Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has agreed to talk to Gizmodo about the NBN. So we want to pool our collective technical knowledge to hit him with the smartest, technically-savvy questions about the Oppositions blind objection to the National Broadband Network.
It all started with a tweet. After watching Turnbull claim that “Every cent that is spent on this NBN will be at the expense of the taxpayer” on Lateline last night, our boss man Seamus hit Turnbull up on Twitter:
it is NOT, and has never been, “$43b of taxpayer money”, @TurnbullMalcolm. stop abusing a false number! #lateline #nbn
To which Turnbull responded this morning:
ok seamus, so who’s money is it then? a donation from a leprechaun…sorry forgot they have a bad case of the shorts right now.
Classy, right?
Nevertheless, the conversation went back and forth until Shay asked Turnbull to be interviewed by Giz. And Turnbull, to his credit, agreed.
So now we want your input. We want you to give us your question for Conroy’s Liberal nemesis. We’re looking for intelligent, technically savvy questions about the opposition’s replacement NBN plan. Whether it be about getting Turnbull to justify his party’s position against the planned network or asking for detail on how they think wireless could be a viable alternative to fibre, we want you to be a part of it.
Pop your questions in the comments section below and stay tuned for more info.
Nick
Wednesday, November 24, 2010 at 3:15 PMI’d ask him this:
1. It seems from most of the media summaries that I have seen that outside of the financial argument, a large part of the argument against the NBN revolves around the belief that people don’t need 100Mb fibre, and that cheaper, slower technologies should be used instead. Is this a fair statement? If so, doesn’t that fail to take into account future growth? Aren’t those people making this argument making a Bill Gates-style ’640K should be enough for anyone’ argument? Speaking as someone who makes a living designing and installing large IT setups, the one truism I have never, ever seen violated is that demand expands to fill the available resources, be they storage or in this case, bandwidth. In my view, what people are really saying when they say that people don’t need 100Mb connections is that Australia doesn’t need innovators, that we shouldn’t build this network to be useful by people 20, 30 or 50 years from now. Think where we would be if people had said ‘But gaslight gives good enough light for everyone! Why would you want electricity in every home?’
2. I can understand and respect the initial impulse to request a cost-benefit analysis. However, I think that there are a lot of intangibles that are difficult to quantify into that sort of analysis in a project like the NBN, which is essentially building new public infrastructure, such as future potential for currently unimaginable ideas. How can you value that? How could you have built something like Twitter into a cost-benefit analysis? And yet here we are, participating in an excellent dialog, on the basis of contacts made on that service.
I think that someone of Mr Turnbull’s undoubted business acumen knows the difficulties involved, and it seems a bit disingenuous to keep demanding it.
I think I’ve rambled enough now.
Stephen Earp
Wednesday, November 24, 2010 at 3:45 PM+1 to your first point – Definately an argument I find highlights a slightly “backward” argument against the NBN.
Abz
Wednesday, November 24, 2010 at 4:27 PMBrilliant reply mate! Well rambled!
John
Wednesday, November 24, 2010 at 9:28 PMAt the risk of being a pedant I’d like to add that the Bill Gates quote is probably apocryphal, Gates denies it and there’s no concrete proof that he ever said it. But I’m right with you, you’ve pretty much nailed it. The NBN the Libs are proposing is like an electricity grid that only lets you turn on three things at a time, which is so obviously short-sighted.
I would also add to your point two more parts: If Mr Turnbull thinks Australians don’t need 100mbit now, does he ever foresee a time when we might need that speed? And if so, how much more would it cost to build the network upgrade that would deliver those speeds in the future?
Andrew
Wednesday, November 24, 2010 at 3:31 PMYou may want to re-word, but I’d like to know what the response for an extreme solution.
“What is the estimated long term financial return for providing double strand fiber to every home and business in the country when considering potential revenue from business models yet to be invented, and which could only be enabled by such a massively ballsy descision?”
“What would the global perception of a nation with a ‘every man woman and child’ future-proofed communications solution be? Would positive national perception have positive financial implications?”
Tim
Wednesday, November 24, 2010 at 3:53 PMBuilding upon the above, I’d like the opposition to clarify their definition of an acceptable business case.
