Re: [LINK] Does NBN need a third satellite?

[Hamish Moffatt]

On 04/04/16 18:56, JanW wrote:

At 02:20 PM 4/04/2016, Hamish Moffatt wrote:

And Nine estimates most people have MPEG-4 decoding ability already:

http://www.mediaweek.com.au/nine-is-broadcasting-its-channel-in-hd-but-not-for-everyone/ 



Just going through the whole channel line-up:

13 TenHD - dead
74 TV4ME USED to work but now dead
76 7flix - dead
78 Racing - dead
[not smart 7 - 3 out of your 6 channels unusable]
90 9HD - can hear, but comes up with a floating box, unlike the others 
that just don't show the picture




How old is your TV?

On the whole I think they've done you a favour by making the above 
unavailable...



Hamish
___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Does NBN need a third satellite?

[David Boxall]

On 4/04/2016 2:04 PM, JanW wrote:

... My HD tv doesn't do MPEG4, evidently just MPEG2.
Decoding MPEG4 is substantially more resource-intensive than MPEG2. 
Unless your TV is very old, the hardware is probably up to the job. You 
might find that a solution is only a firmware upgrade away. Worth asking 
the manufacturer, at least.


> So why did 7 network choose this? ...
MPEG4 is substantially more efficient than MPEG2. For comparable 
results, current implementations of MPEG4 take around half the bandwidth.



My Kogan STB manages7Flix, so I can watch via that and/or record on it.
If you analyse recordings from several channels, you'll probably find 
substantial variation in the details of audio and video encoding. 
There's variation in MPEG2 DVB-T streams as well, but it seems more 
extreme in MPEG4 streams.


My remarks extrapolate from experience with DVB-S (satellite) streams. 
Bear in mind that, for those of us who rely on VAST satellite services, 
those new channels are not available. There simply isn't the bandwidth.



...
Bottom line: not all compression is created equal.
...
Getting back to my original point, MPEG4 mitigates the bandwidth 
limitations. Sadly, it isn't enough. For comparable results, MPEG4 
halves the bandwidth. The best upcoming codecs halve that again. Our 
problem is that the market isn't for "comparable results".


The raw data in a UHD stream is about four times that in HD (without 
even considering extra loads like HDR). 8k is four times that again. 16k 
is four times more.


See the problem? Demand is quadrupling, while capacity is doubling.

We're very close to the limits of RF broadcast capacity. That's one 
reason why we really need to get moving on pushing fibre as far as it 
can go. How far it can go in the century-or-so anticipated service life, 
it's our duty to find out.


To put it appropriately, if a little crudely:
Time to extract the digit. ;)

--
David Boxall|  When a distinguished but elderly
|  scientist states that something is
http://david.boxall.id.au   |  possible, he is almost certainly
|  right. When he states that
|  something is impossible, he is
|  very probably wrong.
  --Arthur C. Clarke
___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Does NBN need a third satellite?

[JanW]

At 02:20 PM 4/04/2016, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>And Nine estimates most people have MPEG-4 decoding ability already:
>
>http://www.mediaweek.com.au/nine-is-broadcasting-its-channel-in-hd-but-not-for-everyone/

Just going through the whole channel line-up:

13 TenHD - dead
74 TV4ME USED to work but now dead
76 7flix - dead
78 Racing - dead
[not smart 7 - 3 out of your 6 channels unusable]
90 9HD - can hear, but comes up with a floating box, unlike the others that 
just don't show the picture





I write books. http://janwhitaker.com/?page_id=8

Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
jw...@janwhitaker.com
Twitter: JL_Whitaker
Blog: www.janwhitaker.com 

Sooner or later, I hate to break it to you, you're gonna die, so how do you 
fill in the space between here and there? It's yours. Seize your space. 
~Margaret Atwood, writer 

_ __ _
___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Does NBN need a third satellite?

[Bernard Robertson-Dunn]

On 4/04/2016 2:04 PM, JanW wrote:
> At 01:53 PM 4/04/2016, Karl Auer wrote:
>
>> So I'm not knocking video "compression". But I do think people should
>> know what they are paying for. 
> Here's a different angle on chosen compression. The new 7Flix channel is 
> using MPEG4. My HD tv doesn't do MPEG4, evidently just MPEG2. The racing 
> channel also uses MPEG4, so I can't see that video either. I can hear both.
>
> My Kogan STB manages7Flix, so I can watch via that and/or record on it. But 
> if I want to record some other channel and watch 7Flix on my TV, I can't.
>
> So why did 7 network choose this? I know I'm not alone. I found out that it 
> wasn't by reading the Whirlpool thread on it.

