Discussion in 'Parramatta Eels' started by Gronk, Dec 10, 2018.
Agreed. Its not comparison with lo fi 80s muff porn.
You motherf**ker !! With 2 exclamation points
Which is a plus over having it being outdated before it was begun,
This is an ideological position, not a logical position. TBH I've never really understood why anyone would take this position other than for political reasons.
Personally I see telecommunications as critical infrastructure, no different from roads, electricity , sewage, etc. All of which we pay to use, but were essentially built with "taxpayer money".
Of all the dumb arsed things tax payers pay for, actual infrastructure that every merkin uses should be last on the list of evils.
I think you just run fibre to node and the owner should pay to get to house.
Some houses are a nice simple job. It may be 3hrs Labor. But you have some driveways especialy in the mountains where it could be 3 or 4 days work and excavators needed. I don't thinm the government should pay for this.
People get a choice this way.
Maybe could offer a rebate and internet companies may also offer something towards the cost perhaps.
Getting fibre to house stopped due to so many difficulties. At start this is what was happening. Heaps of electrical companies pulled out mid job due to the difficulties of install amd losing money.
Id say average cost for a standard gome would be around the $1500 mark. People who really want it will pay up.
People who would need to cough up 10k most likely wouldn't unless a business. They settle for the 40mbps they get off the copper cable which is more then enough for most people currently.
If you pay for the cheapest NBN plan your still only getting MAX 12mbps. Average around 6 or 7. Its 1/3 speed of adsl 2. This is on the providers not the cabling. Pay more and you can get faster.
Anyhows in most situation 4g is equal to speeds of nbn currently offers...5g I would say would be good enough for 99% of domestic households....
Fibre to NODE and if need super dooper speeds you pay. Make it tax deductible perhaps for everyone.
Then telcom companies can build it and we can pay them for it.
But for what, though? That's my point.
Data volume has increased because we're downloading movies and playing games at higher res. The government shouldn't be paying for that.
At 2Mb/s (hindy's nominated poor speed) I can grab 120Mbs in a minute. That's 1.2Gb in 10 minute.
No one working from home needs that for work. There is absolutely no reason my work from home requirements are 2.4Gb/minute (at hindy's good 40Mb/s).
That is absolutely ludicrous.
Only if you have the bandwidth
I'm proud of myself for not making a cable joke so far...
f**k fibre to the Node, fibre to the curb is realistic, and should be the minimum standard install, then you deal with what's on your property if you want the fibre all the way to your house. FTTC easily delivers 100 mb/s, if you want gigabit speed, then you pay for the extra run of cable.
As for 4g / 5g, yeah, it's good, and it's fast. but, and it's a big but, it's not even carrying 1% of the data in this country, try running the other 99% plus that's carried over fixed line and you'll find out how limited the available spectrum is. You'll be instantly crawling at dial up speeds.
You're out of your depth here. Industry needs huge bandwidth way beyond your limited experience in the world that you live in.
You mean the telecom companies that right now throttle your connection, so you don't get the speed you pay for, because they haven't purchased the bandwith and or built in enough backhaul into their networks?
Those telecom companies?
Sorry mate but really this is just a typical visionless trope, it's a non argument.
If you want to see the economy performing, if you want to see wages growth, then you need to encourage growth in productivity, and that means investment in technology and infrastructure. The uses come with the availability of the means, that's how it works.
Again you can liken it to way we've done infrastructure in this country for last few decades, everything is aimed to meet current need, economic rationalism demands full utilisation to justify any expansion, as always because we lack any real vision.
That which is planned is delivered to meet the needs at the time the idea was floated. Inevitably because the lead time from planning to delivery is years, delivery ends up years behind need, meaning that need is never met.
Yep. HJ talking out of his coight.
Sorry I meant to kerb.
The master of entertaining
Just putting it out there I can do fibre.
Starting at $2,000 a pop.
Nobody needs fibre. Or carbs.
Yeah, and cost more. Just like future upgrades will cost more. There's no 'best' point in time where we can wipe our hands of it.
Ideology is logical. We choose the ideologies we think suit us best.
And increasingly built and maintained by businesses who recoup their investment directly from the customer.
Communications infrastructure is a different beast for a number of reasons, not least of which is the rapidly changing nature of technological development.
Should kick both to the kerb.
Better costs more, gee who'd a thunk it?
I don't propose us "wiping our hands" of anything. So I don't see any relevance?
That doesn't make it logical, TBH I find most ideological positions poorly rooted in weakly understood principles, or indeed based in complete falsehoods, then bent in a manner to suit any particular situation.
I'd go as far to say we are for the most part bereft of understanding in the root ideas of such position and simply take a position based on what my team advocates at any given moment.
User pays is one of these, inevitably it's rooted in the myth of the balanced budget, there's many steps in between, but if one questions each reason as to why, that's where it comes from. Because it's a gift of economic rationalism.
Look, this is just patently misleading. I understand you can point to a myriad of infrastructure "built and maintained" by the private sector, but it obscures how this actually happens. inevitably it's PPP's, with the government underwriting the capital, and or guaranteeing ROI through legislation and contractual obligations. Without such things, the private sector doesn't do infrastructure here. It's the ultimate means of rent seeking.
So what? That has no bearing whatsoever on the fundamental point. How does the fact that the tech changes rapidly serve to make it unsuitable or bad for government to spend money on it?
Well you've complained about us spending more on it now, as if that's worse than spending more in the past or the future.
Being part of a team and promoting the interests of that team is also logical. There is a payoff. That's what matters. There are so many variables we are unable to accurately measure that there comes a point where attempting more understanding is wasted effort. And since our own personal success and even survival are tenuous it makes sense to transfer that emotional investment to the group, which has been proven to endure and even remain successful by arbitrary standards. The Jews who invented Christianity even managed to turn victimhood into a sign of virtue. Absolutely revolutionary. This the basis for modern Western morality. Every time 'they' hurt one of us we win.
It's just more about fairness. If I'm going to provide you with some of my resources I should get to choose in most cases, without coercion. After that it's a debate over which things I should be free to give (or not) vs which things the state should take because I'm a greedy merkin. Which I guess is the debate we're having right now.
Agreed, but competition forces things to get done more cheaply where if the monopoly that is government were to do them would just result in more bloat.
It comes down to the government decision cycle and appetite for risk. Neither is suited to such speculative investment as that for communications infrastructure. It's a game for private companies to get rich or go broke in.
Separate names with a comma.