Does the project require the commercial return of a profit-seeking enterprise or a piece of public infrastrucure (such as a toll road or a hospital)? Can the opposition specify the ROI it requires and whether this will be measured in macroeconomic terms or be confined to the NBN Co’s profitability?
ubetido
Wednesday, November 24, 2010 at 3:33 PMMy question is, if we scrap the NBN and go with the coalition plan, whatever that happens to be, apart from being stuck on Telstas shitty ADL forever how will my life change now that you saved $43bil.
Stephen Earp
Wednesday, November 24, 2010 at 3:34 PMI would like to know what the Opposition are thinking of in terms of long term network infrastructure for the nation. Understood that the NBN is an expensive operation – there’s no secret of that – but one of its primary benefits is that it sets the WHOLE country up for data services that will improve drastically over time, regardless of how hard it is to start up now, that will last for a significant amount of time.
The summary of my question is this: When comparing the long-term benefits of the NBN against the alternative copper/wireless strategies put forward by the Opposition, how have you (and I inquire as to what ‘means’) justified the alternative infrastructure which will carry our country on into, say, 2080?
And a doff of the cap to Malcom for stepping up to this.
MDolley
Wednesday, November 24, 2010 at 3:45 PMHow does the Coalition broadband plan address the issue of asynchronous data speeds with wireless technology, an issue which negatively impacts on the ability for businesses to provide outbound data such as servers or video conferencing?
Thomas Hambleton
Wednesday, November 24, 2010 at 3:46 PMI am glad to see Seamus is all over the costing fallicies the Coalition has been spouting. I look forward to a real answer from Mr Turnbull.
All I ask is you try to get him to answer the questions asked of him without apphending “but…” to the end of every one of them.
Jamie
Wednesday, November 24, 2010 at 3:47 PMMalcolm,
1) With communications and entertainment having gone from land lines and over the air black and white broadcasts, to video conferencing on your mobile phone and 1080p blu-ray movies to a world increasingly going online and receiving things from the “cloud” how would any but the NBN be able to deal with a 1080p stream for a movie or video call when a standard 100mbps network would struggle? a 12mbps network connection wouldnt stand a chance and this is only just around the corner, with 2k and 4k video standards looming in the future, not to mention the potential for such technologies to provide badly needed services such at tele-medicine to remote communities that lack even a doctor, but be able to provide them access to medical specialists located anywhere in Australia to get the diagnosis and treatment they so desperately need.
2) The coalitions stance on utilising “Existing technologies and infrastructure” to provide 12mbps is all good and well but how can this be possible when several people I know, living in built up suburban areas can not get ADSL because of pair gain, can not get a HFC(Bigpond/Optus Cable) because it has not and will not be rolled out to their streets and so have to resort to a 3G mobile connection, which achieves a maximum throughput of 128k because of hills in the area? Without the NBN these people will be forced to use a satellite connection, which will be unsuitable for some things due to the inherent lag of such a connection, even though they live 15KM from the Melbourne CBD..
3) How do we prepare for the growing digital future, ensuring everyone has reasonable access to true high speed data connections capable of streaming upcoming 1080p video services regardless of where they are, on a hill or in a valley, and keep Australia at the front of the international community in being able to have products and services available online. We have had some astounding people come up with great innovations in a number of areas such as medicine, and this was because the technology was available to them to do their research and make their discoveries. Without a good communications network throughout Australia how do you propose we continue to achieve this?
Thanks,
Jamie
ozoneocean
Wednesday, November 24, 2010 at 3:58 PMWhy don’t you cut the guff? Isn’t the real reason the Libs are are against the NBN because it’s Labor’s prized project? The alternatives offered aren’t serious and the only real goal is to grab press headlines and shake public confidence in the current government. This much is obvious, politics as usual.
Given that, what GENUINE plans do the libs have to future-proof our communications infrastructure when they actually achieve power? Obviously they’re ideologically opposed to public control of utilities or big infrastructure projects, so are we to assume there’ll be some sort of massive incentive based approach targeting Aussie ISPs?
Martin
Wednesday, November 24, 2010 at 4:16 PM1. how can the liberals 12mbps solution (which is far below the current ADSL2+ standard) address future growth? If you try and watch a youtube video above the 360p resolution on the standard 1.5mpbs adsl it struggles and some videos are available in resolutions in 480p and 720p how is 12mbps going to handle that today?
2. with regards to the liberals push to use wireless technology, how will this be implemented? i seriously question its use because it is a shared medium, sure it might be okay when there is a few hundred people connected in one area, but what happens when there is a few thousand people connected in that one area. have you ever tried to use mobile interent (3g, edge, etc) at a grand final football match while everyone there is also trying to use mobile internet?