This month's Silicon Chip (April) has an article on the subject. You
could possibly read it in your local newsagent (if you still have one)
or library.

:
MPEG-4 is not new; far from it. The MPEG-4 version 10 compression
standard was approved for worldwide use in 2005 and New Zealand has used
MPEG-4 for all of their TV broadcasts. In Australia, we have had digital
TV since 2001 but using the less efficient MPEG-2 compression.

The root of the chaos lies in Australian Standard AS 4933.1-2010 Digital
Television - requirements for receivers - VHF/UHF DVB-T Television
broadcasts.

This standard made MPEG-4 reception optional, saying that broadcasters
may use it and so importers and retailers do not have to comply. If the
standard had made MPEG-4 compulsory back in 2010, nearly all TVs,
personal video recorders and set top boxes would now have been able to
receive MPEG-4 signals.


-- 

Regards
brd

Bernard Robertson-Dunn
Sydney Australia
email: b...@iimetro.com.au
web:   www.drbrd.com
web:   www.problemsfirst.com
Blog:  www.problemsfirst.com/blog

___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Does NBN need a third satellite?

[JanW]

At 01:53 PM 4/04/2016, Karl Auer wrote:

>So I'm not knocking video "compression". But I do think people should
>know what they are paying for. 

Here's a different angle on chosen compression. The new 7Flix channel is using 
MPEG4. My HD tv doesn't do MPEG4, evidently just MPEG2. The racing channel also 
uses MPEG4, so I can't see that video either. I can hear both.

My Kogan STB manages7Flix, so I can watch via that and/or record on it. But if 
I want to record some other channel and watch 7Flix on my TV, I can't.

So why did 7 network choose this? I know I'm not alone. I found out that it 
wasn't by reading the Whirlpool thread on it.

Bottom line: not all compression is created equal.

Jan


I write books. http://janwhitaker.com/?page_id=8

Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
jw...@janwhitaker.com
Twitter: JL_Whitaker
Blog: www.janwhitaker.com 

Sooner or later, I hate to break it to you, you're gonna die, so how do you 
fill in the space between here and there? It's yours. Seize your space. 
~Margaret Atwood, writer 

_ __ _
___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Does NBN need a third satellite?

[Karl Auer]

On Mon, 2016-04-04 at 13:31 +1000, Jim Birch wrote:
> On 2 April 2016 at 13:54, Karl Auer wrote:
> "compressed for transmission" means "has had much data discarded".
> 
> All digital video is compressed, except maybe the truly lossless
> "raw" digital masters at a studio.  These chew up massive
> bandwidth/storage, and, contain a lot more information than the human
> eye can see. Forget it. There is actually no benefit to the end
> viewer in using this stuff, it's a massive waste of resources.

Well, perhaps.That's why video "compression" works, much as mp3 does
with hearing. Fact is though, that anyone who cannot hear the
difference between even a 320Kbps MP3 and the original probably has a
hearing problem.

Depending on the device being used to view it, "compressed" video may
be really great or really bad. I download iView programs and watch them
in a corner of my monitor, and they look really good. I imagine they'd
look great on a phone, too. But if I watch the exact same download on a
big TV screen (or even just full-screen on my monitor), it looks very
patchy.

Real movie-quality photographic film runs at about 5000dpi; digitised,
that's something like 19TB for a feature film. I don't know what
resolution digital film has, but it must not be too dissimilar, because
for display on a cinema screen, you need as much of it as you can get.
You really don't need all that for a television or a phone.

So I'm not knocking video "compression". But I do think people should
know what they are paying for.

> This is why Netflix look so great compared
> to somecrappy youtube video: they might both have the same nominal
> resolution and bit rate but Netflix really grind the best possible 
> result out of the bandwidth.

Of course. My point was simply that people should understand that in
the video world "compression" does not mean what a reasonable person
might think it does. It means data has been discarded. Cleverly,
selectively, but it's still discarded.

> In this context "compressed for transmission" doesn't mean 
> compressed, every one does that.

That doesn't entirely make sense...

Regards, K.

