
25. Re:What filter? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 21:13 · Score: 0
  
  The Liberals do not hold the balance of power. The balance of power is that bit left over after the two major parties (of which the Liberals are one) have been accounted for, and that balance of power only exists when there is no clear majority for either major party (such as now).
26. Re:What filter? by dewatf · 2010-09-10 18:33 · Score: 1
  
  Tasmania is a trial programme. The ISP are being charged a heavily subsided connection fee of $300 per customer.
  
  There has been no cost benefit analysis down on the scheme, there have been wholesale prices set and we have no idea what it will cost in the end.
  
  The Government's figures are for an average cost of $6000 per household, or $2000 per person. Regional centres will cost $8000 and rural properties up to $22,000 all subsidised by metropolitan users. The remotest 7% will be served by wireless and satellite.
  
  To make that possible they are requiring 70-90% uptake. Which will be generated by ripping out copper phone lines and ADSL and restricting spectrum for wireless to make a corporatised monopoly operating on a set 6-7% profit margin to pay back the Government, and whom ever they eventually sell it of too.
  
  No other country has tried fibre to the door of such a large low density population. No other fibre programme has gotten greater than 30% market penetration or made a profit, or generated any economic benefit. It is far from certain that retail ISP will even want to be involved in much of it, including low profitable rural areas where household incomes are on average 25% less than in metropolitan areas which would forcing the government to run its own subsidised ISP for them.
  
  Assuming all this works the whole charges are expected to be about $33/month plus usage.
  
  Currently the ACCC sets ADSL pricing at $16/month plus usage. At that level 40% of low income households in cities can't afford broadband. The bottom 10% of households can't afford the internet at all.
  
  The NBN is a massive uncosted risk.
27. Re:What filter? by Eskarel · 2010-09-12 18:22 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, CISCO would be a more likely candidate, since a filter on that scale would have to be hardware.
28. Re:What filter? by Eskarel · 2010-09-12 18:28 · Score: 1
  
  I'd only heard of Hockey saying it. Not that I'm saying you're wrong, just what I'd actually heard confirmed.
  Whatever good traits he might have had, Rudd was almost as much of a religious loony as Abbott is, though he hid his better and we didn't realize till after he'd been elected.
  Either way, the filter which hadn't a chance of hell in passing before the election, now has even less of a chance of passing, which is good because it's expensive and it won't work, unlike the alternative plans which were cheap, and might in theory protect people from accidentally seeing things they didn't want to see. When the senate gets replaced and fielding is gone, it'll have even less of a chance.
Big enough to give you everything you want by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 14:47 · Score: 1, Insightful

Anyone who lives in Australia and supports this doesn't get to complain when the government begins to censor their "right" that they demanded the government give them.
1. Re:Big enough to give you everything you want by Nursie · 2010-09-09 15:05 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Why?
  Because in any other area that the government provides a service and does it badly it's perfectly right to complain and/or try to get it fixed.
  Please leave your stupid paranoia of government services in your head with the other crazy ideas. some things make sense for a government to provide, or even wouldn't happen without it. But i forgot, that's socialism in your mind isn't it? And anything that is tainted with socialism is necessarily bad...
  Moron.
2. Re:Big enough to give you everything you want by mirix · 2010-09-09 15:18 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Yeah, it's so much better to be held at the mercy of a corporation that has no accountability to you, vs. the government that has at least some accountability.
  
  --
  Sent from my PDP-11
3. Re:Big enough to give you everything you want by The+End+Of+Days · 2010-09-09 16:05 · Score: 1
  
  Why don't they get to complain? Are you somehow powerful enough to bind the entire population of Australia to such a stupid deal?
4. Re:Big enough to give you everything you want by pookemon · 2010-09-09 16:06 · Score: 1
  
  If the pedophiles want to complain that Labor is blocking their access to their pedophilia then let them.
  
  Not that it's going to happen with independants and greens holding the balance of power.
  
  And you probably don't know this, but technically it wasn't the Australian people that voted for this government. It was the cross-benchers. So don't tell us what we can or can't complain about.
  
  --
  dnuof eruc rof aixelsid
5. Re:Big enough to give you everything you want by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 16:13 · Score: 0
  
  while it is a bit of a stupid post it does have some validity, people voted labor and the NBN knowing full well Labor intends to try and get the numbers for censorship and filtering. you could argue that many chose the NBN for selfish reasons just hoping that the censorship somehow stays away, personally I voted against Labor even though I would love the NBN and live in a suburb listed as getting the NBN early next year. I won't vote for a party that believes and is actively trying to remove my freedoms, broadband can always be made better, freedoms are rarely returned once taken away.
6. Re:Big enough to give you everything you want by twostix · 2010-09-09 16:31 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Given that the many "corporations" (small businesses and small ISPs save four) that currently offer internet access in Australia are in vicious competition with each other and services are improving yearly, yes. I would rather be able to say screw you Telstra 3g I'm going with Optus 3G because it's better, wait now I'm going with Internode because they're better than both.
  Then say screw you government monopoly NBN ISP who has implemented filtering I'm going with....oh, all the other are gone or eye wateringly expensive now that they've lost most of their customers.
  You live in a fantasy if you think you have more accountability over the Federal Government in Canberra than over a tiny ISP. And if you don't like corporations go with one of the many local ISPs.
  And here's a tip for you: The majority of Australians *want* the Internet to be filtered, and the government is accountable to *them* not *you*. So now what?
7. Re:Big enough to give you everything you want by Fluffeh · 2010-09-09 16:44 · Score: 1
  
  And you probably don't know this, but technically it wasn't the Australian people that voted for this government. It was the cross-benchers. So don't tell us what we can or can't complain about.
  I actually think that a lot of the choice was made for the cross benchers by the voting that happened in the senate. No-one holding a balance of power would really want to join a lower house government knowing that everything can be blocked by the upper house anyway.
  
  This whole election outcome is a massive lose-lose scenario for Australia. A half decent majority by EITHER of the main parties would have been a better outcome. They would have at least had the opportunity to try a few ideas out. Would all have been good? No, of course not, but the way things stand, any even slightly "out there" legislation or initiatives have no chance of getting introduced or will be so watered down to appease the masses that they are doomed for failure.
  
  We should have declared it hung and gone back for round two. Preferably with new candidates. I have never seen an election where EVERY campaign focused on "Don't vote for the other guy...". Seriously, whatever happened to "Vote for me because.[insert topics here]..."
  
  --
  Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
8. Re:Big enough to give you everything you want by mirix · 2010-09-09 16:54 · Score: 1
  
  My line of thought was more like the situation in north america, where in a lot of areas there is effectively no competition. You've got DSL if you aren't too far from the CO, or perhaps cable. if those suck you're pretty much stuck with satellite, which... leaves something to be desired.
  At least if the only provider was govn't owned, you could write to your local seat of govn't, or vote on the issue. whatever.
  
  --
  Sent from my PDP-11
9. Re:Big enough to give you everything you want by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 17:24 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  And here's a tip for you: The majority of Australians *want* the Internet to be filtered, ...
  What? Where do you get this shit from? I demand facts and figures. And from proper reputable source please, not the Australian Christian Lobby group.
10. Re:Big enough to give you everything you want by scdeimos · 2010-09-09 17:27 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The majority of Australians *want* the Internet to be filtered, and the government is accountable to *them* not *you*.
  I call BS. I haven't met one person who actually said they want internet censorship in Australia.
  The government couldn't even give NetAlert away when they tried - nobody wanted it, it was "cracked" by a kid inside of a week, and the few religious zealots who did get it now find themselves unsupported.
  Unfortunately the not-quite-majority of Australians who voted Labor at the last election fell for the "look at the silly monkey" trick (the high-speed National Broadband Network) and failed to notice the venomous snake (internet censorship) in the other hand.
11. Re:Big enough to give you everything you want by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 17:35 · Score: 0
  
  You've missed the part where all the corporations that are competing with each other currently use the same infrastructure for the last mile. When you say "Screw you Telstra, I'm getting my ADSL from some other company", you're still using Telstra's infrastructure. Some of the ISPs do have their own network the runs from the exchange, though.
  What we currently have is an aging copper network going to 90% of properties that was designed for voice, not data. This network is owned by Telstra, who were a government organisation before, but now are completely privatised. They are also mandated (by the government) to wholesale this infrastructure out to companies at set prices (I don't know how the prices are set). It is expensive to replace, requiring (apparently) $43 billion in investment. If its left to the private industry, we won't see a fibre network for 20+ years, and it will not reach anything like 90% of properties, because there won't be enough economic incentive to string cables out to whoop-whoop if they're not servicing a huge number of people.
  What we'd be doing is replacing a private monopoly with a government one. The government would own the infrastructure, but would continue to set wholesale prices the same way it is now. The only thing that changes when the government pays for the physical infrastructure is the motivation for doing so. Private industry would be motivated by profit. Government would be motivated by other things (possibly votes).
12. Re:Big enough to give you everything you want by scdeimos · 2010-09-09 17:45 · Score: 1
  
  If the pedophiles want to complain that Labor is blocking their access to their pedophilia then let them.
  I wish it was only that kind of material that's getting blocked.
  Unfortunately it isn't... filtering trials showed that a number of businesses, community support groups, dentists, anti-abortion political sites and even a betting agency were also getting blocked. If the ACMA were accountable for what gets blocked this wouldn't be a problem, but the block list is marked SECRET and they won't even acknowledge whether a given URI or site is in it, let alone allow you to state your case to have it removed. Where will they be allowed to draw the line?
13. Re:Big enough to give you everything you want by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 18:24 · Score: 0
  
  The government protects the corporations in these instances. Where the lack of competition is the reward provided to them for out laying the infrastructure.
  The places which don't have these/the licenses have lapsed, are the more competitive markets there.
  Remember, just observing a lack of competition, provides no insight as to why there is a lack of competition, and these reasons are often a lot more complex than they seem. Hell, even what I've written is an over simplification, though it's true on the whole.
14. Re:Big enough to give you everything you want by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 18:35 · Score: 0
  
  Source?
  Sure if you said that a precedent had been sent by the Australian people with every other form of media I'd buy it, but there's been no referendum on internet censorship, so there's no way to quote "the majority of Australians"...
15. Re:Big enough to give you everything you want by Nursie · 2010-09-09 19:20 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I'm not allowed to vote (yet), so I didn't think too hard about who I would have cast a vote for. most likely the sex party and then the greens. Choosing between the major two wasn't possible. On the one hand you've got the filter, on the other scrapping the NBN and putting the religious brigade in charge again.
  IMHO, Conroy should not be allowed any more power than choosing his own dinner.
  My problem with the original poster was that it was just the usual "OMG! Gubmint services!" nonsense. I dislike authority as much as the next guy, actually probably a lot more, but I take exception to the knee-jerking.
  Yes, rights are almost never returned to the people, and that is a terrible thing. It's probably never going to change either....
16. Re:Big enough to give you everything you want by kn · 2010-09-09 20:20 · Score: 1
  
  Some noticed the snake and made a judgement call assuming that the Greens would hold the balance of power; they voted Labor in the house of reps and Greens in the senate. As it turns out, the Greens will hold the balance of power in the senate; opposing censorship was one of their campaign promises.
  I agree with you in suggesting that most people don't want censorship. None of the people I have talked to are in favor of it. Australia is composed largely of moderates these days, as shown by the election outcome. Religious extremists and the like are a very small minority.
  The current PM of Australia stated publicly that she does not believe in god, and still got into power (although she only scraped through - but I think we can all agree this was mainly for reasons unrelated).
17. Re:Big enough to give you everything you want by MozzleyOne · 2010-09-09 20:46 · Score: 1
  
  I haven't met one person who actually said they want internet censorship in Australia.
  I haven't had the same experience unfortunately. Most of my non-technical friends actually support it, due to "omg those pedophiles must be stopped!" mentality.
  Why can't people think rationally as soon as children become involved?
  