3. im going to take a guess here, but did the information for your policy is based on come from an interested party like telstra? the reason for this question is that with what is proposed for the liberals broadband policy sounds suspiciously like it came from the brains at telstra, for which they are the ones repsonsible for the current state of broadband in this country. if you look at the world rankings of broad band coverage we rank pretty poorly against countries in Asia and EU, as of 2009 11th in the world which in realty for how prosperous our country is, is pretty bad. Most other countries have just paid the cost of the pipe, not the data that comes through that pipe.
One area that would seriously benefit from this high speed network is doctors and medical specialists. As we know it is very difficulty for rural doctors to get assitance from specialists, where video chat where the rural doctor can actually show things of particular interest to the specialist rather than describing it with words and photos, real time interaction.
From a purely infrastructure point of view, we as the public need this upgrade. its like the public train system. how much longer can we tolerate infrastructure that has been there for 20+ years before its reliability starts to become a joke.
Namarrgon
Wednesday, November 24, 2010 at 7:40 PMTo those people arguing that the Coalition’s wireless solution isn’t fast enough for everyone, or would require a tower on every corner – they’re actually not proposing a universal wireless solution.
They’ve said the wireless coverage would be in conjunction with the current ASDL2+ network, and you’d use ADSL2+ instead, wherever practical.
So basically, it’s exactly the same as what we have today, with a bit more wireless around the edges. Not as impractical as it might have sounded, but cheap, and not even slightly future-proof.
Abz
Wednesday, November 24, 2010 at 4:24 PMWhat connection type does either his great, great grandkids ;) or the closest person aged between 15-25 have and more importantly truly desire? I would hazzard to guess at around the “as fast a humanely possible” speed!
Wireless = limited spectrum and is NOT scalable… I would ask Mr Turnbull about his justification for in 10,20,50 years how this limiting tech can possibly be a viable option? What is his predicted plan to scale up this tech… even if he has been advised that “something” will be developed, I would LOVE to know what this mystery tech would look like?
Namarrgon
Wednesday, November 24, 2010 at 4:30 PMFYI: NBN Business plan summary, from SMH.
Seamus Byrne
Wednesday, November 24, 2010 at 4:51 PMWe have it up here now too.
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2010/11/nbn-business-plan-summary-released/
pat
Wednesday, November 24, 2010 at 4:42 PMI don’t care what he thinks of the NBN, I’d still vote for him because he has integrity. That climate change ultimatum proves it.
Thomas Hambleton
Wednesday, November 24, 2010 at 5:06 PMThis isn’t really about voting for anyone at this point.
Samuel Haller
Wednesday, November 24, 2010 at 5:22 PMare you lost?
G
Wednesday, November 24, 2010 at 5:00 PMI want to know if an effort is being made to look into new technologies and ways of improving old technologies…
see link: http://uninews.unimelb.edu.au/news/4705/
As demonstrated, copper can be sped up 100x to allow up to 250mbps speeds by reducing the interference experienced in copper wires. While it does not match the promised 1gbps speeds of fibre optic, could such a solution be further developed?
Also, what are Malcolm’s views on the privatisation of the NBN. What implications does he see for it? And if he HAD to build a NBN, what percentage of privatisation would he support?
Namarrgon
Wednesday, November 24, 2010 at 7:25 PM200Mbps over phoneline copper isn’t new. The problem is that speed drops off rapidly – at 0.5km you get 100Mbps, and at 1.6km you’re back to ASDL speeds. Dr Papandriopoulos has come up with some clever ways to further reduce crosstalk by power management across the frequency spectrum, but it’s no miracle.
By contrast, there have been demonstrations of 15 terabits per second transmitted over a single 7000km long fibre. There’s simply no comparison. Fibre is the way to go for the future.
Michael Parker
Thursday, November 25, 2010 at 12:35 AMThis is only relevant to inner city areas.
To achieve such speeds you have to live within 900m of an exchange, which translates fibre into copper. In the country, or rural australia, it’s not economically viable to put exchanges every 1km rather than running the fibre directly to the door.
When analogue TV switches off (2013) the spectrum will be open for wireless technologies, which, theoretically could provide a small town of 200ppl with 20mb/s broadband. This is a better solution for rural towns which don’t necessarily need the 100+ speeds.
DaveLord
Friday, November 26, 2010 at 11:01 AMWhy don’t rural towns need 100+ speed? I would have thought they need it as much as anyone, if not more? Please explain?