-- 
~~~
Karl Auer (ka...@biplane.com.au)
http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer
http://twitter.com/kauer389

GPG fingerprint: E00D 64ED 9C6A 8605 21E0 0ED0 EE64 2BEE CBCB C38B
Old fingerprint: 3C41 82BE A9E7 99A1 B931 5AE7 7638 0147 2C3C 2AC4



___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Does NBN need a third satellite?

[Jim Birch]

On 2 April 2016 at 13:54, Karl Auer wrote:

"compressed for transmission" means "has had much data discarded".


All digital video is compressed, except maybe the truly lossless "raw"
digital masters at a studio.  These chew up massive bandwidth/storage, and,
contain a lot more information than the human eye can see. Forget it. There
is actually no benefit to the end viewer in using this stuff, it's a
massive waste of resources.

There are two main problems with video compression: overcompression and
poorly optimised compression.  In practice there is a grey dividing line.
Increasing grunt applied to the compression process can produce a vastly
better result with the same bit rate.  Crappy compression is more or less
artlessly mash the "raw" video into to available bandwidth via dropped
frames and pixelation.   This is why Netflix look so great compared to some
crappy youtube video: they might both have the same nominal resolution and
bit rate but Netflix really grind the best possible result out of the
bandwidth. (Netflix do engage in some other dirty tricks like cropping
scenes.)

In this context "compressed for transmission" doesn't mean compressed,
every one does that.  It really means "Sorry mate, we know this has
problems.  We're pushing the bandwidth line and maybe could be doing
smarter compression, and yes, you can see it."
___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Does NBN need a third satellite?

[David Boxall]

On 2/04/2016 1:54 PM, Karl Auer wrote:

...
What many in the IT world do not realise is that "compress" in the
video world BY DEFAULT means "throw data away until the remainder is
small enough". This is antithetical to the concept of high definition.
...
Yes, and the HDR UHD stream that exceeds NBN target bandwidth is AVC 
compressed. Further compression would reduce the quality below 
acceptable limits, as you say.


Tom seems to imply that I refer to uncompressed (though presumably not 
raw) video in the stream.


--
David Boxall|  Perfection is achieved, not when
|  there is nothing more to add, but
http://david.boxall.id.au   |  when there is nothing left to take
|  away.
   --Antoine de Saint-Exupery
___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Does NBN need a third satellite?

[Karl Auer]

On Sat, 2016-04-02 at 11:17 +1100, David Boxall wrote:
> On 1/04/2016 8:36 AM, Tom Worthington wrote:
> UHD has to be compressed for transmission.

Just a teeny fact injection here: We in the IT world tend to regard
compression as being lossless by default (zip, gzip, etc).[1]

What many in the IT world do not realise is that "compress" in the
video world BY DEFAULT means "throw data away until the remainder is
small enough". This is antithetical to the concept of high definition.

I'm prepared to be shown up here, but I am almost certain that
"compressed for transmission" means "has had much data discarded". What
you get to see, at the consumer end of the transmission, is a much
-damaged item.

Regards, K.

[1] An original item X is compressed; the result is a compressed
version Y. Lossless compression means that Y can be processed in such a
way as to produce an item that is bit-for-bit identical to X. Lossy
compression means that there is no way back to X.

-- 
~~~
Karl Auer (ka...@biplane.com.au)
http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer
http://twitter.com/kauer389

GPG fingerprint: E00D 64ED 9C6A 8605 21E0 0ED0 EE64 2BEE CBCB C38B
Old fingerprint: 3C41 82BE A9E7 99A1 B931 5AE7 7638 0147 2C3C 2AC4



___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Does NBN need a third satellite?

[Tom Worthington]

On 29/03/16 11:38, David Boxall wrote:


It could be argued that advances in video technology will soon exceed
the capacity of radio-frequency broadcast. ...


Video has to be tailored to fit within the transmission capacity 
available. The resolution of analogue black and white TV was designed 
for the spectrum available. When color was added, its resolution was set 
even lower to fit it in. Digital TV has similar compromises with 
compression.



... adding high dynamic range to ultra high-definition
exceeds the 25 Mb/s target of the NBN. ...


UHD has to be compressed for transmission.


... profit evidently takes priority. ...


Why should Netflix's profit be a priority for the Australian government?


--
Tom Worthington FACS CP, TomW Communications Pty Ltd. t: 0419496150
The Higher Education Whisperer http://blog.highereducationwhisperer.com/
PO Box 13, Belconnen ACT 2617, Australia  http://www.tomw.net.au
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards 
Legislation


Adjunct Lecturer, Research School of Computer Science, College of 
Engineering & Computer Science, Australian National University

http://people.cecs.anu.edu.au/user/3890 http://orcid.org/-0003-4799-8464
___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Does NBN need a third satellite?