  --
  Ayjay on Fedang
18. Re:Big enough to give you everything you want by Psychotria · 2010-09-09 22:22 · Score: 1
  
  And here's a tip for you: The majority of Australians *want* the Internet to be filtered, and the government is accountable to *them* not *you*. So now what?
  What? How on Earth did you come to that conclusion? I'd like a citation please. I doubt very much you can give me one though. Other parts of your comment mention 3G rather prominently for some unimaginable reason. Here's a tip for you: 3G is not the internet. Here's another tip for you: you don't know what you're talking about.
19. Re:Big enough to give you everything you want by notknown86 · 2010-09-10 19:19 · Score: 1
  
  I'd prefer a corporation if it was a real competitive environment
  
  Our elections tend to swing on a bunch of tired old hyperbolic meme's which are trotted out election time after election time, catered to the lowest common denominator. Which is why we have to hear the boat people horse shit every four years - has *zero* effect on the quality of anyone's life here, but crucial in terms of election results. Meanwhile, issues with real effect like internet filtering, the environment, and, hell, the damn economy gets little to any play.
  
  But let's disregard this, and, say that people actually did vote on the issues. Given the environment and the damn economy, how many people (slashdotters aside) would consider the internet filter to be a vote changing issue?
  
  There are too many big issues - be the real issues or the fake ones contrived at election time - to ever hold the government accountable on a single issue unless they *really* fuck up. Which is why they can safely persist with the internet filtering shit.
  
  A corporation, on the other hand, can be directly held accountable if real competition exists. Corporation A adds an internet filter you don't like? Switch to Corporation B.
  
  Real competition is, of course, another story - but hell, I could start my own ISP and provide another option if an appropriate option did not exist.
Australian... with questions here by JohnnyKlunk · 2010-09-09 14:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

OK, so this seems like a good idea - but what can we do with it? Having that kind of speed is great, but only if you have infrastructure that can serve you data that fast. We're a long way from anywhere and have only a limited amount of fibre connections to other countries (where I imagine most data will come from), this is reflected in the silly high prices we pay for data already.

So whilst it's great that we will have these kinds of speeds, how are we going to get data services fast enough to take advantage of them?
1. Re:Australian... with questions here by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 15:03 · Score: 0
  
  You can setup a game server at home rather than having to lobby a wealthy ISP that can afford the infrastructure to support low pings.
2. Re:Australian... with questions here by p3anut · 2010-09-09 15:04 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1511009 That will help answer your question.
3. Re:Australian... with questions here by muphin · 2010-09-09 15:07 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  stop thinking globally and think locally.
  when we get the NBN up, major IT contenders such as google, microsoft, facebook, youtube will have local caches within australia, jobs will be created from expansions of such companies, more data centres... let alone medical applications, video conferencing, IPTV streaming, extremely cheap phone calls, ability then to setup local call centres ...
  Education expansion, schools no longer have to be where the most people are when it can be done vide a video link.
  More bandwidth = more data processing so more research can be completed, super computers creates, technology advances made....
  so many possibilities.
  
  check out http://www.zdnet.com.au/election-rant-1-wireless-greed-339305187.htm for more info is the possibilities
  
  --
  It's not a typo if you understood the meaning!
4. Re:Australian... with questions here by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 15:19 · Score: 0
  
  Obviously you don't know what you're talking about.
  Just believing the sentionalistic headlines the print media spews.
  Australia has more then serveral submarine communication cables connecting us to the world, capable of terabit speeds.
  And by having the infrastructure ready for ultra fast broadband, we can start setting up our own servers and start hosting things.
5. Re:Australian... with questions here by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 15:20 · Score: 0
  
  When you live a country where most companies have several offices half a continent apart, the NBN is quite useful, especially considering the current prices for 1mb fiber links. Most people think the NBN is "only" for the end user with their ADSL connection used to surf youtube, play farmville on facebook and download movies with BT.
6. Re:Australian... with questions here by DarkEmpath · 2010-09-09 15:28 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  So whilst it's great that we will have these kinds of speeds, how are we going to get data services fast enough to take advantage of them?
  If you build it he will come.
  At the moment, everything is overseas because it's not practical to have them here. As soon as we have the infrastructure in place, not only does it become more practical to mirror a lot of content and as well as provide additional services here, but it provides an underlying platform for new services to be created/invented.
  You have to start somewhere :-)
7. Re:Australian... with questions here by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 15:50 · Score: 0
  
  The high price we in Australia pay today has nothing really to do with the "limited" connections we have with the rest of the internet. It has all to do with Telstra being in control of most of the infrastructure. Want proof? Check out the price of adsl2+ from someone such as TPG who provide their own DSLAMS and have their own backbone to use. $50 for 150gb onpeak/150 offpeak @ up to 24mb/s. Now compare that to a similar offer from any company with the connection using Telstra's DSLAMS, $50 for 1.5mb/s adsl with 10gb onpeak, 15gb offpeak...
8. Re:Australian... with questions here by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 16:23 · Score: 0
  
  I can set a server up now on my ADSL2+ 24 people.
  Not really important to me. But meh, I'm a fat kid when it comes to internet, and if you ask me if i'd like more cake, i'm not going to say no!
  Don't know if it's the right time to be doing it but, i'm still worried about double dip on GFC, and climate related economic slowdown. We DO have the biggest deficit the nations has ever had.... Which is something that's kinda scary.
9. Re:Australian... with questions here by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 17:04 · Score: 0
  
  It's not about the technology, it's about the money.
  The wrong time to be doing this. I wouldn't buy a Ferrari whilst I've got a massive mortgage on my house.
10. Re:Australian... with questions here by labnet · 2010-09-09 17:50 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Silly high prices. It will only get worse.
  Lets see
  $43B / 5M users (50% of existing users) = $8600 cost of capital per connection.
  Lets say 10% cost of capital (interest on loan + repayment of principal) is $860/annum
  + maintainance of the NBN + ISP fees. at say 2.5% and $30 respectively means about $120/month.
  Hmmmm... what is the take-up going to be when it is already competing against 5-20mbit ADSL???
  This is another Labor government pork debt binge.
  
  --
  46137
11. Re:Australian... with questions here by dakameleon · 2010-09-09 18:57 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  There's going to have to be take-up given the NBN involves ripping out all the existing copper, so there's no ADSL for it to compete against.
  So if we crank that up to 100% it drops to $60. Or, y'know, have a look at the current plans: http://www.internode.on.net/residential/broadband/fibre_to_the_home/nbn_plans/
  
  --
  Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
12. Re:Australian... with questions here by thegarbz · 2010-09-09 20:31 · Score: 1
  
  So whilst it's great that we will have these kinds of speeds, how are we going to get data services fast enough to take advantage of them?
  Well not upgrading our networks till the end of eternity definitely is not the solution to getting faster data services. Do you not realise that part of the FTTH is also upgrading of infrastructure? Or are you complaining about international data? Because part of what makes an area lucrative for data centres and such is the ability to connect to high speed infrastructure.
  
  As the old saying goes, Build it and then will come.
13. Re:Australian... with questions here by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 21:06 · Score: 0
  
  No, everything is overseas because that's where most of the people are. Gobs of local bandwidth won't change that fact.
14. Re:Australian... with questions here by JohnnyKlunk · 2010-09-12 13:01 · Score: 1
  
  That is an excellent answer, thank you.
Cached on continent by perpenso · 2010-09-09 15:03 · Score: 2, Informative

We're a long way from anywhere and have only a limited amount of fibre connections to other countries (where I imagine most data will come from), this is reflected in the silly high prices we pay for data already ... So whilst it's great that we will have these kinds of speeds, how are we going to get data services fast enough to take advantage of them?
A lot of data/content can be cached on continent. Akamai claims that:
"Akamai routinely delivers between fifteen and thirty percent of all Web traffic, reaching more than 4 Terabits per second."
http://www.akamai.com/html/customers/index.html
1. Re:Cached on continent by Crypto+Gnome · 2010-09-09 15:22 · Score: 1
  
  All claims aside, you'd be horrified at how much content *MUST* be individually hauled across the phorkin-huge pond between US and DownUndahLand.
  
  For a start "the internet" is more than just the google-indexable WWW, and carries more protocols than JUST HTTP.
  
  --
  Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
2. Re:Cached on continent by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 17:01 · Score: 0
  
  So 4000 people in Aus get their broadband, even though Aus has a low population density, it's pretty big.
3. Re:Cached on continent by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 21:40 · Score: 0
  
  Cacheing introduces it's own issues too, typically relating to webservers not being properly configured to specify which content is cacheable. This means either caching runs very suboptimal, or someone gets really annoyed that their real-time web game doesn't update properly.
4. Re:Cached on continent by Kjella · 2010-09-09 23:46 · Score: 1
  
  "Akamai routinely delivers between fifteen and thirty percent of all Web traffic,"
  Watch the doublespeak, it's not between 15 and 30% of all Internet traffic. Very much content *could* be cached, if you'd allow the mother of all copyright-infringing servers to sit on the border. Until then, there'll be tons of P2P traffic dragging content from edge to edge of the network.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Great outcome from Election by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 15:04 · Score: 5, Informative

NBN (Fibre Network) is supported by:
All independants
The Greens
Labor Pary
Therefore it is guaranteed to pass throught the upper and lower houses :)
Censorhip is supported by:
Labor
Therefore it will not be able to pass through either house of parliament unless the Liberal/National Coalition switch their position (which wouldnt surprise me)
1. Re:Great outcome from Election by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 16:51 · Score: 0
  
  The coalition side with the labour party on a policy? Especially when that policy is unpopular?
  If the labour party even tries to raise this in parliament (which seems unlikely given the lack of independent and upper house support) the coalition couldn't give up the opportunity to ride this whipping boy for as long as they can keep getting anecdotes which make the leadership look like a pack of nuffies. Julia isn't my hero, but she is politically savvy.
  The coalition isn't going to get a chance to look good here, they'll have to go back to relying on fingering the soon-to-be-bankrupt economy.
2. Re:Great outcome from Election by Techman83 · 2010-09-09 17:00 · Score: 1
  
  Therefore it will not be able to pass through either house of parliament unless the Liberal/National Coalition switch their position (which wouldnt surprise me)
  Actually I would be very surprised. They would have to do a complete 180 flip on how they've behaved as the opposing party for the last 3 years. Which mainly consists of opposing everything and slagging off at every opportunity. I dare say that's part of the reason why the Greens got 4% of the swing away from Labor and the Coalition (liberals) only got 1.5%. Admittedly they need to change their tactics, but being a conservative party, change isn't going to happen fast.
  