Maybe they can use magic or telepathy instead?
Tom
Wednesday, November 24, 2010 at 5:11 PMMainly, my question would be around the details of their proposal. Like the fact to have consistent 12Mbps wireless available in the coverage area they claim (97% of the population or something? It slips my mind) they would need to have a tower on every corner. How can that be feasible? What about the infrastructure needed for each and every tower, which will inevitably be fibre? What happens in a very densely populated area, with lots of physical barriers and large apartment blocks?
And how can the Opposition honestly think a stop gap solution like theirs is a viable alternative to a major infrastructure investment that the Government are undertaking? How often would their solution need to be upgraded to meet the rapidly increasing demand for data?
You know, in the end I don’t really care if Malcolm answers these questions. Moreso I just want to get crap off my chest concerning their ridiculous arguments and proposals against the NBN. I want them to know that people out there can see through their “Our budget is smaller than their budget” malarky and see that the underlying logistics are flawed.
Good on you Seamus. I really, really, really look forward to what he has to say, and if he offers some meaningful replies.
Fred
Wednesday, November 24, 2010 at 5:52 PMI seriously doubt it.
No matter what side of the political fence they sit on, they are all spin and their whole purpose is to beat the mob in the other guernsey.
Stuart Kearney
Wednesday, November 24, 2010 at 5:14 PMIs the coalition aware of the communication needs to Australian territories off the mainland, such as Antarctica or Christmas Island – how is the NBN addressing these needs or the coalitions plan going to be superior?’
klaw
Thursday, November 25, 2010 at 11:44 AMThe business case summary released yesterday indicates that these areas will be covered by satellite – for the same price as fibre connections on the mainland.
Stuart Kearney
Friday, November 26, 2010 at 7:06 PMIt mentions Christmas islands but not Antarctica (unless Im blind). The NBNco website states that Antarctica will be covered in a FAQ,it would be good to have a confirmation.
Chris
Wednesday, November 24, 2010 at 5:40 PMMore important than issues of speed are ubiquity and uniformity of coverage. How does the coalition propose to offer a common platform on which services can be delivered?
Unless it’s for everyone and delivered in a consistent way, it’s going to be very difficult for health, energy, education or government service proceeds
Chris
Wednesday, November 24, 2010 at 5:46 PMOops, pressed submit too early. What I was saying was that a uniform network is needed for service providers to deliver consistent service.
My other point is that Turnbull’s advisers are probably monitoring this site to work out a strategy for the interview, so you had better be prepared, because he will be.
kai
Wednesday, November 24, 2010 at 6:34 PMPlease explain for the people of obviously haven’t researched why the collations proposal for a NBN is better for the Australian public.
- Please address issues such as network coverage, with the implementation of FTTN for future expandability, and upgraded pair gained lines so that 97% ( compared the governments 87%? ) will get ADSL2+ at government expense.
- please address how private companies can and will expand with FTTP once the government has done the hard yards of FTTN.
- Please note how wireless will only be used to fill the last 3% gap of people unable to get ADSL2+.
- please site how many other countries use private companies to deliver FTTP and how governments have had little part in comparison to the australian government.
- please re-enforce low uptake statistics for the NBN, and that with FTTN if you want FTTP, you will be able to get so at an expense to yourself and not your country.
Namarrgon
Thursday, November 25, 2010 at 12:42 PMTelstra proposed a major FTTN build-out a few years ago. The Coalition government at the time rejected it. Perhaps you should ask why.
(Hint: Telstra felt it wasn’t commercially viable unless the regulations were changed to deny competitor access and give them a total monopoly over it. Private monopolies are not in the public interest.)
Ross Malloch
Wednesday, November 24, 2010 at 6:45 PMdoes anyone else watch Parliament question time?
conroy is the biggest wanker.. i honestly can’t stand him.. just his mannerisms and how he avoids everything. He thinks hes the king of the NBN.
Could you ask Malcolm about the area’s where the NBN is already effecting, what will happen to those, such as South Brisbane, with the exchange being torn down, no mention to say whether or not we’ll have to go with telstra, even though JG has said that it will be made wholesale and prices will be cheaper. Can you ask him if it does get stopped what will happen with these areas?
matt
Wednesday, November 24, 2010 at 6:47 PMwhy wireless over wires?
