PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   War in Australia (any Oz Politics): the Original (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/477678-war-australia-any-oz-politics-original.html)

500N 10th Apr 2014 00:41

Maybe in Brisbane / Qld it came from above but in Vic in came from her.

That is when she had time from getting her hair done and
going out to dinner :rolleyes:


I still can't believe that after she still did those things on those days.
The mind boggles as to her mentality !!!

Worrals in the wilds 10th Apr 2014 00:43

Was she the one who went out to dinner instead of attending at the fire command post when you guys had the big bushfires?

Andu 10th Apr 2014 00:44

Read the Pickering editorial. He doesn't hold back. Some of the comments following the article are possibly more interesting than the article itself.

Ken, can you bear to visit the Pickering site? I'd be interested to hear your opinion of what he says in it about the Bendigo gang rape.

Oh, and regarding your exchange with Saltie over William/Bill Shorten's initials: it was you who labelled Mr Shorten as "BS", and as far as I can see, Saltie (tongue firmly in cheek, I suspect) latched onto your label (and I agree with Saltie's tongue on cheek spin on it entirely).

500N 10th Apr 2014 00:46

Yes, I try not to say her name but it is Christine Nixon !

And would you believe it, the Police Minister this year did the same on that really really hot week / grass fires, he went to the tennis - and then said he was continually "in touch" with the emergency centre :rolleyes:

They never learn about leadership !

Worrals in the wilds 10th Apr 2014 00:48

Just read it. IMO that's a very low maximum penalty. :uhoh: However, even Pickering acknowledges that they're in a minority within their own minority.

chuboy 10th Apr 2014 03:56

The infrastructure government, with a straight face, commits to wasting billions on a less-than-half baked answer to the country's telecommunications requirements.

It would be funny if it were not really happening. But it is. We are now set to spend more money per premise to provide, in the best case, orders of magnitude lower upload and download speeds than NBN Co was previously on track to provide.

Anyone who has access to cable internet from either of the two providers will not get any upgrade at all. What's more - if you have cable internet, you can expect your speeds to actually drop in absolute terms as the service becomes oversubscribed. Much like 4G, theoretically good speeds are reduced to a crawl when everyone is trying to take advantage of them.

This of course says nothing of the state of the existing copper that NBN Co will now have to use - though among those in the know it is well-accepted as being in shambles - "insulated with Woolies bags" shambles :(

And as for the cost benefit analysis that Labor was berated for not producing? There's none to be found here, and it's just as well.

The government's policy is not just inferior to viable alternatives, but systematically destructive by every measure. At this point it would be better for Australia if they canned whole thing and did nothing at all :ugh:

gupta 10th Apr 2014 04:44

Just to get a bit of balance into the discussion on the NBN

This was widely posted about 2010. No I don't have the attibutions, and names have been removed for obvious reasons


“I am a network architect for one of Australia ’s largest Telco’s - so I speak with some authority on this issue.

Here are the technical reasons this NBN will fail :

1) fibre optic cable has a maximum theoretical lifespan of 25 years when installed in conduit. Over time, the glass actually degrades (long story), and eventually it can’t do it`s bouncing of light thing any more. But when you install fibre outside on overhead wiring (as will be done for much of Australia ’s houses, except newer suburbs with underground wiring), then the fibre degrades much quicker due to wind, temperature variation and solar/cosmic radiation. The glass in this case will last no more than 15 years. So after 15 years, you will have to replace it. Whereas the copper network will last for many decades to come. Fibre is not the best technology for the last mile. That`s why no other country has done this.

2) You cannot give every house 100Mbps. If you give several million households 100Mbps bandwidth, then you have exceeded the entire bandwidth of the whole internet. In reality, there is a thing called contention. Today, every ADSL service with 20Mbps has a contention ratio of around 20:1 (or more for some carriers). That means, you share that 20Mbps with 20 other people. It`s a long story why, but there will NEVER be the case of people getting 100Mbps of actual bandwidth. Not for several decades at current carrier equipment rates of evolution. The “Core” cannot and will not be able to handle that sort of bandwidth. The 100Mbps or 1Gbps is only the speed from your house to the exchange. From there to the Internet, you will get the same speeds you get now. The “Core” of Australia ’s network is already fibre (many times over). And even so, we still have high contention ratios. Providing fibre to the home just means those contention ratios go up. You will not get better download speeds.