  --
  # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
  Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
3. Re:Great outcome from Election by onenil · 2010-09-09 18:42 · Score: 1
  
  The coalition may choose to side with Labor on a conservative policy, because it pleases the conservative part of the electorate. I have no doubt the policy came from the Australian Christian Lobby, and other lobby groups like it, that have sway with _both_ the major parties. They are considered an important part of the electorate. As much as a government who wants to be seen as a "progressive" government (i.e. Rudd Labor or Julia Labor) may want to not be associated with such groups, they will always be influenced by them.
  
  The Coalition played interesting politics during the last election - their leader, Abbott (who is himself from the conservative side of the Liberals), didn't have much to say about the filter. The only statement of opposition to it was made by Hockey - who is a true small-letter-L liberal. He truly believes the filter is a bad idea, however I would bet $43 billion that Abbott actually personally believes a filter would be a good thing. Abbott probably reserves the right in his own mind to backflip on the policy, should he become PM. People will moan and b*tch about it when he does, but it won't stop them from being elected the following election.
  
  It would be one of those policies that's not important enough to stand up for, they simply get as much political mileage out of it while they can - opposing it - then when they have a clear majority, implement it anyway.
  
  Labor's Internet Filter policies, as much as we here on slashdot might not like it, do not really resonate with the electorate as a whole. It was really a non-issue during the election.
4. Re:Great outcome from Election by MikShapi · 2010-09-09 18:54 · Score: 1
  
  Yep. We got just the -precisely- well balanced minority government, to
  a. get a NO to get the filter shot down, not only in the senate where it would have been shot down anyway, but in the house of reps as well.
  b. get a YES on the NBN.
  c. get Better Place in (who were stamped all over the Labor's promised intentions in all but name, and who already landed access to ~100M$ of govt money in NSW) and thoroughly funded via some serious consumer-enticing EV-adoption tax breaks I suspect are coming circa 2012-2013..
  We couldn't have dreamed of a better outcome.
  We'll get the NBN and the EV fleet, then swing over to the liberals for a term or two, to clean up the financial mess that the above will have created, as we drive EVs to work or work from home at Gbps speeds to pay for it.
  Salut.
  
  --
  -
5. Re:Great outcome from Election by elrous0 · 2010-09-10 00:53 · Score: 1
  
  New parties in power often do 180's. In the U.S. just look at Republicans/Democrats. Republicans were all for cutting spending, as long as it was Democrats who controlled the purse. The second they took over, they went on a spending spree that would make Paris Hilton blush. And, now that the Dems are back in, suddenly they've "rediscovered" their fiscal conservatism. Ditto for the Dems. Obama was all for scaling back Presidential power and Bush's more Draconian surveillance/security policies. But, now that *he's* the President, suddenly he's had a change of heart.
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
6. Re:Great outcome from Election by rdnetto · 2010-09-10 19:45 · Score: 1
  
  The NBN will be implmented by by:
  Labour
  Therefore it is guaranteed to go over budget and be ridiculously expensive (unless they decide to tax something else to subsidize it).
  Liberal may not have promised the same kind of penetration on the same time scale, but at least they considered all of the costs. It's not even off the ground and we're already seeing the costs increase.
  
  --
  Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
Question for Aussies by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 15:06 · Score: 0, Interesting

I have a legitimate question for any Aussies on /. Here in the US, the title "Liberal" refers to spineless douchebags who act like conservatives with their own money, property, etc., but who love to micromanage other people's money, property, and selves. Are Aussie Liberals the same as US Liberals?
1. Re:Question for Aussies by MichaelSmith · 2010-09-09 15:09 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Are Aussie Liberals the same as US Liberals?
  No. Liberal here is supposed to refer to people with a somewhat Libertarian outlook. Small government, letting the market take care of things. That sort of thing.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
2. Re:Question for Aussies by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 15:18 · Score: 0
  
  No . Liberal here is your equivalent of a republican. Small brained, narrow minded, have a dislike of foreigners other than to provide maid services. you know the sort of thing.
3. Re:Question for Aussies by H0D_G · 2010-09-09 15:20 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  It's classical liberalism, so it's primarily referring to their economic platform. In the US it applies to social platforms.
  
  --
  Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your home!
4. Re:Question for Aussies by sortius_nod · 2010-09-09 15:21 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  But they aren't, that's the problem. They're neo-cons these days. Someone like Malcolm Turnbull would be a true "Liberal", Tony Abbott (the guy who knifed Malcolm Turnbull to run the Liberals) is definitely a neo-con. They run the party these days and cop a lot of shit from Malcolm Fraser (one of the Liberal greats) for it.
5. Re:Question for Aussies by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 15:21 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I have a legitimate question for any Aussies on /. Here in the US, the title "Liberal" refers to spineless douchebags who act like conservatives with their own money, property, etc., but who love to micromanage other people's money, property, and selves. Are Aussie Liberals the same as US Liberals?
  Find out from the Liberal Party website. They have an overview of their party covering their beliefs, history, and party structure. They're conservatives who like liberal economics.
6. Re:Question for Aussies by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 15:28 · Score: 0
  
  I have a legitimate question for any Aussies on /. Here in the US, the title "Liberal" refers to spineless douchebags who act like conservatives with their own money, property, etc., but who love to micromanage other people's money, property, and selves. Are Aussie Liberals the same as US Liberals?
  to draw a parallel (Close enough, although incorrect), Labor/ALP would be the Democrats, Liberals would be the Republicans.
7. Re:Question for Aussies by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 16:00 · Score: 0
  
  US Liberal --> AU Labor
  US Republican --> AU Liberal
8. Re:Question for Aussies by BrokenHalo · 2010-09-09 16:05 · Score: 1
  
  Here in the US, the title "Liberal" refers to spineless douchebags who act like conservatives...Are Aussie Liberals the same as US Liberals?
  
  Australian Liberals are liberal in name only. At best they are conservative, and at worst they are fascist bigots. Any reference to "liberal" (lowercase L) is entirely fictional.
9. Re:Question for Aussies by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 16:12 · Score: 0
  
  Neo-cons? Please. You have no-clue.
  The name is totally irrelevant to the ideals of the party anyway. The current liberal party ideals are mostly conservatism, and therefore they lean to the right on most issues.
  As with most governments, it's all about appealing to the majority of the public, so they all swing left and right from time to time and different issues.
10. Re:Question for Aussies by nonguru · 2010-09-09 16:24 · Score: 0
  
  No, Liberals in Australia are actually spineless Conservative douchebags who - like USA conservatives - are all about freedom except when it offends their social sensibilities.
11. Re:Question for Aussies by twostix · 2010-09-09 16:46 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  Lol this isn't insightful save for left wing fantasists.
  Anybody who isn't in or completely shares the lefts beliefs is a "neo-con".
  Yet it's the Labor party who tried so hard to implement government censorship on the Internet in Australia, not the "evil neocons" who had power over both houses of parliament for years. That must be *very* hard to reconcile.
  Malcolm Turnbull a "true Liberal" LOL! A republican merchant banker who tossed a coin to decide whether to join Labor or the Liberals. In the US he'd be called a RINO or DINO, he holds no beliefs except for what gets him more money and fame. His 14% approval rating (remember) hardly showed great support among the electorate for the "true Liberal". In fact Liberals across the country absolutely could not stand him.
  Tony Abbot brought down Rudd and nearly got elected over a first term government, unheard of in Australian politics. He also does enormous amounts of volunteer work out in central Australia, is a Rhodes scholar, vice captain of his local bush fire brigade, a volunteer life saver, etc, etc. Yet you try and paint him as some sort of monster. On the other hand lets look at the current Labor administration.
  Most of them were to their ears in ratbag fringe left university politics (going over to Cuba as a Castro supporter in 1996! WTF?!), the majority of them graduated Uni straight into Union politics and most have never ever held a single job outside of left wing politics with not a hint of dirt "volunteer" work or anything that doesn't help their political career.
  You need to brush up on the current state of affairs.
12. Re:Question for Aussies by TeraCo · 2010-09-09 17:01 · Score: 1
  
  In the interests of accuracy, it wasn't abbott who knifed turnbull in the back (although I can't stand Abbott). Another MP triggered a leadership spill (Maybe Costello?) but Abbott was the third candidate and he skated in on the backs of both factions hating the 'other guy' more than they hated Abbott.
  
  --
  Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
13. Re:Question for Aussies by snookums · 2010-09-09 17:02 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I have a legitimate question for any Aussies on /. Here in the US, the title "Liberal" refers to spineless douchebags who act like conservatives with their own money, property, etc., but who love to micromanage other people's money, property, and selves. Are Aussie Liberals the same as US Liberals?
  Actually, looking in from the outside, it seems to me that in the USA the term "liberal" is a meaningless epithet applied by the conservative media to anyone that they don't like.
  In Australia the term "Liberal" means "a member of the Liberal Party of Australia", or a person who regularly votes for the same.
  
  --
  Be careful. People in masks cannot be trusted.
14. Re:Question for Aussies by dakameleon · 2010-09-09 17:44 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I think the argument is in the sense that the Menzies Liberals represent the "true Liberals", and that Turnbull upholds this tradition more so than Abbott et al., who are far more in the Howard-post-9/11 Liberal mould.
  The veracity of this judgement is left to your own political views as to what represents "true Liberal" and how closely Turnbull matches it.
  
  --
  Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
15. Re:Question for Aussies by dakameleon · 2010-09-09 17:46 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Senator Minchin pushed for the spill, with a view to getting Hockey into the top spot. Abbott snuck through as the surprise/compromise candidate.
  
