Slashdot Mirror
Woz Applying For Australian Citizenship Because of the NBN
An anonymous reader writes "It's a well known fact that Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak is a fan of Australia and now we know why. He supports a national broadband network — a scheme being rolled out by the Australian government to provide fibre 'for everyone' — so much he's applying for citizenship, the Australian Financial Review reports. You can be assured that he's not giving up his American citizenship though, he told Brisbane radio."
And for U.S. citizens: "Despite his status as a technology icon, Mr Wozniak said he was not connected to a broadband service in his home in California, classing the options available to him as a 'monopoly.' 'There’s only one set of wires to be on and I’m not going to pull strings to get them to do something special for me,' he said .... 'I've sat with our FCC commissioner and told him that story in his office, but it’s not going to happen. We just don’t have the political idea to bring broadband to all the people who are 1 kilometer too far away.'"
just cause you dont think health care should be a for profit industry... hum... never mind, perhaps Woz is on to something.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Being a good citizen means fighting tooth and nail for what you want for your country. It doesnt mean jumping ship because it doesn't have this one thing you want. There is a lot not to like about America but to simply move to a whole different country after just some talks with local government? Seems like an overreaction.
I thought Australian immigration requires anyone to be of at least 1 or 2 years (depending on few factors) as a permanent resident before they can apply to become a citizen, and becoming a PR in itself takes a while. Maybe easier to get the PR status for him due to his status and wealth, but citizenship is entirely different, I think? Possibly also requires certain amount of stay in the country to earn it. Would appreciate if any /.er has better detail on immigration requirements.
Because otherwise this just sounds like a really early non-news. Good on him for coming over to this side of the oceans though.
the game
You could Google dual citizenship and check the first result: http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html
Thank you. The US should look more to the source of its problems being government granting monopolies and mucking around forbidding "last drop" digital fiber to houses.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
no, it's not a rule at all. your information is about 45 years out of date.
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html
http://www.richw.org/dualcit/faq.html#noway
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
Your ISP doesn't have to take your resources by threat of violence, they can *gasp!* get the government to take them on their behalf.
For a lot of essential services, you may as well take out the middle-man.
Or, require there to be more than one provider. I wonder how much Woz has looked into DSL, in that one may still have to get one's line from the local phone company, but one can steer one's account to a network of a different provider. Once that's done it's not a whole lot different that dialing into one's ISP by way of the telephone company was. For a time I had a DSL account that gave me eight usable static IPs at home with full reverse resolve and everything, with everything I wanted to run my own mail, FTP, DNS, and HTTP.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
The National Broadband Network does not seem to be a plural.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
As someone who is currently watching Telstra upgrade the infrastructure (pits etc) on my street in preparation for the NBN roll-out in my area, I can say that the NBN is most definatly NOT a fail (not compared to the Liberal alternative of fiber-to-the-node or the current situation of ADSL if you are lucky, overpriced 3G if you are not)
NBN is a wholesaler they are specifically forbidden by legislation from becoming an ISP, all ISPs (E.g. Telstra, Optus, iiNet) can resell on the NBN network.
null
This sucks, in Tokyo they've have fiber for years. I can illegally download a movie in a minute instead of like three minutes.
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
That's irrelevant; it's ultimately smoke and mirrors.
Woz will be hoping the Liberal party doesn't triumph at the next election. Although they seem to have stopped saying they will "rollback" the partially completed National Broadband Network, they are certainly not in favour of it in its proposed form: http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/government-it/we-will-not-cancel-the-nbn-turnbull-20120629-217f3.html
I'm curious how you picture society without a government at all.
I'm all pro-internet and stuff, obviously, but before a government gets fiber to everyone in a country, maybe they should get everyone an emergency kit, ...
Yeah, because governments can only do one thing at a time. They only have one department that can either provide health care or internet, but not both.
The reason NBN is a priority is that it is expected to boost economic productivity. If it works out, it will help finance all the other things on your list. Worst case, it will boost the technology sector and give some people jobs laying fibre at least. the investment is relatively small compared to universal health care, defence, education, roads ...
Does he know how much the net is censored in Australia?? whats the use of having a the fastest net connection available, when you can't go anywhere
you've earned it, many times over.