The NBN is a major step into spreading out our population more evenly across the country, stopping the desperation of having to be in a capital city, allowing many businesses, though the wonders of DECENT teleconferencing, and accessing collaborative data at LAN speeds, will have less reason to want to centralise all their people. the same goes for education, and health. of course it will never 100% cancel out the need for physical meetings in all these areas, but it can do quite a bit! it seems like a BIG part in solving one of the biggest problems facing this country. does this all factor in to the cost benefit analysis?
teleconferencing is rather latency critical. isn’t wireless a lot more laggy than wires? nothing kills natural conversation quicker than lag…
what about the move towards CLOUD computing. the shift of the majority of IT resources to central, specialised facilities, saving millions of businesses lots of money in the pain and aggravation of maintenance, upgrades ect.
not to mention the greater efficiency that can be had by more easily being able to spread the whole country’s storage and processing needs across centralised data centres.
but is 12 mbit wireless really going to accommodate this?
I don’t think anyone is arguing that we need to spend 43bln dollars just so everyone can do WHAT THEY DO NOW on the internet, but faster… the things mentioned above are just a few of the revolutionary things that could come from the NBN, and I’m sorry to say, will NOT come with 12 mbits wireless.
Andrew
Thursday, November 25, 2010 at 11:43 AM+1. I’m glad that someone actually mentioned cloud computing and not just cloud storage.
Andrew
Thursday, November 25, 2010 at 12:25 PMor as opposed to centralized cloud computing..
‘A fiber-optic interconnection concept for scaleable massively parallel computing’
http://www2.hh.se/staff/magnusj/papers/1995_MPPOI.pdf
Australia, the world’s largest supercomputer.
Marcel
Wednesday, November 24, 2010 at 7:01 PM1. Dear Mr Turnbull, given that you are obviously smart enough to know that the NBN is what Australia needs and are only arguing against it since the bigoted neanderthal knuckle scrapper leader of your party is forcing you to. Wouldn’t it be easier to overthrow Darth Abbott and take control of the empire so you can support the Jedi in their effort to unite the universe for a better future for all?
2. You know better than to support Darth Abbott’s backward policies, but since you are, when you do eventually overthrow the dark lord of your party, will you promise to change the Liberal policy to be more responsible and pander less to pundits, racists and the ignorant?
adz
Thursday, November 25, 2010 at 4:12 PMHAHAHA that is the best question ever
Obee-one
Friday, November 26, 2010 at 11:27 AMNow that is THE real question we should ask!!!
You know you are insulting the real Darth Vader. Darth Abbott’s only force is the hollow wind passing between his ears.
Rob H
Wednesday, November 24, 2010 at 7:16 PMI want to know what the Liberal party would spend the $20+ billion saved from stopping the NBN on? The only better ways to spend this money is on Health Care (Nursing, Doctors and Hospitals), Education and Public Transport.
If you cancel the fibre, please spend the nation’s money in these areas, don’t worry about subsidising wireless, the private networks will take care of that.
Thanks.
BC
Thursday, November 25, 2010 at 5:27 PM@Rob H:
Agree. And I think this would be exactly the kind of question that a cost benefit analysis would target for: given $43 bn (some say $49 bn, for others it’s $35 bn), what is the best way of spending it?
So many talks on I.T. but we need to realize that I.T. is not THE future, it is only part of it. There are other parts that are equally, if not more important.
As we speak, nurses in NSW are protesting for a 1 nurse to 4 patients ratio, which has already been implemented in many other states. The productivity commission can look into this, and chances are, they’ll say that money are better spent in this area than the NBN in its current form.
Further, we are a resource rich nation, what about investment in the industry that carried us out of the GFC? Put in place infrastructures that will help small and innovative resource and energy companies. Research into safer mining and drilling practices. Doctors and teachers in remote mining towns.
And what about environmental and water resource projects? And what about better welfare for teachers and more supporting staffs at schools perhaps?
Again, a thorough cost benefit analysis can target these areas and see if they make more sense than this NBN.
Kroo
Wednesday, November 24, 2010 at 7:24 PMWhat a blind lot you are, taken in by the chant and believing the rhetoric about the NBN.
1. Pooling future internet hopes on just ONE form of delivery is very short sighted.
2. Fibre DOES have a limited life span before needing replacement. 15-20 years. So another $43b rollout?
3. Wireless technology is portable, affordable and as of this moment, pushing bandwidth faster and faster each month. Korea has an amazing trial running on wireless.
