Well, we all know what some of us not on NBN can get at the moment - it's 100Mbps down and 2Mbps up through Telstra. ADSL2+ gives you a maximum of 24Mbps up, and 1Mbps down (but never does due to distance from the exchange). Annex M improves on this, but NBN gives you close to 100Mbps down and close to 100Mbps up (saw 88 down and 66 up on a friend's connection).
The whole point of the exercise is to give the vast majority of the population the ability to connect at high speeds. When there's a reasonable saturation of high speed internet, new services and businesses become viable. New applications become viable. High definition TV over IP becomes viable (not quite the Back to the Future 20 animated screens, but you might be able to get 2 or 3 screens in HD). When those applications and services get patented, Australia wins as from then on, companies worldwide have to pay us, and not the other way around. All the coalition are really promising is ADSL2+ to a connection point closer to your house instead of the exchange, so that the loses between the end of the street and your house will approach the theoretical maximum for ADSL2+, which is around 24Mbps if you are damned lucky. You can barely get a single channel and its grainy, blocky and skips - it's most definitely not HD. A disgraceful waste of money that doesn't solve the problem of a degrading copper network which will have to be upgraded to fibre eventually anyway. It delays FTTH by at least 10 years, and the money will eventually have to be spent anyway. Delays in expenses now create even bigger expenses later, and in the meanwhile we lose the opportunities. It's a disgraceful waste of opportunity to achieve something great and get the IP associated with that. That's why I say either do the whole thing, or don't do any of it, but don't blow $20 billion on a half-arsed solution. On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 5:04 PM, David Connors <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Tony Wright <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Either way, the Coalition policy sounds like a winner! 1/4 of the speed >> at 2/3 of the price without actually solving the problem (decaying copper >> lines) and all at the measly price of $20 billion for a do nothing >> solution, yay! >> >> (Yep, I'm starting it) >> > > The reality is we don't know what the final cost of either policy will be. > > > Knowing a thing or two about networks and having been around the traps for > a number of years, I find the whole 'debate' amusing. > > >