Considering that the copper network is already owned by one company (Telstra), the creation of the actually changes this for the better, because Telstra is an ISP (although they where required to sell space at there exchanges and lines to other providers) and they where quite anti-competitive.The Internet is now considered an essential service and this allows everyone to have access to it. (And FYI NBN is required to make money after a few years.)
null
Here's how I picture it.
Also, like this.
Are you saying you would prefer competition at the last-mile infrastructure level?
Doing that you will either end up with many small regional monopolies with no incentive to offer the best service because of their captive audience AND lose efficiencies of scale.
- OR -
You will have multiple sets of last-mile infrastructure which are horrendously expensive to build and maintain, which means that you will end up higher prices and/or longer payback times on your capital expenditure.
NBNCo is only providing network between the customer and the nearest of 120 points of interconnect, the ISP is tasked with renting/purchsing/installing backhaul from there to their own network. They are also responsible for marketing, peering, international transit, connecting voip calls and all the other things that an ISP does that are above the last mile layer2 network.
They have set pricing that is available to any ISP that wishes to purchase from them, just becuase they will be a monoply (because nobody would be stupid enough to try and compete with them just like nobody is stuipd enough to overbuild telstra's PSTN copper) does not mean they are not a wholesaler only.
As an Aussie, I say bring on the Woz! Total validation for our fantastic NBN and potentially a great addition to our national IQ.
Do you have any idea what the NBN is?
Perhaps if you were to Google it before worrying about "granting monopolies, you could have avoided looking very foolish. The NBN is an INFRASTRUCTURE project, along the lines of a replacement for the existing copper wires.
There will be many ISPs offering plans on the NBN backbone. No government granted monopolies.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Yes, you can redefine any word to mean anything you want.... it really doesn't help your case in the eyes of rational people.
A private company isn't bound by the Bill of Rights, and it can refuse to serve you if it wants. Only one ISP in your area.... and they choose to refuse service to you? Too fucking bad, you're SOL. That is the cornerstone of the free market. That doesn't make them a government organization, and anyone who thinks that's what it means is a fucking idiot.
If you really hate governments so much, move to a country where what little government there is has no power... like Somalia. There you can bitch and complain that the local "monopoly" on rules and regulations, AKA: private criminal organization, will shove their AK's up your ass if you don't do what they say. At least you won't have a "government" to protect your basic rights.
Government isn't a company. It can't be run as a company, and works in a role pretty much opposite of what a business does.
You have not been coerced into using roadways, breathing clean air, drinking clean water, eating safe food, using safe products, or the myriad of other services you use EVERY SINGLE DAY that are provided BY THE GOVERNMENT; but you are expected to help pay for those.
The problem is: there too many idiots who have their heads stuck up their ideologies asses in this country.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Emergency Kit = Australia has extremely good emergency response (SES, Fire Services, Police, Ambulance Services) for everyone.
Basic Medical Care = Medicare. Quality health care for anyone all billed directly to the government.
Place to Live = Low homeless rate and good quality government housing.
Proper Nutritional Assistance = Covered under Medicare
Bomb Shelter = We aren't paranoid.
Gun = Don't want em.
Efficient Car = Some excellent cars available if people want them, but many still drive SUVs or low efficient cars through choice.
Water Filtration System = We have excellent tap water in most cities. One exception, and they have alternatives in place.
Money off their taxes = We have a AAA economy still.
Vote that actually counts = Compulsory voting and our representatives will generally talk to us if we need them to.
Additional Insulation = Been there, was a waste of money.
Own surveillance and security system = What now? See point 1.
Money = AAA economy. Strong dollar.
Food talks = We produce most of our own food and export almost as much again.
Looks like we covered your bases. Time to build us an Internet that's better.
This "well known fact" is news to me.
I have not applied for Australian citizenship but have taken some first steps towards it. I would very gladly be a devoted and loyal Australian. This has nothing to do with the NBN, which I do praise in concept, regardless of whether it even exists. I would love to be an Australian even with lower bandwidth like I have today in the States. I do applaud any attempts toward inclusion of all. For things as important as broadband, we should deal with our fellows as family and take care of those who just live in the wrong place. That's my personal opinion but it has nothing to do with why I would love to reside in Australia.