  --
  Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
16. Re:Question for Aussies by thoughtspace · 2010-09-09 17:53 · Score: 1
  
  And how is that different to Labor?
17. Re:Question for Aussies by dbIII · 2010-09-09 19:55 · Score: 1
  
  He also does enormous amounts of volunteer work out in central Australia
  Only if you consider less than the average working week "enormous". It was nothing but a couple of days to set up for a photo-op to repair the damage to his reputation he took as a Minister when he was supposed to try to fix the problems in remote communities. The guy is a carboard cutout on pretty well every issue - for instance he's only a Catholic in front of an audience. He wasn't called the "mad monk" for being thrown out of a seminary - it was because he acted like Rasputin (or for those who don't catch the reference, like a deranged Clinton on viagra).
  The Liberal Party can do better.
18. Re:Question for Aussies by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 01:42 · Score: 0
  
  Many of us note that everything seemed to work quite well over the last couple of months when Parliament did not sit and no legislation was passed.
  The reason it seemed to run so smooth is because NOTHING WAS DONE. NO DECISIONS WERE MADE. WORK ON THE THE NBN WAS STOPPED. everything just trundled along.
  having a hung government also meant things like cancer patients not getting some of their subsidised medicine (erbitux - which was going to be added to the benefits scheme) until the situation was resolved.
  people dont seem to realise that with no government, no decisions can get made. not a real great situation for a country.
19. Re:Question for Aussies by kramulous · 2010-09-10 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  Hockey didn't initially take the position because the liberal leadership had a half-life around 6 month. He was expecting Abbott to be a caretaker and be thrown out 12 months prior to the election, at which point he would take the reins.
  Abbott proved to be what the hoards wanted.
  
  --
  .
20. Re:Question for Aussies by dewatf · 2010-09-10 18:09 · Score: 1
  
  Bollocks.
  
  Howard gave tax cuts to all sections of society. He also delivered family benefits and child care subsidies through a tightly means tested welfare system. This meant that the benefits of the boom were shared and low income families got their share. Australia has had no increase in inequality over period of Howard's government (as measured by the ABS Gini co-efficient).
  
  Of course this was achieved by taking the benefits of the boom caused by selling resources to China and handing all of it out. Which leaves nothing in reserve, may over heat the economy and cause serious problems if the boom runs out.
21. Re:Question for Aussies by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-11 00:52 · Score: 0
  
  He also arranged to put about $3 of subsidy into private education for every dollar in the public system. Most of his success was a combination of bloody mindedness; luck with the children overboard, and a Defence Minister who was prepared to lie about it; and a competant Treasurer. In the end he reverted to type, a small-minded small-town lawyer, who's big idea was to be in office longer than Menzies.
From laughingstock to leader by mykos · 2010-09-09 15:11 · Score: 1

On all the internet forums I'm on, people from Australia complain constantly about their slow speeds and Draconian caps.

Now they're on their way to being the best! Congrats, entire country of Australia!
1. Re:From laughingstock to leader by MichaelSmith · 2010-09-09 15:13 · Score: 1
  
  I will believe it when I see it. Even now innocent people get leeched for incredibly small ADSL plans. 200MB per month from Telstra. That sort of thing.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
2. Re:From laughingstock to leader by !eopard · 2010-09-09 17:00 · Score: 1
  
  I will believe it when I see it. Even now innocent people get leeched for incredibly small ADSL plans. 200MB per month from Telstra. That sort of thing.
  Only because they don't look at what's available, or upgrade to newer plans. Telstra now seems to offer 2GB plans as minimum, with 200GB/month plans available. There are also now Terabyte plans available from a number of ISPs.
  I still cannot believe there are people that oppose the NBN. The cost is small ($6B/yr for 8 years) in relation to the benefits we will reap for the next 50+ years. 93% are to get FTTP, while the rest (that remain in the other probable 93% of Australia) will be looking at wireless and satellite.
  
  --
  Boolean logic: True, False, and File not found.
3. Re:From laughingstock to leader by Zuriel · 2010-09-09 17:06 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  That's Telstra. Their pricing has always been terrible.
  We had someone post on the guild forums that they were planning to join Telstra Bigpond and they got this response:
  Why god why!? What in the hell possessed you to decide to join _them_? Have you finally gone completely insane, are you punishing yourself for something you've done, have you been befuddled by evil little imps sent by _them_, what is wrong with you man!? Think of your wife and child, turn back from the dark side, telstra isn't really your father. Get out of there now!
4. Re:From laughingstock to leader by snookums · 2010-09-09 17:07 · Score: 1
  
  On all the internet forums I'm on, people from Australia complain constantly about their slow speeds and Draconian caps.
  Unfortunately, these things are mostly the result of expensive data links between Australia and the rest of the world (where the content is). The NBN is not going to change this.
  What the NBN will enable is better access to domestic services like IP television, VPNs for telecommuting, VoIP, and so forth.
  
  --
  Be careful. People in masks cannot be trusted.
5. Re:From laughingstock to leader by stryyker · 2010-09-09 17:26 · Score: 1
  
  Many competitors have stated that the Telstra tax is a larger cost than international connections. In some cases servicing some area of Australia are more expensive to use Telstra monopoly than sending data from Sydney around the globe to Perth.
6. Re:From laughingstock to leader by batkiwi · 2010-09-09 17:39 · Score: 1
  
  http://go.bigpond.com/broadband/index.jsp
  Their smallest plan is 2GB for $9.95 (if you have other telstra stuff to bundle) a month and shaping (no overage charges ever)
  I'm an internode fanboy, but you are thinking about Telstra under Sol ($$$$$$$$$$ FOR ME!!!!), not Telstra of today (best network but higher prices).
7. Re:From laughingstock to leader by EEPROMS · 2010-09-09 23:40 · Score: 1
  
  slow speeds and Draconian caps.
  
  You have to be shitting me, Im on a ADSL2+ connection with a 500GB cap for the same price I used to pay for dial up (100mb limit/mnth) 12 years ago. Dodo is now offering a "unlimit" ADSL2+ service "yes no cap at all" for $49/mnth. My parents were on a 256kb/s 2GB a month account until I visited them and made a few phone calls, now they have ADSL2+ with 2-8mb/s down and a 200GB cap for $39. I find most people complaining about speed and caps these days are just lazy or don't have the sense to ask an IT guy for advice.
8. Re:From laughingstock to leader by rdnetto · 2010-09-10 19:47 · Score: 1
  
  The cost is small ($6B/yr for 8 years)
  HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
  If you think that it's not going to go over-budget under Labour, you are seriously mistaken. If they actually get this done on budget, I will eat my hat.
  
  --
  Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
Help! Get the Vaseline! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 15:14 · Score: -1, Troll

Great. We're to be shafted by a massive white elephant.
1. The true cost will be much greater than $43 billion. This figure - guaranteed to blow out anyway - includes no allowance for the interest and other borrowing charges that will be incurred by the project. The true cost may be greater than $200 billion.
2. Funding sources for the project have not been defined. The Government's exposure is 20-something million in initial investment, with the remainder supposed to come from the private sector. Especially given the failure of other public-private-partnerships (Brisbane, Sydney ...) who would be foolish enough to tip billions into another government stuff-up?
3. The NBN will be superseded by newer technologies within its implementation timeframe, and we'll be stuck with expensive crap.
4. Australians will stick with their (possibly) slower current technology services when given the alternative of a faster, but significantly more expensive solution.
5. While the projected NBN speeds look good on paper, they'll be constrained by overseas pipes for the content people REALLY want to see.
6. The projected NBN speeds still won't be delivered to most of the Australian continent. City users may get high speeds, but a very large number of rural citizens will get nothing.
NBN is another Conroy joke at our expense. A consultant-driven, snouts-in-the-trough, cynical billing exercise that would put the typical US Defense project to shame.
1. Re:Help! Get the Vaseline! by KingKaneOfNod · 2010-09-09 15:27 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  4. Australians will stick with their (possibly) slower current technology services when given the alternative of a faster, but significantly more expensive solution.
  Not possible. Remember that "agreement" that the government reached with Telstra? They agreed to "sell" their customers to NBN Co. when NBN rollout is complete in an area. This means that once NBN is available in your area you will be forced to use it or use nothing, because all alternatives will be removed by law.
2. Re:Help! Get the Vaseline! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 15:32 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Or to paraphrase, "I have no idea about the NBN but the Liberals opposed it and therefore so do I so it must be crap."
  1. Conjecture
  2. Conjecture
  3. Something better than fibre? WTF?
  4. The copper network is being phased out so it's either fibre or shitty wireless for most people.
  5. We have excess international capacity at the moment with extra capacity planned.
  6. 93% fibre, 4% wireless, 3% satellite. Are you one of these tards that think the roll-out is crap because the Simpson desert won't be fibred up?
3. Re:Help! Get the Vaseline! by Lotana · 2010-09-09 15:34 · Score: 1
  
  What is your alternative? Stay with our current infrastructure that is among the slowest in the developed world?
4. Re:Help! Get the Vaseline! by muphin · 2010-09-09 15:34 · Score: 1
  
  3. The NBN will be superseded by newer technologies within its implementation timeframe, and we'll be stuck with expensive crap.
  WRONG! fibre is a future-proof tech, upgrades are done at communication ports such as at exchanges, once the cable is laid, nothing really needs to be changed. (for example ALL THE DAMN CABLE ON THE SEA FLOOR) with new advances such as replacing white-light with coloured they can increase the bandwidth exponentially.
  
  --
  It's not a typo if you understood the meaning!
5. Re:Help! Get the Vaseline! by Crypto+Gnome · 2010-09-09 15:34 · Score: 1
  
  Great. We're to be shafted by a massive white elephant.
  Well, some people would say that Australia itself is a Great White Elephant - maybe it is looking forward to said shafting.
  
  1. The true cost will be much greater than $43 billion. This figure - guaranteed to blow out anyway - includes no allowance for the interest and other borrowing charges that will be incurred by the project. The true cost may be greater than $200 billion.
  Anybody with a keyboard can pontificate mindlessly. The fact is that the "magic 43 billion dollars" was *always* "the government are willing to spend up to", it was not a budget it was not a costing estimate it was a "we will not contribute more than". It's entirely possible it may cost more, it may cost less, but The Government said THEY will not spend more than 43B.
  
  2. Funding sources for the project have not been defined. The Government's exposure is 20-something million in initial investment, with the remainder supposed to come from the private sector. Especially given the failure of other public-private-partnerships (Brisbane, Sydney ...) who would be foolish enough to tip billions into another government stuff-up?
  You're all a pack of retards! This is an infrastructure build, it will cost more money than it directly generates as revenue. Like ROADS, RAIL, ELECTRICITY and WATER/SEWERAGE infratructure projects. However, it will NOT be worth NOT BUILDING IT (in the long term).
  
  3. The NBN will be superseded by newer technologies within its implementation timeframe, and we'll be stuck with expensive crap.
  Sure, eventually we'll have The Ansible communications, enabling real-time infinite-bandwidth communications between points many many light years apart, but not in my lifetime. *EVENTUALLY* Fibre as a communications medium will be superseeded, but not in my lifetime, not in yours, not in your great-grandchildrens.
  
  4. Australians will stick with their (possibly) slower current technology services when given the alternative of a faster, but significantly more expensive solution.
  Sure some people will. The world is full of retards and the poor. You will*never* achieve 100% market-penetration. NEVER!
  
  5. While the projected NBN speeds look good on paper, they'll be constrained by overseas pipes for the content people REALLY want to see.
  Yes, to an extent, but recently that has begun to change a lot.
  