[Karl Auer]

On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 09:27 +1100, Tom Worthington wrote:
> On 30/03/16 09:51, Karl Auer wrote:
> The Australian government is funding the construction of the NBN and 
> put in place a policy that city customers subsidize remote users. So 
> it is up to the government to decide what the network can be used
> for.
> [much snipped]

That's a truism. The government (at least in theory) is us. My view,
apparently not yours, is that the government should not presume to tell
citizens what they can and cannot use the network for. If there are
TECHNICAL barriers to use of the network that force the government to
prioritise traffic - such as inadequate bandwidth or data quotas - then
the correct solution is to remove the barriers.

It's not necessarily the cheapest solution, but it is the best one - on
a great many levels, starting with the economic activity of
construction, the increased value of well-connected areas, the greater
participation and visibility of remote communities, the creation of new
educational and economic possibilities for people in those
communities... By no means a complete list.

> No, remote users get less broadband due to geography.

Australia has excellent international connectivity, in spite of quite a
lot of geography standing between it and the rest of the world. Much of
said geography is even under water.

Remote users get less broadband because of lack of political will (IMHO
stemming from an abject lack of vision) to spend money on them. There
are no actual insurmountable technical issues. The initial cost is high
- but the payback over the many decades that the fibre would serve
would be many times greater.

Geography is just an excuse; it's not even a very good one.

>> Perhaps you mean "official" health care and
>> "official" education ...
>>
>> Yes, I like to get my health care and education
>> from people who have been trained and tested
>> through an accredited system.

A very deftly fashioned straw man, but I see what you did there.

Health care consists of more than visits to health care professionals
and information received from accredited sources. It also consists of,
for example, talking to others about their experiences, giving and
receiving emotional support, and a myriad other things. These days that
happens online - snapchat, skype, whatsapp, instagram, twitter,
facebook. Things that you would see throttled - for technical reasons,
but throttled all the same - in favour of a very limited set of
approved traffic.

Similarly the vast bulk of any person's education comes not in the form
of his or her formal education, but through interacting with the world.
Everything from pub discussions through newspapers, art and even sport.
Professional education continues through the reading of professional
journals, interaction with peers and colleagues, participation in
conferences. All of this stuff is now happening online - we learn
through webinars, podcasts, forums, online demos, ebooks.

Your straw man tries to make all those activities second class. They
are not second class at all; they are essential activities for the
citizens of a civilised, educated country.

Regards, K.