Cheers, mates
OK a new size TV
The cornerstone of the free market is that if there is only one ISP in your area you can open a competing ISP. It is goverment enforced monopoly arrangements that prevent this.
they haven't solved all the other problems
They never will. So we shouldn't try to solve any problems at all. Just give up because perfection is impossible.
Totally wrong! The only major transformation in the broadband market has been by RSPs installing their own DSLAMs in exchanges and leasing Telstra's copper line. Instantly we went from 1.5Mbps to the best the copper would support (up to 24Mbps).
There is this misconception that NBNCo management will be different compared to Telstra, but human nature is such that monopolies tend to deliver poor value over time. We have already seen this through NBNCo attempting to prevent wireless operators from promoting their service as a competitor. The ACCC mandated 121 separate networks (PoIs). A more sensible option would be for the government to invite tenders to run each of the PoIs for a fixed period of time (5-10 years). This is done in other industries (e.g. public transport) where a natural monopoly exists or a monopoly exists.
NBNCo wholesale charges will be the biggest single cost to RSPs. RSPs will have no alternative but to pay. NBNCo have in their wisdom chosen to charge a sliding scale for speed (AVC) and for data (CVC). The effect of this is that we are going to have fibre capable of 1Gbps to which half the country connect at 12/1Mbps (NBNCo Corporate Plan). I can appreciate the need to charge for data, because that is what places the load on the network, but if you are restricting consumption through data there is no need to restrict speed.
Woz is wise in moving to Australia, because the rich will have their fast 1Gbps connections (at least $250/month) subsidised by the poor with their 12/1Mbps connections ($50/month). If it wasn't a national roll out, then it would be too expensive to roll out just for those prepared to pay for a 100Mbps or faster connection. A similar situation exists with electricity infrastructure where transmission lines have been upgraded to support MacMansions with multiple air-conditioners. The cost of the infrastructure upgrades are then shared across the network, including those too poor to pay the running expenses for an air-con.
NBNCo is a monopoly, with anti-cherry picking legislation to protect that monopoly.
Someone tell Woz we Australia doesn't have a Bill of Rights and the government is busy taking away the few rights we have. Does anyone else think one of the reasons the gov't is pushing the NBN is because it provides a bottle-neck for them to snoop on us?
Choose: 1. Freedom and ADSL2+ or 2. the NBN
I pick 1.
Woz was a great engineer, and has always had his eccentric side, but this is borderline kooky. Acquiring citizenship is not like changing cellular carriers, even if you are rich or famous. And while NBN may be a laudable notion, has he considered the internet censorship that may well hamper its use?
Anybody want a peanut?
The Bill of Rights exists only in the minds of the men who have the guns (hence the Second Amendment); it is a matter of culture. What determines the success of a society is its culture—that is, ingrained values that allow a society to function in a self-reinforcing way.
Voting in a western democracy isn't magical; it requires the men with guns to have a culture that values voting, which is no more special than to have a culture that values, say, the libertarian philosophy's Non-aggression Principle (NAP), a principle that leads to anarcho-capitalism, in which society is a phenomenon that is emergent from the voluntary associations and contracts between each pair of individuals.
In your case, you yourself are espousing and perpetuating a bad cultural value: It can be legitimate to use a strike-first threat of violence to coerce resources from people for some "public good" (such as "preventing rights abuses" or whatever label of propaganda seems best at the moment—"public safety", "national defense", "protection of the children", "honoring the old", etc.). Because you promote a culture that values coercion at all, you promote a culture that can condone coercion at any scale.
Under your culture, it is indeed very likely that any organization at all (including your Government) might grow into an abusive relationship with society; however, that is not an inherent problem with organizations, but rather a problem with the underlying culture. An organization that builds roads by extorting resources from people is much more likely to waste resources "exporting Democracy" to third-word theocrats by dropping bombs on their villages than a road-building organization that exists soley by the voluntary contracts of a Free Market.
Somalia is the result of a failed state, what was formerly known as the Somali Democratic Republic, which was governed under a single-party, Socialist rule. The resulting mayhem has nothing to do with libertarian or anarchist principles, particularly the NAP.