  6. The projected NBN speeds still won't be delivered to most of the Australian continent. City users may get high speeds, but a very large number of rural citizens will get nothing.
  Most of the continent has literally zero population per square kilometer, so yes MOST of the continent (by area) will not be covered.
  
  --
  Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
6. Re:Help! Get the Vaseline! by The+End+Of+Days · 2010-09-09 16:03 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  We don't say "coloured." That's African-American light, thank you.
7. Re:Help! Get the Vaseline! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 16:54 · Score: 0
  
  You need prozac dude, lots of it.
8. Re:Help! Get the Vaseline! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 17:50 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Sigh... How can people actually post on Slashdot and not have the slightest clue how this technology stuff works.
  1 - You're pulling numbers out of your ass. From the accounts I've seen, they actually seem to have over-estimated the cost of this thing, by possibly a factor of 2. The deployment in Tasmania is under budget so far. Sure, I have no evidence or references, but neither do you.
  2 - Based on what information, exactly?
  3 - No. Just no. The copper phone network is based on technologies from 100 years ago. It's been upgraded by sticking new equipment on either end of the copper cables, at comparatively little cost. It's kept up reasonably well. However, it's a dead end - not only are we getting diminishing returns, but there won't BE any more development on ADSL and the like. Fibre is already way better than anything that can be delivered over a copper phone cable, and that's where new development is going.
  A fibre network should have the same kind of lifespan as the old copper network it's replacing (verging on a century, basically), and can be upgraded the same way - just stick new equipment on either end. That's where that maximum speed jump from 100Mbit/s to 1Gbit/s came from - the equipment to do 1Gbit/s dropped in price significantly, to match the price of the 100Mbit/s equipment they budgeted for. And that 1Gbit/s is slow for fibre. 100Gbit/s is quite doable, with the same cables. The equipment to do so is just insanely expensive right now, but it will come down.
  The alternatives (wireless) WILL be completely obsolete within 5 or 10 years, even if we deployed some pre-standard 4G network. There is no upgrade path - the entire network needs to be pulled down, and replaced. Every decade or so.
  4 - First, it's replacing the copper phone network. That means there won't BE a copper phone network to stick to. Secondly, what gives you the impression that the NBN will be significantly more expensive? You're just pulling numbers out of your ass again.
  5 - True enough, but this is fixable. Building or upgrading thove overseas pipes isn't nearly as expensive as the domestic NBN project. Besides, that's what caching and CDNs were invented for.
  6 - Basically, that's a cost thing. Running fibre to every inhabited part of the continent is prohibitively expensive. That's why it has a secondary wireless footprint, where there's no fibre coverage. That wireless coverage still beats anything you could get out there right now.
9. Re:Help! Get the Vaseline! by dakameleon · 2010-09-09 18:04 · Score: 1
  
  This means that once NBN is available in your area you will be forced to use it or use nothing, because all alternatives will be removed by law.
  Not only by law, by physical effort too - the copper is going to be ripped up, since this is a fiber to the home solution. That's what makes the NBN a revolution in communication, not just an upgrade of infrastructure.
  
  --
  Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
10. Re:Help! Get the Vaseline! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 19:08 · Score: 0
  
  6. 93% fibre, 4% wireless, 3% satellite. Are you one of these tards that think the roll-out is crap because the Simpson desert won't be fibred up?
  You are exactly right, and Im sick of this. Im sorry, but if someone chooses to live remote, some things need to suffer. Telecommunications is one of them. Thats what makes the location remote. So dont expect fibre speeds 3000km from your nearest city. Fibre is perfect for suburban areas, at up to 50mbs, Wimax is perfect for country towns, or low population density areas and satellite for the rest. But no, the regional areas all want exactly the same as the cities, even though they are regional...
Labour winning is good and bad by Joolz50 · 2010-09-09 15:20 · Score: 1

Good because the NBN is going ahead (Liberals broadband plan was a joke). Bad because Senator Conroy is still in a position to put in the internet filter. As a side note, and I don't have a reference right now, but I recall reading/hearing somewhere that it will be much cheaper to build (in the order or $7B or so if i recall correctly) than originally planned based on the trial performed in some suburbs. I don't know how accurate/reliable that report was though.
1. Re:Labour winning is good and bad by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 15:42 · Score: 0
  
  I'm not so concerned about the filter, it's obviously a ruse to placate the moronic Steven Fielding and his fundamentalist christian dogma. It's actually fairly clever; by being unreasonable, difficult to implement and generally shitty, there was no hope of getting the legislation passed. We'll have heard the last of it when Fielding finally exits the senate next year.
2. Re:Labour winning is good and bad by fabs64 · 2010-09-09 15:44 · Score: 1
  
  Being that you managed to misspell the name of one of the two major parties we have in this country, I take it you don't follow politics and so will help you out.
  The filter is dead, both the liberals and the greens are against it so it can't get through the house or the senate.
3. Re:Labour winning is good and bad by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 15:49 · Score: 0
  
  The government has a budget and that budget will mostly be used regardless if it can be done cheaper or not. That's how government departments work. If the department has $100k to do something, company A says they can do it for $80k while company B says they can do the exact same thing for $20k, company A wins. The government department either uses that money or they lose it. There is rarely a benefit for them to have it done severely under budget
4. Re:Labour winning is good and bad by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 16:05 · Score: 0
  
  never underestimate the greens willingness to change their vote in order to obtain consessions that are more important to them.
5. Re:Labour winning is good and bad by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 18:38 · Score: 0
  
  Good because the NBN is going ahead (Liberals broadband plan was a joke).
  Bad because Senator Conroy is still in a position to put in the internet filter.
  Labor didn't quite win the election: Greens and some independents are still in control. One can only hope they'll stick to their position of opposing the filter; if this happens and Conroy persists in his madness, guess who would will win? (anyone sees "drop Conroy or face other election" as really a dilemma?)
6. Re:Labour winning is good and bad by MikShapi · 2010-09-09 19:03 · Score: 1
  
  Relax.
  Conroy isn't in a position to do anything, not only is there a Greens majority in the senate that'll mercilessly machine-gun the whole scheme down if it ever gets that far... ... now he won't even be able to pass it in the house to begin with - the libs and independents are officially opposed to the filter, and even if every member of labour will vote in favor, he doesn't have enough for a "think of the children" bill.
  And once everyone has an interwebs pipe as wide as the simpson desert for his last-mile and we start chewing up the UECOMM cross-pacific fiber bundle, the cost of implementing a filter will skyrocket even higher than it already is.
  Filter's dead for the foreseeable future.
  Rejoyce.
  
  --
  -
Australia is where its happening by Antisyzygy · 2010-09-09 15:42 · Score: 1

With their budget surplus, handled economy, and this? I may be moving my ass there.

--
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
1. Re:Australia is where its happening by Crypto+Gnome · 2010-09-09 15:56 · Score: 1
  
  With their budget surplus, handled economy, and this? I may be moving my ass there.
  We don't want your ass here, we've already voted a pair of asses into power.
  
  --
  Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
2. Re:Australia is where its happening by bloodhawk · 2010-09-09 15:59 · Score: 1
  
  surplus? I am sorry you must be thinking of some other country. We have a deficit since labor came in with a projected surplus in 2 or 3 years time, but even that is dependent on geting controversial mining tax through and NBN actually staying on budget, neither is currently highly likely.
3. Re:Australia is where its happening by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 16:07 · Score: 0
  
  With their budget surplus, handled economy, and this? I may be moving my ass there.
  Hang for a while see how the mining tax will turn out - things should be sorted shortly. Without it, I reckon there won't be an NBN (and neither other fancy stuff).
4. Re:Australia is where its happening by Antisyzygy · 2010-09-09 16:13 · Score: 1
  
  I certainly would not agree with the mining tax since it affects your major export.
  
  --
  That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
5. Re:Australia is where its happening by c0lo · 2010-09-09 16:18 · Score: 1
  
  I certainly would not agree with the mining tax since it affects your major export.
  Pick you choice: would you agree with NBN and a huge budget deficit?
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
6. Re:Australia is where its happening by Antisyzygy · 2010-09-09 16:22 · Score: 1
  
  That's unfortunate for me. I don't really care for the US, and Im a citizen here. I like the people, and the geography in the northwest, but our government is a joke. Its completely ruled by special interests geared at funneling as much money as possible into the hands of a few. We have no such thing as affordable health care. You may as well die rather than burden your family with medical bills if you get any terminal illness, even if its a treatable one. We live in essentially pretty close to an aristocracy. I'm not sure if Australia is much better in that regard, but I can dream.
  
  --
  That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
7. Re:Australia is where its happening by bloodhawk · 2010-09-09 16:22 · Score: 1
  
  yep it is an incredibly dangerous tax in what is currently a declining market. There is also a lot of questions around the estimated tax income considering labor seem to have claimed tax revenues on the market increasing rather than going backwards 50% + like it has been doing.
8. Re:Australia is where its happening by Antisyzygy · 2010-09-09 16:32 · Score: 1
  
  I can't believe its still under consideration. I have no business commenting on your politics, but I thought it was so unpopular with Australian citizens it should have been thrown out already.
  
  --
  That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
9. Re:Australia is where its happening by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 16:43 · Score: 0
  
  It is unpopular with many, but there is still a large amount of the fiscally ignorant that just see mining companies, banks etc making huge profits and out of jealousy think they deserve a slice of it.
  
  never mind the fact that most of their superannuation is tied up with it, or the fact that the mining companies did more to pull the Australian Economy through the GFC than the government ever did, or the fact that these companies are mostly owned by Australian shareholders (mums and pops) or that they employ 10's of thousands of people etc etc. When the tax was announced superannuation funds took a massive beating as the stock prices of mining companies plumetted.
  
  Never underestimate greed and jealousy, labor appealed to these 2 emotions of many voters and it blinds them from seeing the negative consequences.
10. Re:Australia is where its happening by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 17:18 · Score: 0
  
  I'd say it is, Labor got smashed (lost a heap of seats) in the last election and only managed to form government by allying themselves with the Greens and throwing billions of dollars into the bush to gain the support of two of the independents.
  If they were to ditch the mining tax, they would loose the Greens, and the government. Also, that's why the ETS is on the table. The independences wont vote against it cause that would likely lead to another election...
  It's going to be an interesting three years...
11. Re:Australia is where its happening by dakameleon · 2010-09-09 18:14 · Score: 1
  
  Incredibly dangerous tax in a declining market? Say what?
  The tax is structured as follows: for earnings above government bond rate + 7% return on investments in iron ore and coal, a tax rate of 30% will apply. There's a 25% extraction allowance, so the effective rate will be 22.5%. State royalties are deductible.
  Say whatever you want for coal in the context of climate change efforts, it isn't going away soon. And iron ore is always going to be needed as a basic resource for building practically anything durable. Steel is the combination of iron ore and coal.
  If these are declining markets, I've got some brilliant investments for you, mate.
  