4. Where do most of you receive most of your downloadable data? From OS? How do we receive data from OS? A cable, with limited bandwidth. So we have to replace thousands of Kms of cable too? And most of the servers you visit OS have limited bandwidth, not the 100mbs you dream for. Makes your 100Mbs seem rather impotent doesn’t it.
As of this second, the fastest internet upload and download speeds in the world lay with Korea at 35Mbs. How will a $43b pipe dream make the 100mbs it promises, real, when the rest of the world couldn’t even deliver it to you at that speed?
The future of our internet is not a spectator sport and shouldn’t be gambled on with a shitload of taxpayer dollars. All the best options need to be employed and the most up to date technology adopted. By the time the first home in the bush is connected, wireless bandwidth would have passed fibre by a mile. Even the US is going for multiple options for rollout of fast speed broadband.
Daniel Potestas
Thursday, November 25, 2010 at 10:01 AMMake a note here Kroo- it doesn’t matter by how much faster wireless gets, any improvements to data transmission over wireless will be trumped by improves to transmission over fibre. Its a matter of bandwidth.
Namarrgon
Thursday, November 25, 2010 at 12:13 PMWhich rhetoric are you believing?
1. Who says we’re limiting ourselves to just fibre? Wireless and satellite are still important; they’re better for some cases but not even close to fibre for others.
2. Lifespan: 15-20 years? Citation needed; I hear 25-40 years. Nothing lasts forever, but copper corrodes more quickly than glass. Cable replacement will be ongoing, as it is today, and of course far cheaper than a full roll-out as you doubtless know.
3. Wireless technology is great, and it’s not going anywhere. But as the limited spectrum is shared amongst all nearby users, there’s simply no way it can possibly compete with fibre in speed or bandwidth. It’s appropriate for low usage only, or where portability is a must. Clearly we need both.
4. We just gained a new cable to Guam last year, and the increased competition is why we now see terabyte plans everywhere. More cables are being planned and laid as we speak, and we’re not yet using all the bandwidth we have today. Local content and caches can be much faster than O/S content, and we have applications today like hidef IPTV that are already pushing the limits of what the average ADSL2 user can receive.
Korea at 35Mbs? What about FiOS at 150Mbs, or Gigabit in Norway? And those are just consumer services; data centres are already much faster. You’re already behind today’s times, and the world will have moved on much further by the time this roll-out is done.
Not that you’ll even read this, let alone change your mind, but maybe someone will find this useful.
klaw
Thursday, November 25, 2010 at 12:22 PM@Kroo: Mate, you’re wrong on so many levels it’s just not funny. Here’s a few reasons:
1. We’re not basing our internet future on one technology. The NBN will use fibre, fixed wireless and satellite. Fibre is the fastest, most reliable and most future-proof medium, so it’s going to be used for 93% of premises. And the backbone for wireless and satellite will be fibre too, for the same reasons. One way or another, fibre is needed.
2. Fibre’s life span in the worst possible scenario (subject to extremes of temperature, harsh environments etc) is a minimum of 20 years. In most places, it will be underground inside conduits and ducts, where it should last for 50 years or more. If it’s suitable for undersea cables (and millions of $$ in investments say it is) then it’s good enough for mainland use.
3. Wireless broadband is an excellent complementary technology, but with the limited amount of spectrum available, it will never be able to form the backbone of a communications network. Everyone knows that – the carriers all use fibre for their backhaul wherever possible.
4. The vast majority of people connected to the NBN will not want or need 100Mbps – that’s just what the network is capable of. Most people will opt for the cheapest connection, which will be 12Mbps up, 1Mbps down. Of course, you’re welcome to pay extra and get higher speeds if you wish.
The difference between this and the current ADSL arrangements is that everyone can get full broadband speeds, rather than just those who live within 1.5m of the local exchange.
Alternatively you can ignore your NBN connection, and use wireless from any of the telcos if you wish.
kiwited
Wednesday, November 24, 2010 at 7:38 PMThere is a BBC story here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-11812420
They will supply 100Mbps starting in Cornwall. Turnbull thinks this is way too fast for most. Only the rich and business should get that speed according to Turnbull.
Asutralia is a far away country for trading. 100mbps will equalise this.
kiwited
Wednesday, November 24, 2010 at 7:42 PMThe NBN must go ahead and give all ISP equal access, that includes Telstra. NBN Co has to be independent and Australian owned and controlled. 49% can be sold off to Autralians recouping billions.