Why wouldn't the Somalians just form a "modern" Government and get on with the business of bettering their situation? The reason is that they don't understand how to do it at a fundamental level, because their culture is broken; in fact, whatever value Somalians have been able to derive from life is no doubt set upon what little of libertarian principles does actually manage to exist.
Why can't Somalians simply mirror the Governments and cultures from around the world? Values cannot be imposed; values can only be adopted. Culture (and by extension, law) cannot lead society; culture can only follow society. This is the reason why "exporting Democracy" to third-word theocrats is always a dismal failure; imposing values just causes strife and even more regression.
The key to progress in society with as little strife as possible is evolution, not revolution.
As with every other system of complexity, society can most effectively evolve (that is, adapt to the needs at hand) when there are robust processes of variation and selection (what some call the "Free Market"), which implies the localization and decentralization of the power structure; centralized power—by its very nature—inhibits the process of evolution by quashing variation and stifling selective forces. There is no such thing as an Intelligent Designer; it is foolish to put your faith in a "noble" bureaucrat, who gazes into his crystal ball and then—at everyone else's expense—pushes and pulls naive levers and buttons based on what he thinks he sees.
If you think this sounds like a harsh, dog-eat-dog "social Darwinism", you forget that the principles of our more civilized modern society are the values of a species that emerged out of even the most horri
... nasty wildlife ...
We have kangaroos jumping down our main streets that would kick you in the guts as soon as hug you. Then, there's drop bears...
Dual citizenship can be an iffy thing. Australia doesn't require relinquishing prior citizenship to become Australian, but usually (or at least used to - I haven't checked recently) requires you to relinquish Australian citizenship if you subsequently acquire another nationality.
Wouldn't have taken much research to find out this is no longer the case. First hit on Google:
http://www.citizenship.gov.au/current/dual_citizenship/
Basically prior to April 2002, you are correct - Australian citizenship was lost if you acquired a different citizenship. But for the last 10 years, that has not been true - dual citizenship is recognised and perfectly OK now.
The Government is paying for the NBN by borrowing money. The NBN will make a whole heap of money and that profit will be used to pay back the debt.
This will not cost the taxpayers of Australia $0.01. In fact, once the debt is paid off it will start returning a very tidy profit to the Government in either annual profit or from a sale of the NBN to private (hopefully the former).
This whole project is a once in a century (or more) infrastructure upgrade that will bring massive benifits to both people and business in Australia, as well as returning a very handsome profit to the Government.
I agree with this guy. Sacrificing your freedom for a few extra mbps is a jackass move, Woz.
If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
NBNCo wholesale charges will be the biggest single cost to RSPs. RSPs will have no alternative but to pay. NBNCo have in their wisdom chosen to charge a sliding scale for speed (AVC) and for data (CVC). The effect of this is that we are going to have fibre capable of 1Gbps to which half the country connect at 12/1Mbps (NBNCo Corporate Plan). I can appreciate the need to charge for data, because that is what places the load on the network, but if you are restricting consumption through data there is no need to restrict speed.
Woz is wise in moving to Australia, because the rich will have their fast 1Gbps connections (at least $250/month) subsidised by the poor with their 12/1Mbps connections ($50/month). If it wasn't a national roll out, then it would be too expensive to roll out just for those prepared to pay for a 100Mbps or faster connection. A similar situation exists with electricity infrastructure where transmission lines have been upgraded to support MacMansions with multiple air-conditioners. The cost of the infrastructure upgrades are then shared across the network, including those too poor to pay the running expenses for an air-con.
Wait, wait, what?
Firstly, big electricity consumers get big electricity usage bills. They pay more money so the company can perform the infrastructure work to support them. At least, that's how it works where I live. We don't pay for a connection to the power grid and then electricity is free.
Secondly, it's a false comparison. The NBN isn't an existing network where we're performing upgrades to support heavy users, it's running brand new cabling everywhere for everybody. The single biggest cost in the rollout is digging up and running millions of kilometres of fibre cable. You're looking at a massive cost to get 12M fibre links to all households. Delivering 1000M instead of 12M to a household isn't a big deal, the big expense is the same either way.
I don't know for certain because I haven't seen NBNCo's financials, but I very strongly suspect the $250/month gigabit users are subsidising the 12M users. Exetel offers 12M NBN links for $35/month and that's not going to pay for the line to be run to your house, never mind internet service.