  --
  Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
12. Re:Australia is where its happening by dakameleon · 2010-09-09 18:18 · Score: 1
  
  I have no business commenting on your politics, but I thought it was so unpopular with Australian citizens it should have been thrown out already.
  You really don't - it's not so unpopular with citizens as it is with the special interests in the mining sector, and they managed to sell it well for a sector of the economy that barely makes up some 7% of our GDP. I noted you were bemoaning the special interest groups ruling the roost in the US by funnelling the money from the wider economy (this tax was counter-balanced with a broad cut in company tax), and yet here you are tut-tutting a tax proposed by a party which stands against these groups?
  
  --
  Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
13. Re:Australia is where its happening by dakameleon · 2010-09-09 18:22 · Score: 1
  
  a huge budget deficit?
  A huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge budget deficit of 6% of GDP. Oh how it is to laugh.
  
  --
  Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
14. Re:Australia is where its happening by timbo234 · 2010-09-09 19:15 · Score: 1
  
  but I thought it was so unpopular with Australian citizens it should have been thrown out already
  It's not since we'd be fools to just let large mining companies take *our* resources out of *our* ground without paying a reasonable tax on them. The government isn't squandering the money either, they're using it to help fund superannuation increases meaning we might be the about the only western country that can actually afford to fund the retirement of our ageing population.
  
  --
  Pre-canned Evolution Links for all those Slashdot holy wars.
15. Re:Australia is where its happening by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 19:22 · Score: 0
  
  The idea of a resource rental tax to replace state based royalties is a good idea. Currently, the benefits of the extraction of non-renewable resources is entirely going to the shareholders of the mining companies concerned. The mining companies should be required to recompense the people for those resources. This goes beyond just paying corporate tax (which with dividend imputation is just a pass through anyway to the shareholders).
  What should be done with those resource usage/rental taxes is to put the revenue into a sovereign wealth fund, in the same way as Norway, to be used for infrastructure and other common use benefits over the longer term.
  If the mining companies threaten to not invest in the mines, the net effect (currently) is that the resources will be available for extraction during the next "boom". However, the fact that there has been little or no delay in any mining investments (bar some "stunts" by Palmer and Xstrata) shows that the mining companies realise that even with an MRRT they will still be making suitable returns.
16. Re:Australia is where its happening by dbIII · 2010-09-09 20:17 · Score: 1
  
  He's probably talking about the trade surplus and not how much the government has borrowed.
17. Re:Australia is where its happening by kramulous · 2010-09-09 22:26 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It is not really that dangerous ... for a couple of reasons
  1. The mining industry is responsible for 80% of Australia's energy consumption (this is largely subsidised by taxpayers). 40% of that is just crushing rocks.
  2. The mining industry hasn't always been our biggest. Primary industry was except for the last 13 years we've been in drought. The drought has ended and we are in for a bumper crop, once again. One of our biggest competitors, Russia, is in major drought.
  3. Our services industry is actually huge (a big reason for the NBN).
  4. Our education industry is huge (was number 2 bread winner for at least 30 years straight)
  5. The mining industry has actually agreed to the tax.
  
  --
  .
18. Re:Australia is where its happening by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 00:45 · Score: 0
  
  If you plan on coming down here, you'd better damn well start calling it an arse! An as is some sort of weird donkey-lookin' critter.
19. Re:Australia is where its happening by Antisyzygy · 2010-09-10 02:08 · Score: 1
  
  Ive just read quite a bit about it recently since I have been investing some money in relevant things. From what I have read, it seemed unpopular with your citizens. Im not trying to criticize, I am moreso asking a question which you somewhat answered. So thanks.
  
  --
  That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
20. Re:Australia is where its happening by Antisyzygy · 2010-09-10 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  I see. Thanks for clarifying.
  
  --
  That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
21. Re:Australia is where its happening by Antisyzygy · 2010-09-10 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  I see. It makes sense. There seems to have been a lot of controversy, even one person in particular resigning over it. From my understanding the mining industry employs a lot of people and if companies like BGB threaten to leave then they effectively force the issue through their workers wanting to stay employed. Perhaps I am reading a biased source.
  
  --
  That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
22. Re:Australia is where its happening by timbo234 · 2010-09-10 02:30 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, there was a lot if controversy mainly because the mining lobby ran a huge and very well funded propaganda campaign.
  Rudd went because it became obvious he just couldn't handle it, he was just too unwilling to compromise and did t&he whole response to it ineptly. I doubt there's a majority of aussies against a tax in some form - just look at the combined raw %age who voted green or labor, both parties strongly for the tax
  
  --
  Pre-canned Evolution Links for all those Slashdot holy wars.
23. Re:Australia is where its happening by kramulous · 2010-09-10 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  Stocks plummeted at the exact time of the tax announcement because the GFC kicked into phase two. Want proof? Look at every market on the global economy at that time and see how they all plummeted.
  It was coincidence.
  
  --
  .
24. Re:Australia is where its happening by dewatf · 2010-09-10 18:02 · Score: 1
  
  Our education industry is not that large.
  
  What Howard deregulating foreign students did was in 5 years create a $16b industry involved in selling residency permits. That scam is being shut down and we will then have to start funding our educution instead of ripping off foreign students to pay for it.
  
  The mining industry has not agreed to the mining tax. The 3 biggest mining companies have agreed to a settlement to be negotiated by a committee chaired by Don Argus, ex-CEO of BHP. The small mining companies disagree with this. The legislation has not even been drafted. The independents and Swan are arguing over whether or not the Government's new Tax Committee will reexamine the whole issue of the mining tax (along with the GST and Henry's other recommendations).
Sweet! 43 Billion! by AbRASiON · 2010-09-09 16:18 · Score: 1, Insightful

That's fantastic, a country with a serious water crises in at least 3 states, with a housing price epidemic and using sweet fuck all sustainable power - but hey we can get really fast internet! Even though our international links aren't even that good and a heap of city dwelling people can get from 8 to 24mb/s now,.......
1. Re:Sweet! 43 Billion! by mjwx · 2010-09-09 16:55 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  That's fantastic, a country with a serious water crises in at least 3 states,
  Cant do jack against mother nature. With the ENSO event last year this has lessened somewhat. Perhaps if people stopped wasting so much water on lawns and washing their hotted up HSV we wouldn't have such a crisis.
  
  with a housing price epidemic
  Limited land, bad land releases and a few companies have a stranglehold on constructions. Do you suggest the government give land away or fix prices for private corporations (because that will go down well on SlashLibertarian). Point in short, problem is procedural and throwing cash at it wont help.
  
  using sweet fuck all sustainable power
  
  Every time someone utters the word "Nuclear" the NIMBYS are up in arms taking torches and pitchforks to parliament house on sixty minutes. The same NIMBYs who complain about housing prices, broadband costs and water crisies but cant stop washing their cars every second day and watering their lawns in the middle of the day (40+ C is not unusual in Australia folks).
  
  but hey we can get really fast internet!
  
  Which will spur economic and scientific growth and get us out of this communications dark age we are currently living in. CLUE: we are competitive with Russia for broadband, that puts us at #42 in the world. Economically we are a first world nations about #12-15 from the top.
  
  You criticise the government for not fixing problems it can do little about by criticising the government when it does do something to fix a problem it can do something about. Jesus H Christ, Australia doesn't need any more people like you.
  
  Lets break down the numbers, out of that 43 billion, 16 billion is being contributed by private entities. So that's 27 billion. Divide that by 11 million households and thats less then A$2500 per household. Amortise that over a 20 year lifespan (20 year minimum, 40 more likely) and its $125 per year, per household. A bloody bargain at twice the price. OTOH, lets look at the Sydney harbour bridge. That cost 60 Million to build in the 20's, we didn't pay it off for 60 years... as long as we dont count the economic benefits of the North Sydney CBD created directly as a result of the Sydney Harbour Bridge (oh and theres a bit of tourism $$$ for that iconic structure).
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
2. Re:Sweet! 43 Billion! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 17:02 · Score: 0
  
  That's fantastic, a country with a serious water crises in at least 3 states, with a housing price epidemic and using sweet fuck all sustainable power - but hey we can get really fast internet! Even though our international links aren't even that good and a heap of city dwelling people can get from 8 to 24mb/s now,.......
  .. There's been so much fucking rain that whole towns have been flooded out of existence, rivers are appearing and lakes being created .. Housing prices are in the middle of a complete free-fall .. There's so much brown coal in the ground that we don't have to worry about sustainability for years yet
  See! Everything's fine.
3. Re:Sweet! 43 Billion! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 17:06 · Score: 0
  
  Water crises in 3 states? Do you mean drought or flooding? We alternate between them :)
  Seriously, in the long term having a National Broadband Network will enable Australia to decentralise from our state capitals, thereby easing the "housing price epidemic", which is somewhat due to over population in the state capitals. Maybe not immediately, but it is a step in the right direction.
  National broadband isn't about being able to surf the net quicker (which would require faster overseas links) it is about modernising our national infrastructure.
  There are a lot of projects that an NBN would facilitate, e.g., regional distance education.
  It seems like it will also bring in some rules to do with minimum service levels like upload speed, which compared to download speed is currently pitiful.
  In effect, businesses will be able to run (if they want) some Internet services from _their_ premises, instead of having to centralise in ISP data centres like the current situation.
  Maybe not such a big deal for those in the state capitals, but to those in regional areas it will significantly level the playing field.
4. Re:Sweet! 43 Billion! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 17:07 · Score: 0
  
  Can you please tell me how lots of money will make it rain when the skies are cloudless? I know, let's attach $43 billion all in $10 notes to the creek beds, then they'll look blue! Drought's still happening? THROW MORE MONEY AT IT. Heaven forfend that governments work on more than one issue at once.
  As for the housing crisis, no government will do anything about that. Housing bubble pops, economy goes heavily down, whoever is in power at the time takes all the blame for this immense problem that blew out in Howard's time in office. I'm not sure how you think throwing money at the solution will help. When house prices come down, we'll be in serious economic straits. They've become "too big to fail".
  And for SFA sustainable power - here in Victoria, one of the power industry CEOs mentioned that we have so much coal and it's so cheap that it's effectively free - efficiency measures mean nothing to the fiscal angle of the business. Sustainable power (in Victoria, at least) is a feelgood measure only - we are not in danger any time soon of running out of electricity. The push for sustainable power is SOLELY for environmentalism, not the bottom line, so that's three strikes against you.
  Actually, that's a yankism. You're out for a duck, mate.
5. Re:Sweet! 43 Billion! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 17:24 · Score: 0
  