3) new DSL technologies will emerge. 15 years ago we had 56k dial-up. Then 12 years ago we got 256k ADSL, then 8 years ago 1.5Mbps ADSL2, then 5 years ago 20Mbps ADSL2+. There are already new DSL technologies being experimented on that will deliver over 50Mbps on the same copper we have now. $zero cost to the tax payer

4) 4G wireless is being standardised now. The current 3G wireless was developed for voice and not for data, and even so it can deliver up to 21Mbps in Australia . There are problems with it, but remember that it was developed for voice. The 4G standard is specifically being developed for data, and will deliver 100Mbps bandwidth with much higher reliability (yes, the same contention issues apply mentioned earlier). $zero cost to the tax payer

5) The “NBN” will be one of the largest single networks ever built on earth. There are only a few companies who could do it - Japan ’s Nippon NTT, BT, AT&T;, Deutsche Telekom etc. Even Telstra would struggle to built something on this scale. Yet we are led to believe that the same people who can’t build school halls or install insulation without being ripped off are going to do it ??? Here at Telstra, we are laughing our heads off !! Because when it all comes crumbling down, after they have spent $60+billion and the network is no more than 1/2 complete, it will be up to Telstra to pick up the pieces ! (shhhh don't tell anyone, it`s our secret)”

I own up to vested interest as I can't even get ADSL (1 or 2) on my rural property just 7 km out of town. Why we are focusing on giving people in large population concentrations that already have fast broadband an even faster connection beats me, when some of us can't get any connection. And don't tell me to use satellite, because "undies" Conroy didn't buy enough bandwidth to allow even 25,000 connections, and now all applications for NBN satellite are closed UFN.

Another stuff up by incompetent and technically illiterate ALP [email protected]

chuboy 10th Apr 2014 05:28


Originally Posted by gupta (Post 8427713)
Just to get a bit of balance into the discussion on the NBN

This was widely posted about 2010. No I don't have the attibutions, and names have been removed for obvious reasons

Is the obvious reason that it was first posted by user PMG as a comment on the venerable (:yuk:) Andrew Bolt's blog?

This piece did the rounds all right, but so has the letter from the Nigerian prince promising you a share in his fortune and I would say it's about as credible.

Although to its credit it is a star example of what you might call "fear, uncertainty and doubt". It was written to appeal to non-technical, pro-Coalition readers exactly like yourself.

It has been debunked in one form or another in many corners of the internet, but I will indulge you nevertheless.


Here are the technical reasons this NBN will fail :

Today, in 2014, this should be enough for you to dismiss the rest of the comment. Fibre-to-the-home, where it has been installed, has not failed and is in fact working exactly as intended and meeting all technical capabilities it was designed to.

1) fibre optic cable has a maximum theoretical lifespan of 25 years when installed in conduit. Over time, the glass actually degrades (long story), and eventually it can’t do it`s bouncing of light thing any more. But when you install fibre outside on overhead wiring (as will be done for much of Australia ’s houses, except newer suburbs with underground wiring), then the fibre degrades much quicker due to wind, temperature variation and solar/cosmic radiation. The glass in this case will last no more than 15 years. So after 15 years, you will have to replace it. Whereas the copper network will last for many decades to come. Fibre is not the best technology for the last mile. That`s why no other country has done this.

This is unsubstantiated. If I say that I am qualified to speak on the matter of fibre optic lifespan, and that the expected lifespan is at least 30 years, will you believe me over someone else you've never met on the internet?

As it happens, I too am an engineer.

By the way, Japan and South Korea are among the countries that ARE doing fibre to the last mile. There are countries on record saying they wished they had invested in fibre for the last mile instead of copper.