The NBN is not the government per se. It's a publicly-funded-but-privately-run, open access layer 2 network that any company can choose to provide access on. So it's only a monopoly in terms of the physical infrastructure (much like power lines and phone lines and sewerage) ... but not in terms of the actual end-user services that can be provided over it (layer 3 or otherwise).
Oi! Oi! Oi!
It's a 10+ year plan, yes, but once complete, it will cover the whole population - 94% with fibre, the remainder with fast fixed wireless (WiMax or similar) or dedicated satellite (which will be a significant upgrade from the current sat services available).
I don't get it within the next 3-year window either, but that doesn't mean I don't believe it's coming. It's a huge project and they are picking the low-hanging fruit first in terms of where it's most efficient to roll out. My parents ARE within the 3 year schedule though (should get it late-2013), so I'll be interested to go over and play around with it once it's installed. :)
Sorry to break it to you Steve, but I live 35.659km (as per google maps) from the center of Melbourne and I'm not on the NBN constuction list till after June 2015. Unless some serious cable comes to town I'll still be living the 10Mbit ADSL2 dream. Yeah I was excited when they announced the NBN, I really was.
And notably of course our economy is so good that the government makes money by borrowing it.
No.
Filtering: proposal from a few years ago never got past the 'discussion' stages and died. Was never introduced into Parliament and is unlikely to be reintroduced any time soon.
Monitored: not currently. Data retention laws are currently being considered, which would make Australia compliant with the EU Data Retention directives that have been in place for quite a few years. No guarantee these will pass either, but even if they do, it'd only bring Australia into line with the current status quo in most of Europe, so it's hardly an Australia-specific 'bad point'.
Australia? Home of the worst Nanny State since Dear Leader put his entire country on the Naught Step?
Sure, you can download as much as you like, as long as it's not sex, gambling, or anything that might possibly have been copyrighted at any point.
Bigger picture, Woz, it's not just about the bits and bytes.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
and realize there is download cap. As an European I dont even know what a download cap is.
WHY would you put it on a national fiber network????? I could understand download cap on connections leaving NBN, but no. It counts all traffic. Something like streaming birthday party in HD Video for few of your neighbors living 100m away will result in reaching cap.
It is totally retarded to cap traffic that doesnt leave your own backbone.
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
Um, I was supporting the NBN?
And you pretty much restated what I said, only in more detail. (i.e NBN is a wholesaler and all ISPs have access and this is better than the current setup)
null
AC is correct (I'm also a dual US-Aussie citizen). Australia recognises both and regards both as valid. The US doesn't disallow you getting another citizenship ... but basically ignores its existence and will treat you the same as if you were simply any other US citizen.
Incidentally if you are an Australian citizen you should always enter Australia on your Australian passport, even if you could technically enter on the other one. Less trouble for you, and it allows you indefinite entry, whereas for the other passport you'd need a visa or electronic travel authority etc. set up. Plus it screws their 'is the person in or out of the country at the moment' system up if you leave and enter on different passports (which matters if there's an emergency in a place overseas and they need to know if any Australian citizens might be there).
That sounds suspiciously like "This software works pretty well, time to add a feature."
1. The NBN fiber is 100Mbps not 1Gbps (although they could upgrade the switches in the future to make it faster.
2. iiNets offers cheaper plans on NBN than naked dsl, which is the equivlant, for equivlant speeds (ADSL2+ will rarley reach 24Mbps, mine is 10.5Mbps up, 1 down)
3. 100Mbps/40Mbps (fastest avaliable speed) with 100GB on-peack and 100GB off peak data is $79.95/month not $250/month.
And I found that without even looking around, I'm sure that iiNet won't be the cheapest and that prices will go down when more people start using it. Source
null
Wish I could get 10 Mbit ADSL2. 4 km from the CBD of Canberra and the most I can get is ~5 Mbps (crappy long line!). I AM on the NBN three-year rollout though :) (Early 2014)
No, NBNCo is an Australian government organisation tasked with renting state-owned infrastructure out to private companies who can make money from it. What do you think they should do? Give it away?