  BS Mate.
  Communications dark ages is a popular exaggeration, taken straight from the governments media. I'd hardly call the DSL and wireless platform 'communications dark ages'. They are good technologies that are always improving at no cost to the nation.
  I have to laugh at you're statement that these faster speeds with spur on scientific and economic growth. Going from dialup to broadband is significant as an economic growth, due to the bandwidth requirements of multimedia, but upping those speeds again DOES NOT create more growth. It's Broadband PENETRATION that gives more economic growth, not extra Broadband speed. And scientific growth? Huh? What? What kind of science requires superfast broadband? Heck nearly every university is already up the duff with fiber anyway.
  Also, with the number, that 16 billion in private entities is misleading, as it's 16 million in government bonds that they are using for the private entities. So the public purse DOES pay for this.
  Can't do jack about mother nature? Oh dear me, I guess you don't think physical infrastructure upgrades for climate change are worthwhile?
6. Re:Sweet! 43 Billion! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 17:27 · Score: 0
  
  I hear ya, but you, like most of the other geeks here don't understand what this is about. Its about the government owning the network so they can control it, so no more free internets for you, instead controlled propaganda for the sheeple just like TV.
7. Re:Sweet! 43 Billion! by MikShapi · 2010-09-09 19:19 · Score: 1
  
  >> using sweet fuck all sustainable power
  Wrong.
  2012-2013. Better Place rolls out all of the east coast.
  Read:
  [a] Most of the national car fleet off oil in 10 years...
  [b] ... and powered of 100% renewable energy...
  [c] ... which, due to the distributed-battery-nature and smart-charging-grid/ERGO(=EV equivalent of a cellular network operator), becomes the first-ever national-scale distributed-battery-cache to cache up spare-dirty/renewable power generated at night(wind) or when the sun is out (solar), when it's cheap, and put it back into the grid when it's expensive...
  [d] ... so BPL to purchase many many many long-term, all-you-can-produce, whenever-you-can-produce-it renewable power-generation contracts (= wind mills, solar farms)...
  [e] ... making available "30% of my home power comes from clean" and "40% of my home power comes from clean" deals with your utilities, where "15% of my home power comes from clean" exists today...
  [f] ... and there is so much margin in selling us our weekly dose of kilometers this way, that what we term today our "fuel budget" is enough to not only drive us the distance, it's enough to cross-subsidize, in part or in full, the car itself (read: Subscribe for the 69$ Mobile Phone plan for 3 years and get a free 1000$ iphone, in this case "Sign up for 24,000km a year plan and get a free family sedan)"...
  [g]... yes, there is enough margin in there to allow them to do it. In Israel, they've pre-sold enough to be profitable from day 1. Crazy.
  This is happening, in Australia, in the next 3 years, with full support of the newly-elected labor government, right after Better Place get their Israel and Denmark deployments rolling (happening in 2011 and 2012).
  Good times...
  
  --
  -
8. Re:Sweet! 43 Billion! by timbo234 · 2010-09-09 19:31 · Score: 1
  
  That's fantastic, a country with a serious water crises in at least 3 states, with a housing price epidemic and using sweet fuck all sustainable power - but hey we can get really fast internet!
  Australia also has the world's 2nd highest standard of living (HDI), per capita GDP that put it among the top few richest nations on the planet, the smallest government debt and deficit of any major western economy etc.
  It'll always be possible to point out problems in the country but that doesn't mean we should not do major infrastructure projects, we clearly have a national weak-spot in telecommunications so why not fix it?
  Apart from that it's a simple false dichotomy - doing the NBN doesn't prevent us from solving the other problems you listed at the same time. The government's already tried pumping billions into the house market through the FHG and all it did was inflate prices so some more fundemental reforms are needed (eg. no more negative gearing on investment properties). The (shameful) lack of sustainable power will hopefully get some progress this term as the Greens push the government towards either a carbon price or a real ETS that doesn't have too many concessions to be useful.
  If we followed your mentality we'd still have dirt-roads and septic-tanks everywhere, instead of bitumen and sewerage pipes.
  
  --
  Pre-canned Evolution Links for all those Slashdot holy wars.
9. Re:Sweet! 43 Billion! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 19:44 · Score: 0
  
  40+ is totally unusual. It's not a freak occurrence, but it is definitely not the normal temperature
10. Re:Sweet! 43 Billion! by mjwx · 2010-09-09 20:10 · Score: 1
  
  using sweet fuck all sustainable power
  That particular nugget belonged to the GGP but...
  
  I honestly did not know about "better place". Maybe because I live on in Perth (yes, I'm pretty disgusted with it myself). Australia is fairly green for a western industrialised nation, most LGov (local Government) run recycling programs and either dual bin or single bin recycling.
  
  I would like to see a nuclear power industry in Australia as opposed to coal, oil and natural gas that we have currently but I cant see it happening until the baby boomer's die off completely. Too much opposition from those who are scared of the word nuclear despite the fact that it would be powered by 100% local resources (probably built by French or Yanks, likely Yanks as we dont have the industry here).
  
  Over here (west oz), everything is powered by natural gas due to that pipeline they built in the 90's
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
11. Re:Sweet! 43 Billion! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 20:11 · Score: 0
  
  27 billion divided by the population of 22.45 million is $1200 per PERSON not per household. So in our home - 2 adults and 2 kids that's $4800. I will be paying $480 a year for 10 years in addition tax as will all Australians.
12. Re:Sweet! 43 Billion! by dbIII · 2010-09-09 20:13 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Every time someone utters the word "Nuclear"
  Australia doesn't have the fuel processing infrastructure to make it worth it with the current technology (sad to say, without a military nuke infrastructure to leech off things are difficult with civilian nukes). That may change with technology that is under development or imported fuel could be used with current technology.
  For most current designs it's not worth contemplating nuclear unless it's something really big to give an economy of scale (lots of steam), which is complicated because it is best to have small units for safety reasons (so you need a LOT of them). That really means one big plant between Sydney and Melbourne. I can't see anyone putting up that kind of money in Australia with such a small return and such a long wait for a return - government owned or not.
  There is other stuff on the horizon that probably won't cost as much, but for now the NIMBYs are not the problem - bankers are.
13. Re:Sweet! 43 Billion! by mjwx · 2010-09-09 20:22 · Score: 1
  
  Communications dark ages is a popular exaggeration
  No it isn't. For a rich (per person) first world nation we have third world broadband. In speed, quality and service. In Thailand you can get 10 Mbit fiber for approx $150 per month. Here that costs A$1400
  
  And scientific growth? Huh? What? What kind of science requires superfast broadband?
  As a sysamin in small scientific company (GIS) we regularly move large amounts of data. You really dont understand just how much data needs to be moved in science do you, I bet you think it's still a bunch of eggheads in coke bottle glasses fumbling with labcoats. To move 40 GB from us to a client (which we do) it takes almost a weekend or we courier a hard disk, courier takes the better part of a day in the city (if we get the order in before 12 Midday) unless you want to pay a fortune.
  
  Kindly learn about science before commenting on it. This nation owes its prosperity to governments who funded the infrastructure that made organisations like CSIRO possible. But like most baby boomers who benefited from it, you're willing to throw all that progress away for a few bucks (and that's really what it costs).
  
  Heck nearly every university is already up the duff with fiber anyway.
  Do you know how much that costs?
  
  Thought not.
  
  You're an idiot.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
14. Re:Sweet! 43 Billion! by mjwx · 2010-09-09 20:27 · Score: 1
  
  but for now the NIMBYs are not the problem - bankers are.
  I disagree, the amount of money the government puts into building new coal and gas plants will pay for most of it. As you pointed out, a fuel processing industry will grow around the requirement for one.
  
  Private corps didn't build the plants they now own, they were built using public money and then sold off to private corps (mostly by the Howard govt). Hence power costs are sky-rocketing due to profiteering (mine went up 40%).
  
  The problem remains mainly that there is so much negative public sentiment around nuclear, which is a shame as it's done so well for France and the US. A nuclear industry will take 20 years to set up, which is why it should have been started in the mid 70's oil crisis (in my opinion).
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
15. Re:Sweet! 43 Billion! by kn · 2010-09-09 20:40 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Are you suggesting that the high price of speedy internet in Australia comes at "no cost to the nation"?
  On top of providing first class internet access for Australians, it will bring the ongoing cost of accessing broadband down significantly. Already, the mere talk of an NBN has broken Telstra's anticompetitive back. Sol was arguably forced out of Telstra as a direct result of the NBN announcement. Until this announcement, Telstra was holding all Australian's back at 8mbps maximums.
  You also clearly have no idea as to the cost of networking infrastructure for business in Australia. Have you ever wondered why a 24/1 connection can be had for under $100/mo, yet a business can expect to pay thousands for 2/2 symmetrical? Perhaps you didn't even know. This is because of the current monopoly practices of the telecommunications giants. Businesses need upstream as much as they do downstream, whereas your average punter has little need for upsteam.
  The NBN will make Australia a more attractive home for big business than it presently is. A large company can expect to pay tens of thousands of dollars a month (or more) for acceptable interconnects between their offices. Australia has competitive tax rates, and there was talk recently about making them even more attractive. The addition of NBN may serve as an additional sweetener to bring business to Australia.
  On a sidenote, I'm always surprised to hear people talking about governments wasting money. I would be pretty unimpressed to find out that the government was taking my taxes and hording the money for god only knows what. We pay taxes precisely so that the government can implement major infrastructure like this. Sure, I'm all for saving up a surplus for a rainy day, but over the past 15 years there's been room for more public spending in my opinion.
16. Re:Sweet! 43 Billion! by dbIII · 2010-09-09 21:40 · Score: 1
  
  I disagree, the amount of money the government puts into building new coal and gas plants will pay for most of it.
  The expense is vastly more because it means the establishment of an entire new industry to provide the fuel while a new coal fired plant piggybacks on existing infrastructure. The first nuke plant of any size will cost a fortune - after that it's less per plant. Look at the Iranian situation for a recent example, and even that is riding on the back of military spending.
  Your power bill has gone up 40% because some idiot mid-range academic from the third placed University in Brisbane put together a policy about how monopolies could pretend there is competition, based some of it on the Californian electricity supply mess of the 1980s, and made a career out of it. Nearly every power station in the country (outside Victoria) is run by one 100% government owned corporation or another and there is no real competition. Such a stupid policy is popular with governments because it's extra taxation via power bill they they are not blamed for. It's a state government thing so Howard didn't privatise any of them, but he did push the stupid competition policy pretty hard.
  So there you have the another barrier - the only entities with the cash, a reason to do it and the expertise on the generating side stand to lose a lot of money in a shift to nuclear. The states own those coal fired power stations and make a lot of money from them.
17. Re:Sweet! 43 Billion! by fche · 2010-09-09 23:31 · Score: 1
  
  > Which will spur economic and scientific growth [...]
  Perhaps one should cast this as a falsifiable prediction, tested
  before the whole $40B is actually spent. Like rolling out the
  network a few places, and seeing what if anything happens to the
  disease and ignorance of these "dark ages".
  > You criticise the government for not fixing problems it can do little
  > about by criticising the government when it does do something to fix a
  > problem it can do something about. Jesus H Christ, Australia doesn't
  > need any more people like you.
  It's not about what a government can vs. cannot do. It's about what
  problems are important, and what issues should be in their jurisdiction.
  > Lets break down the numbers, out of that 43 billion, 16 billion is
  > being contributed by private entities.
  And they are donating this, or investing, expecting a rate of return?
  > So that's 27 billion. Divide that by 11 million households and thats
  > less then A$2500 per household. Amortise that over a 20 year lifespan
  > (20 year minimum, 40 more likely) and its $125 per year, per household.
  > A bloody bargain at twice the price.
  Is your claim that said households will pay nothing for their internet
  service over those 20 years, save taxes?
18. Re:Sweet! 43 Billion! by cjp · 2010-09-10 01:52 · Score: 1
  
  Were we're not green is in housing energy ratings, sustainable energy and pollution. Even the USA leads us on sustainable energy, which is pathetic considering how many great options we have for it.
  Recycling is all well and good but is only part of the picture.
19. Re:Sweet! 43 Billion! by MishgoDog · 2010-09-10 01:58 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately I agree with you completely in principle, but your arguments aren't really correct...
  a) We can do things about water. Such as Federalising Murray Darling water rights so that they aren't overallocated by the states, or stopping Australians farming water-heavy products like Cotton in dry areas.
  b) Umm, can't do anything? Well you could adjust the tax differential between owner-occupied land and investment properties so there is lower demand for investment properties?
  c)Agree with nuclear - people need to just grow up and accept that it's not like Chernobyl anymore! And nuclear is WAY better for the environment than the coal we currently use!
  d)INTERNET IS AWESOME! Yeah, I agree with you in principle but some of your arguments were a bit off.
  