-- 
~~~
Karl Auer (ka...@biplane.com.au)
http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer
http://twitter.com/kauer389

GPG fingerprint: E00D 64ED 9C6A 8605 21E0 0ED0 EE64 2BEE CBCB C38B
Old fingerprint: 3C41 82BE A9E7 99A1 B931 5AE7 7638 0147 2C3C 2AC4



___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Does NBN need a third satellite?

[Tom Worthington]

On 30/03/16 09:51, Karl Auer wrote:


... You might think his needs and wants are less relevant than yours ...


“my rank is the highest known ... I am a free citizen” (G.B. Shaw)

I vote and pay taxes, so have a say in how national resources are allocated.

> you being an educator and all ...

I teach on-line, so I want network access available for eduction.


IT IS NOT UP TO THE NETWORK OR THE GOVERNMENT TO DICTATE WHO CAN USE
THE NETWORK OR WHAT THE NETWORK IS TO BE USED FOR.


The Australian government is funding the construction of the NBN and put 
in place a policy that city customers subsidize remote users. So it is 
up to the government to decide what the network can be used for.



Also - define "education". ...


"Education is the process of facilitating learning, or the acquisition 
of knowledge, skills, values, beliefs, and habits." From Wikipedia: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education


I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to look up "health care".


Education? I am educating myself all the time ...


Good for you. But if you want me to pay you to provide a service my life 
depends on (such as make me a sandwich, repair the brakes in my car, or 
drive a taxi), then self-education is not sufficient: you must have 
formal qualifications.



Perhaps you mean "official" health care and "official" education ...


Yes, I like to get my health care and education from people who have 
been trained and tested through an accredited system.



If the network is so crappy that such distinctions are needed, then the
network is broken and the solution is to fix it ...


No, remote users get less broadband due to geography. I suggest 
education and health services should have priority over movies on demand 
for entertainment. If you think Netflick's movies should have the same 
priority as children's education, then you are free to put that view to 
your elected representatives.



--
Tom Worthington FACS CP, TomW Communications Pty Ltd. t: 0419496150
The Higher Education Whisperer http://blog.highereducationwhisperer.com/
PO Box 13, Belconnen ACT 2617, Australia  http://www.tomw.net.au
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards 
Legislation


Adjunct Lecturer, Research School of Computer Science, College of 
Engineering & Computer Science, Australian National University

http://people.cecs.anu.edu.au/user/3890 http://orcid.org/-0003-4799-8464
___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Does NBN need a third satellite?

[Scott Howard]

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Tom Worthington <
tom.worthing...@tomw.net.au> wrote:
>
> However, there is no harm in the satellites being used to download movies,
> when there is capacity available. But I suggest priority should be given to
> services such as health and education.


So does this mean that you're officially against net neutrality?

  Scott
___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Does NBN need a third satellite?

[Tom Worthington]

On 29/03/16 09:39, Hamish Moffatt wrote:


And outback Netflix?


It seems reasonable for taxpayers to buy a satellite for outback kids
education, but not to subsidize Netflix's business model.

However, there is no harm in the satellites being used to download 
movies, when there is capacity available. But I suggest priority should 
be given to services such as health and education.



--
Tom Worthington FACS CP, TomW Communications Pty Ltd. t: 0419496150
The Higher Education Whisperer http://blog.highereducationwhisperer.com/
PO Box 13, Belconnen ACT 2617, Australia  http://www.tomw.net.au
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards
Legislation

Adjunct Lecturer, Research School of Computer Science, College of
Engineering & Computer Science, Australian National University
http://people.cecs.anu.edu.au/user/3890 http://orcid.org/-0003-4799-8464
___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Does NBN need a third satellite?

[David Boxall]

On 29/03/2016 9:39 AM, Hamish Moffatt wrote:

On 28/03/16 09:15, Tom Worthington wrote:


The most interesting aspect of Mark Gregory's article in the Business
Spectator is the idea of the NBN satellites being used to provide
broadband for passengers on Qantas aircraft. It seems reasonable for
taxpayers to buy a satellite for outback kids education, but not for
business class passengers watching in-flight movies:
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2016/3/21/technology/does-nbn-need-third-satellite




And outback Netflix?
...
It could be argued that advances in video technology will soon exceed 
the capacity of radio-frequency broadcast. Providing sufficient 
bandwidth for video could become an imperative sooner than most of us 
might have thought.


I recently read that adding high dynamic range to ultra high-definition 
exceeds the 25 Mb/s target of the NBN. Netflix (I think it was) is 
already offering some series in HDR UHD.


Our government inherited plans for satellites dedicated to service. With 
the change of government, profit evidently takes priority. No doubt the 
Qantas deal is lucrative.


--
David Boxall | "Cheer up" they said.
 | "Things could be worse."
http://david.boxall.id.au| So I cheered up and,
 | Sure enough, things got worse.
 |  --Murphy's musing
___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Does NBN need a third satellite?

[Hamish Moffatt]

On 28/03/16 09:15, Tom Worthington wrote:


The most interesting aspect of Mark Gregory's article in the Business 
Spectator is the idea of the NBN satellites being used to provide 
broadband for passengers on Qantas aircraft. It seems reasonable for 
taxpayers to buy a satellite for outback kids education, but not for 
business class passengers watching in-flight movies: 
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2016/3/21/technology/does-nbn-need-third-satellite 





And outback Netflix?


Hamish