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
The filtering legislation is most definitely not dead. Labor are just not completely stupid, there is no point them putting it before parliament at the moment as they know it won't pass. If after the next election they somehow do have the numbers you can be almost certain it will be tabled within weeks of them having the power.
Thing is, there's no way they can get enough numbers in the foreseeable future (which is why I said 'unlikely to be reintroduced any time soon'). Labor won't win the next election, and even if they do, they'd have to both win and get a substantially increased majority (since the Greens and the Indeps won't vote for it). So we're talking 2016 election at the earliest before there's a chance of the filter getting back on the agenda.
And ideal free market is just as impossible as ideal Communism. Especially with power, internet and similar services where you need a lot of infrastructure. It will never be profitable to build new infrastructure in parallel with the one of an already existing provider - you won't be able to compete with it because the old provider most likely has already recouped the costs of laying cable etc.
Also, if it is not economical for the big provide to build infrastructure to support clients in area X, it will be even less economical for the new provider.
This is why the government of my country is laying lots of fiber to rural areas - any ISP will be able to rent tat fiber and use it to provide fast internet connections in those areas. The government is doing this because no ISP would - it is too expensive. However, the government works (in theory) for the good of the people, not to just accumulate lots of money (the goal of private companies) so it can undertake projects that are not economical, but improve the lives of the people.
Houses for votes was a scandal in England a decade or two ago at the end of the Tatcher debacle. Conservaties would sell council houses to turn labour renters into conservative house owners.
People have two objectives when voting. Their wallet and their ideals and the wallet overrules their ideals every time during the actual election.
That is why right-wingers love privatization, it means they can score some quick cash to give handouts, buying votes and then when it comes time to pay the price for collapsed industries and sky-rocketing prices, they claim the economy is just bad because of high labor costs.
People think left with their heart but vote right for the promised tax-cuts (which are only delivered upon for the rich). Then they bitch that politicians don't take them serious. Democracy needs a better class of human being then we got.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
never underestimate the undesirability of abbott or his ability to completely fuck up the coalitions chances. Unless they wake up and dump abbott then labor still have a decent chance at the next election (though Gillard is about as useless as Abbott so your probably right)/
America is a country of immigrants, every immigrant is someone who bailed ship rather then stay and fight.
This explains a lot about America and it explains a lot about issues with immigrants world wide.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
None of your statement changes the fact that it is a protected monopoly that has already acted in ways similar to the monopolist (Telstra) that it is replacing. For example heavy handed contracts with RSPs, poorly thought-out pricing structures which will lead to only 5-6 RSPs surviving (Internode folded rather than struggle) and anti-competitive terms in contracts with Telstra and Optus preventing them marketing wireless networks as competitors to the NBN.
Additional Insulation = Been there, was a waste of money.
You forgot to mention... "and the big rush brought on many dodgy installers whose installations can (or have) caused house fires", eg:
Insulation scheme 'causing six city fires every month [June, 2010]
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/insulation-scheme-causing-six-city-fires-every-month-20100531-wrcm.html
And that was only one city. Good intentions 'n' all.
It is not a false comparison. I refer you to An air con: when the poor pay to cool the rich. The NBN is the same huge infrastructure improvements are being installed so a very few can benefit. The NBNCo plan predicts that 1% will have 1Gbps services in 2026.
The needs of the 12/1Mbps users could easily be supported by FTTN. In fact roughly half of Australia with access to ADSL2+ approaches those speeds now, and that excludes the large parts of major capitals that have cable running at 100Mbps. In fact NBNCo appear to be making it a priority to overbuild the areas with cable first to remove competition. Similarly to the article about electricity infrastructure, the majority of people on plans faster than 100Mbps couldn't justify the expense of laying fibre to their door. However the fact it is being rolled out to 93% of the country means that they can afford it. The problem is that people who could benefit (e.g. students, house bound, etc.) won't be able to afford the speeds which deliver these benefits.
There is no justifiable reason to cap speeds in Australia, because data quotas limit usage. Capping speeds will take us back to the days of Telstra's monopoly on ADSL where only 3 speed tiers were available 256/64Kbps, 512/128Kbps, 1500/256Kbps and many people choose 256/64Kbps meaning that VoIP was unreliable, let alone video conferencing. At a minimum the base speed on fibre should be 100Mbps.