  Finally - your last paragraph. Ironically, the Sydney NBN office is based just over the bridge in North Sydney - point in case?
20. Re:Sweet! 43 Billion! by Full+Metal+Jackass · 2010-09-10 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  27 billion divided by the population of 22.45 million is $1200 per PERSON not per household. So in our home - 2 adults and 2 kids that's $4800. I will be paying $480 a year for 10 years in addition tax as will all Australians.
  And you'll be paying $24.7 billion / 22.45 million * 4 = $4400 every year in tangible costs associated with alcohol abuse.
  I know which I'd prefer to see cut.
21. Re:Sweet! 43 Billion! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 04:59 · Score: 0
  
  Typical.
  How wrong and misinformed you are.
  Thailand’s broadband penetration is 2.2 per cent of households. Sure it's easy to become one of the fastest growing broadband nations when you start so low. $150 over there is a LOT of money mate. And they have very very limited fiber.
  Ok Mr sysamin, whatever that is, you 'supposedly' work for a GIS company, and you're service is to deliver 40GB of data to clients on a regular basis. This IS NOT SCIENCE GROWTH.
  This is a leg up for an extremely specialized service industry, which I would guess currently makes up 0.000001% of Australian jobs. My god you've packed you're post full of drivel. CSIRO?? Where do they come into it?? Why am I throwing away baby boomer progress? Oh my.
  Do I know how much fiber to hook up a uni costs? Mate the costs of putting fiber in a university are certainly a drop in the ocean compared with hooking it up for a nation, and it's so obviously not too expensive, otherwise they wouldn't all do it. Does that make sense, am I being clear enough for you?
  Great. Next.
22. Re:Sweet! 43 Billion! by ((hristopher+_-*-_-* · 2010-09-10 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  Big business _already_ runs on fiber. Um what kind of big business are you talking about that runs off a DSL line... You're mums home office ain't a big business buddy.
  Don't go around stating that this NBN is going to be great for big business, big business doesn't care one bit. The NBN is for all you leaching, pron watching, web surfers and that's why you're on here trying to vehemently defend such a exorbitant cost to the nation at a time when we should be reducing our spending. Yes fiber is great, but now is NOT the time to be trying to pull it off.
  You say you're always surprised to hear people talking about governments wasting money, I say you're a fool if you think that wasting money is a good thing. How can you think that? You're trying to make out that we've 'saved' the past 15 years and now it's time to spend. My goodness how misguided can you get? We have been spending and performing well as a nation for the past 15 years yes, but in the last 3 we went from our biggest national budget surplus, to our biggest national budget deficit.
  Are you all that blind from the technology orgasm to see this is not a good time to spend almost 5% GDP on a boost to internet speed's for households??? It's not like we are getting more broadband penetration out of this, it's just an upgrade to existing broadband capable households.
23. Re:Sweet! 43 Billion! by Pav · 2010-09-10 16:06 · Score: 1
  
  The only thing worse than a public monopoly is a private monopoly. Do you live in the same country as I do? There was ZERO incentive for Telstra to offer any technology upgrades because there was no competition so they didn't. In my home city the newest areas, even the ones with the best houses have the worst ADSL service - I suspect this is why some of the drive for the NBN coming from the big end of town. Why are so few ADSL lines available? Some people suggest it's because Telstra only doles out lines in small batches once they have customers signed up - this is to get around a legislative requirement to sell spare capacity to other ISPs. Why is there this legislative requirement? It's not only because government enjoys meddling... it's because Telstra was (is?) charging huge dollars for obsolete technology because as a monopoly they could. In desperation the govt wanted to encourage other ISPs into the market in the hope the new ISPs would eventually lay their own infrastructure. This has turned out to be a false hope and in most of Australia we still have a monopoply or at best a duopoly with a whole lot of other ISPs still merely trying to piggyback on existing infrastructure. This is because every time a new player enters the market there's less incentive for another player, and in all but a few areas the market will only bear one or two. This is why IMO big essential infrastructure (eg. rail, power, telecommunication) should be government owned with private contractors competing with eachother for the maintenance. The govt vs private argument IMO is a clever lie to get more infrastructure earning profit for private interests - the REAL efficiency driver is competition... it just so happens that most govt owned enterprises have no competition (except maybe eg. airlines).
24. Re:Sweet! 43 Billion! by kn · 2010-09-12 20:04 · Score: 1
  
  Before you post next time, take a deep breath and re-read the post you intend to flame.
  My post made no mention of big business using DSL. I made the case that even DSL for business (small, mid, whatever) is expensive. Fiber is even more so. I made the case that big business would see significant benefits from cheaper access to acceptable interconnects between sites (the NBN will be cheaper than their current infrastructure - whatever it may be). I made that case that more affordable infrastructure may make Australia more attractive to international business considering setting up in Australia.
  Wasting money is never a good thing. This is not a waste of money. People much smarter than I (and you) have made the case that it will pay for itself over the mid-term. This is infrastructure. My point related exactly to people like you who claim that this (and other expenses) are a waste.
  I think that there is such a separation of equality between internet exposure in the rural parts of Australia and the cities that this is necessary, and now. The opposition was proposing to spend a little under 1% GDP on infrastructure that would need to be replaced and upgraded many times over the lifetime of the fiber infrastructure. Their proposal was literally a waste.
  Take a chill pill. You're ruining the perception that Aussies are laid back and ride kangaroos to work.
I imagine this will go over as well as by hsmith · 2010-09-09 16:21 · Score: 0

"public airways" in the USA.

"Oh we are the family rights coalition, we have 4 people, but we will write 509128 letters to the federal regulators until stuff we dislike is censored"

and now since the Aussie Govt will own the broadband network, they can do as they please. How quaint.
1. Re:I imagine this will go over as well as by batkiwi · 2010-09-09 17:41 · Score: 1
  
  You have to remember the big difference between the USA (where policies like this tend to NOT work out) and the rest of the world (where socialized medicine, shared infrastrcuture, etc tend to work):
  The rest of the world is not filled with Americans.
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2010-09-09 16:42 · Score: 4, Informative

Comment removed based on user account deletion
BiTcth by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 16:53 · Score: -1, Flamebait

result3d iN the
Offtopic by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 17:00 · Score: 0
I tried to run for office as an honest politician, but I couldn't raise enough money to pay for my campaign.
This doesn't mean:
- if running as a dis-honest politician, you will be more successful in rising money (non-sufficient condition implied)
- if persisting in your attempts to run as a honest politician, you will always be failing (non-necessary condition implied)
But surely your sig is "loaded".
Ipv6 by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 17:25 · Score: 0

There is a fapable flag in the IPv6 header, but it's just a flag rather than a sliding scale. Huh I said sliding.
This article confirms that it's dead by cafelatte · 2010-09-09 17:33 · Score: 1

This article just came out. It definitely looks dead. Thank goodness. I must admit, I'm rather enjoying good ol' Stephen Conroy trying in vain to introduce the filter!
1. Re:This article confirms that it's dead by Capsaicin · 2010-09-09 20:47 · Score: 1
  
  I'm rather enjoying good ol' Stephen Conroy trying in vain to introduce the filter!
  As I just pointed out below, this is no longer about trying to introduce the filter, it will obviously fail. It is about making Abbott vote down the Australian Christian Lobby's pet project.
  
  --
  Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
fine print by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 19:34 · Score: 0

up to 1Gb/s, I would be happy with 10Mb/s. Also, only Towns of 1000 people or larger get the fibre, a large slab of WA and QLD may miss out, as well as the average farmer. Sat and Wireless is nice but there is no indication of minimum speeds or costs. Then again, it's better than the no-plan of the other side.
1. Re:fine print by MishgoDog · 2010-09-10 01:49 · Score: 1
  
  Well, you're in luck, two fold!
  a) I've done the research you couldn't be bothered to (google is so complicated, I know), to find out that there has indeed been an indication of minimum speeds!
  a) as pointed out here, satellite and wireless are expected to be 12mbps (at peak usage, so a 'real' 12mbps). I've read a more authoratitive source than that, but I couldn't be bothered doing more research for you. Oh, and finally - I also read somewhere that optical will be cross subsidising satellite and wireless to the extent that Australia wide, you will be paying the same cost for xGB downloads on a 12mbit plan. The only difference between wireless & satellite is that higher bandwidth plans won't be available.
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2010-09-09 22:53 · Score: 3, Interesting

Comment removed based on user account deletion
1Gbps? Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 02:34 · Score: 0

We'll have 1Gbps bandwidth and a 20GB/mo. cap. What's the point?
Hung parliament? by PunditGuy · 2010-09-10 04:38 · Score: 1

That's what SHE said. Seriously, it's great to see broadband being pondered as a national infrastructure priority somewhere -- 'cause it sure as hell isn't in the states.
Hang on: by BrokenHalo · 2010-09-10 05:37 · Score: 1

oooh wonderful, so we are paying 43 BILLION of tax payers money to create a private company...

Reality check: whatever the cost, it's money that the Government has ALREADY TAKEN from us, and will continue to take. Much better that they spend the money on something worthwhile that will endure, rather than piss it against the wall at election time.
NBN is a joke... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-11 20:46 · Score: 0

National Broadband is a joke in Australia. It's 2010 and you can't even get anything more than a 1.5MB ADSL connection if you live more than 20km's from Melbourne. They'll pooch the NBN, charge way too much for it, and it will still underperform. The very fact that Telstra is behind should speak volumes about its impending failure.