___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Does NBN need a third satellite?

[Tom Worthington]

On 25/03/16 08:40, David Boxall wrote:


A third? The first isn't fully operational and the second hasn't even
launched! ...


Satellites take years to build and launch and three would seem to be a 
reasonable minimum number for the NBN to have.


Also the satellites provide a quick and easy way to provide access, 
making it politically tempting to expand the range of use.



Didn't Turnbull say that the satellites are unnecessary extravagances?


Yes, but that was when he was in opposition, in government if you are 
committed to $1B of satellites you try to make the bast of it.


The most interesting aspect of Mark Gregory's article in the Business 
Spectator is the idea of the NBN satellites being used to provide 
broadband for passengers on Qantas aircraft. It seems reasonable for 
taxpayers to buy a satellite for outback kids education, but not for 
business class passengers watching in-flight movies: 
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2016/3/21/technology/does-nbn-need-third-satellite 




--
Tom Worthington FACS CP, TomW Communications Pty Ltd. t: 0419496150
The Higher Education Whisperer http://blog.highereducationwhisperer.com/
PO Box 13, Belconnen ACT 2617, Australia  http://www.tomw.net.au
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards 
Legislation


Adjunct Lecturer, Research School of Computer Science, College of 
Engineering & Computer Science, Australian National University

http://people.cecs.anu.edu.au/user/3890 http://orcid.org/-0003-4799-8464
___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Does NBN need a third satellite?

[Frank O'Connor]

Mmmm,

But the NBN since the government took it over has had a history of wildly 
optimistic projections concerning bandwidth usage and requirements … apparently 
in 2020 Australian households will only need 15Mbs of bandwidth, which is why 
the MTM NBN is shooting for at least 25Mbs per household, but not guaranteeing 
anything. The fact that bandwidth to households has increased by a factor of 
more than 200 in the last 10 years is apparently not a trend anyone should take 
any interest in.

Factor in that the new media distribution and business models (NETFLIX et 
alia), new ways of delivering services (like medicine, home based aged care, 
government service delivery etc etc), the need for synchronous simultaneous 
multichannel services if we’re actually gonna be competitive and upload digital 
goods, designs, processes and services from home and business through the Net, 
and a host of other possibilities that the rest of the world is examining at 
the moment that will require huge amounts of ADDITIONAL bandwidth … and there 
may be, just maybe, a few more demands on the system than our legal and 
accounting geniuses who occupy benches in parliament seem to realise.

But I’m sure it will all work out. 

I mean, how can you doubt a government that appoints Wind Farm Commissioners to 
forestall wind farm development, whilst continuing to poor billions into the 
bottomless  pit of ‘clean coal research’ - the majority of which has gone 
overseas for the last 20 years. A government that supports every bully’s right 
to bully - because homophobic bullies are (Christian) people too. A government 
that seeks to emasculate the CSIRO’s climate science capability, and has 
installed a CEO who justifies it on the ground sthat the ‘science is settled’ 
whilst supporting more research into water divining. A government that burdens 
its young (and even chase them to the grave to recover them) with education 
costs and placing obstacles in the way of the talented but poor, but trumpets 
on about being ‘innovative and agile’. A government that delights in 
monitoring, spying on and intruding on the rights of its citizens in the name 
of ‘freedom’. 

Political parties that raise money in a secretive and probably corrupt manner, 
and then have the gall to label taxpayers and their electorate as ‘leaners’. 
Who accept the ‘unbiased opinions of climate skeptics in the pay of the fossil 
fuel industries over that of 97% of the world’s climate scientists, who are 
apparently working to some anti-free market agenda and profiting richly from 
their magnificent government remuneration.

And finally, from the NBN perspective, we rely on political, economic and 
1970’s nuclear physics geniuses like Henry Ergas, Malcolm Turnbull, Ziggy 
Switowski, Maurice Newman and others to modify the design of a broadband and 
expect it to work … against the advice of political neophytes with a million 
times more IT and networking experience. Hey, what would they know?

These idiots don’t live on the same planet as the rest of us.

Just my ranting 2 cents worth …
---
> On 25 Mar 2016, at 1:47 PM, Karl Auer  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 2016-03-25 at 13:16 +1100, Paul Brooks wrote:
>> The initial NBN satellite was planned ... with latent capacity
>> to cater for a decade of future growth.
> 
> Capacity for a decade of future growth?
> 
> Hhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
> hahahahahahaha 
> 
> :-)
> 
> Oh, very good. Very good.
> 
> Regards, K.
> 
> -- 
> ~~~
> Karl Auer (ka...@biplane.com.au)
> http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer
> http://twitter.com/kauer389
> 
> GPG fingerprint: E00D 64ED 9C6A 8605 21E0 0ED0 EE64 2BEE CBCB C38B
> Old fingerprint: 3C41 82BE A9E7 99A1 B931 5AE7 7638 0147 2C3C 2AC4
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Link mailing list
> Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link


___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Does NBN need a third satellite?

[Karl Auer]

On Fri, 2016-03-25 at 13:16 +1100, Paul Brooks wrote:
> The initial NBN satellite was planned ... with latent capacity
> to cater for a decade of future growth.

Capacity for a decade of future growth?

Hhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahaha 

:-)

Oh, very good. Very good.

Regards, K.

-- 
~~~
Karl Auer (ka...@biplane.com.au)
http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer
http://twitter.com/kauer389

GPG fingerprint: E00D 64ED 9C6A 8605 21E0 0ED0 EE64 2BEE CBCB C38B
Old fingerprint: 3C41 82BE A9E7 99A1 B931 5AE7 7638 0147 2C3C 2AC4



___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link