On the subject of the $35/month access fee, you missed the $100 setup fee, which most RSPs aren't charging.
According to the 2012 NBNCo Corporate Plan retail availability of 1Gbps AVC speed tier is scheduled for 2014. The hardware being installed now is 1Gbps capable. It only needs a software switch to enable the faster speeds.
My mistake, I swear I read that the switches would have to be upgraded (but the fibre was capable). It really makes little sense for them not to roll it out at 1Gbps if it's only a software switch, although there is probably little retail demand for it (and ISPs would probably strugle to handle the brandwidth on their own networks)
null
I don't know what's better, a government that determines and redefines your rights at their leisure or a government that defines your rights, and then passes secret and not-so-secret laws that supersede and suspend your rights for the government's convenience.
The net effect is equivalent; therefore, I prefer the former because it is less hypocritical.
As an American I've become so cynical and frustrated by my government's deliberate evisceration of the Constitution that I wish we didn't have one. The countries of the former British Empire seem to get by with unwritten constitutions. They don't have to pretend they are adhering to. a written Constitutiom while violating it egregiously, which is so much more honest.
America's slippery slope really accelerated once the Progressives seized power in the early 20th century. Wickard v. Filburn was farcical, but it laid the foundation for the insanity of the Raich decision and later upholding Obamacare.
Basically, because of twisted, specious legal sophistry, simply being alive is tantamount to interstate commerce (or the lack interstate commerce, which is *also* interstate commerce thanks to Wickard v. Filburn), and therefore is the complete jurisdiction of the federal government. Because, you know, that's what the Founders meant when they proposed the Constitution.
I kinda get what you meant except many former British colonies have written constitutions. Ironically it is Britian itself that is notable in not having a single document as a written constitution (although there may be other examples).
Andy Warhol got it right / Everybody gets the limelight
Andy Warhol got it wrong / Fifteen minutes is too long.
Broadband? I maintain I could still lead an electronic life with a remote Unix server, a VT Terminal and a 75/1200 baud modem.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
As far as I know, the opposition in Australia is very strongly against the NBN -- and it was one of the key points in their platform. Is he going to ditch his citizenship if they come to power in 2013?
HEAVILY CENSORED:
Funnily there are people in Germany who argue that Germany has no constitution, because the german constitution is called Grundgesetz (fundamental law) instead of Verfassung (constitution).
So how is nationalizing broadband access *not* a monopoly? What does he think, the government is going to provide stellar customer service? Has he tried calling a government agency lately?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
He undoubtedly has shitloads of cash so the business migration scheme applies and it's effectively a done deal. He doesn't hit the barriers deliberately put in the way of anyone that comes to Australia expecting to work for a living.
As for point two, the libs are opposing any and all infrastructure spending at this time but once they are in control the NBN may be seen as popular pork. The libs hated Telstra as much as anybody when they put their own mates on the board but got backstabbed by them, so the major aim of the NBN of doing an end-run around Telstra is likely to be supported by a large number of representatives. Those in the regional areas are especially likely to remember that Telstra has done little for them since 1996 apart from mobile rollouts, and that some areas have actually had reduced mobile phone coverage since then due to a change to a digital network with shorter range.
Because Australia is not particularly left leaning by nature. Not as far right as a US republican party, but not as left as many would like to believe.
He's really taking his obsession with Outback Steakhouse too far.
What do you have against Woz? Woz is a decent guy... It's Jobs who was the scumbag.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
+1, mod parent up in an anti-clockwise direction.
Welcome to Team Awesome Woz!
The original plan was drafted when 100Mbps was fast and the current equipment was not available. That was a few years ago and plans have changed to match what is available. It is not the weird situation of a pile of 100Mbps gear sitting in a shed for five years, but instead equipment being purchased as areas are rolled out.
Yep I saw that movie too - it had Tina Turner and everything!
Reality is a bit more boring and the rate of violent crime remained about the same, something like a national monthly total being about the same as New York on a sleepy Sunday afternoon.
Yes, but they also state that intent may be gauged by actions (& statements). In practice I'd guess the US doesn't often use this rule because they want to keep taxing you (as a US citizen), but anyone looking to do this would be well advised to reseach it thoroughly before just assuming they'll be able to retain their US citizenship without qualifications.
The Opposition is pretty much opposed to everything the Government does. Then if they get to power, they make tweaks, and if it fails they blame the previous government or if it succeeds it was because of the tweaks. This is true of both sides of politics and most projects.
Who actually wants Tony Abbott as PM anyway? No-one! Don't vote for the LNP!
--
no sig for you. come back one year.
Long ago in Germany, I was 100 meters too far away to get DSL.
They have this points test. Speaking both English and French and having citizen relatives is a big winner. You are penalized for being over 50. I think they want to keep American freeloaders out.
They do have a businesman's path like in the US. You either start a business with a certain number of jobs or invest $C800K in a no-interest business bond for five years.
Unfortunately for Australia we send soldiers to every ill-conceived war to support the global power of the day, and in generally in parts of the world that have nothing to do with us. We've done it for the US, and the British before WWII. As a result we've been at war for perhaps 2/3rds of the time since our founding*. By this measure this actually makes us a significantly more warlike nation than the USA.
The theory behind our military assistance is we can call on the global power of the day to help defend us in times of need. Unfortunately that doesn't work so well. During WWII Britain tried to stop Australian forces from moving from Europe and North Africa back to defend Australia when invasion seemed imminient - consequently the Kokoda Track campaign in New Guinea had to be fought with Australian militias until regular army units could get back. Despite a hard fought victory McArthur disparaged Australian efforts and sidelined Australian forces during the rest of the war - lets say his assessment of Kokoda contrasted significantly to the intelligence he was receiving and subsequent scholarship. McArthur was great at self promotion at the expense of allies, but we were used to that from the British.
So, he'd rather move to Australia to get good broadband, instead of a few miles up the road?
Either he's got his priorities mixed up, or those two things have nothing at all with each other.
Trading no choice for ... government mandated no choice. Wow .. that makes perfect sense. Let's just tax everyone so they can all have access to YouTube, Facebook, and other worthless crap. More of the 'me me me' generation.
.. he's too old for that. Alzheimer's must be kicking in....
Oh wait
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
Yeah, why hasn't Adelaide ever done anything for their tap water?
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
This is Australia right? The country obsessed with nation-wide censorship. I'll take my slower speed access here in Canada to ALL Net-based content versus super fast access to government-approved content. This sounds like a technology spin on the Time Machine with Eloi and Morlocks. Eloi are happy consumers content with their super fast access to Facebook, Youtube, etc all monitored and censored by our government Morlocks. A bit conspiratorial but really, I'm surprised someone like the Woz would be blinded by technology.
He's done something in the past that has made him a fuckton of money. Good on him, I'd love to be in that position. But in his later years he doesn't seem to have anything to do other pass the time silly stuff like this. If he at least pushes carts at Wal-mart it might help.
Wery well! I stand corrected. Makes me wonder why I thought what I did though, and I how I found the information that I did. A MYSTERY FOR ANOTHER DAY.
Coopers.
Sara
Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
Touche. I remembered the Constitution of Canada after I posted and realized my generalization was in error. Thanks for educating me.
Any time ;)
Andy Warhol got it right / Everybody gets the limelight
Andy Warhol got it wrong / Fifteen minutes is too long.
Oh, so there's an Oz beer that's worse than Foster's?
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
One misleading story was picked up by 30 other reporters, none of whom bothered to check with Steve Wozniak. When I did, he emailed. “I am taking the first steps toward my goal of Australian citizenship, which is to apply for an extended visa so that I can reside here. I have desired to find the path to accomplish this for decades. It has nothing to do with NBN (faulty reporting) although I'm always a staunch advocate for technology and bandwidth and sharing and internet freedom. But the two things are not connected. NBN is good in my mind and is a side benefit but that's all.” http://fastnetnews.com/fiber-news/175-d/4856-woz-nbn-is-not-why-im-going-australian
No regard for costs? Why not move to where broadband is? And if you want to live in the sticks why not partner with neighbors to create long haul wifi? Because the gov won't let you do it? Tell that to the Woz. Will the Aboriginals have fiber???
the USA please turn off the Blinkinlights.
+1 for our new Minister for Science, Technology, Communications. It's been so long since we had one that didn't suck.