2) You cannot give every house 100Mbps. If you give several million households 100Mbps bandwidth, then you have exceeded the entire bandwidth of the whole internet. In reality, there is a thing called contention. Today, every ADSL service with 20Mbps has a contention ratio of around 20:1 (or more for some carriers). That means, you share that 20Mbps with 20 other people. It`s a long story why, but there will NEVER be the case of people getting 100Mbps of actual bandwidth. Not for several decades at current carrier equipment rates of evolution. The “Core” cannot and will not be able to handle that sort of bandwidth. The 100Mbps or 1Gbps is only the speed from your house to the exchange. From there to the Internet, you will get the same speeds you get now. The “Core” of Australia ’s network is already fibre (many times over). And even so, we still have high contention ratios. Providing fibre to the home just means those contention ratios go up. You will not get better download speeds.

This is full of confusing jargon like "contention ratio" - to the uninitiated it gives the writer credibility but in actual fact it is complete and utter nonsense.

It's very convenient that the writer has repeatedly told us how the story is too long to explain "why" their claims are so, isn't it? :=

I couldn't be bothered with the rest as it's a waste of time.


I own up to vested interest as I can't even get ADSL (1 or 2) on my rural property just 7 km out of town. Why we are focusing on giving people in large population concentrations that already have fast broadband an even faster connection beats me, when some of us can't get any connection. And don't tell me to use satellite, because "undies" Conroy didn't buy enough bandwidth to allow even 25,000 connections, and now all applications for NBN satellite are closed UFN.

Another stuff up by incompetent and technically illiterate ALP [email protected]

Lucky for you, some of the $40 billion Turnbull is about to waste is going into more satellite bandwidth.

gupta 10th Apr 2014 05:58

Interesting broadbrush rebuttal there chuboy


non-technical, pro-Coalition readers exactly like yourself
care to substantiate the bolding?

This is full of confusing jargon like "contention ratio" - to the uninitiated it gives the writer credibility but in actual fact it is complete and utter nonsense.
actually this effect is not nonsense, although perhaps under a different descriptor, but you seem to have fallen into the same trap (to the uninitiated it gives the writer credibility)

I couldn't be bothered with the rest as it's a waste of time
cherry picking responses to prove rebuttal of the whole?

Lucky for you, some of the $40 billion Turnbull is about to waste is going into more satellite bandwidth
apart from the emotive language, my point was that this extra bandwidth should have been factored in from the start, and just showed how inept the initial project was.

500N 10th Apr 2014 06:02

The whole internet in Aus is a cock up, including the NBN.

For a start, it should have been done 10, 15 years ago when the huge growth in housing started and whole networks of cable or at least underground conduit laid so it would be easy to install later. Or with new estates, done at the start by the developers.

We are always "adding on" in this country instead of doing it right in the first place.

gupta 10th Apr 2014 06:24

Got that in one, Mr Nitro

500N 10th Apr 2014 06:31

gupta

And then on the other hand, we cock up nealry every purchase of military hardware by taing a good "off the shelf" design and trying to make it do 100 - 120% of what we want instead of saying, how important is that last 10%, can we get away with buying an off the shelf item - preferably US.

And why do we buy Euro Tigers instead of US Apache ?

We don't have enough, we almost always operate with the US
and the US has spares all over the world anyway.

Oh, that's right, jobs in Qld :yuk:

chuboy 10th Apr 2014 06:57


Originally Posted by gupta (Post 8427759)
Interesting broadbrush rebuttal there chuboy

I was going to provide you with a comprehensive one but I lost interest halfway through because
1. Your mind is made up already
2. The piece in question has no credibility in the first place
3. The piece in question is obsolete, the points it was trying to make are simply no longer relevant as construction of Labor's NBN went ahead as planned and is going great for the people who got it before MT came onto the scene
4. It doesn't change the fact that the Coalition's new plan, about to be implemented, is so awful it couldn't even be called a dog's breakfast.


care to substantiate the bolding?
My apologies if I am wrong, I made the assumption that a person with any technical background at all would not present that piece as a statement of facts or even credible opinions. It would be disingenuous to do so.

The only reason you would pretend that what was said has any basis in reality is because you are trying to make some sort of politically-motivated statement.

actually this effect is not nonsense, although perhaps under a different descriptor, but you seem to have fallen into the same trap (to the uninitiated it gives the writer credibility)
The effect is not nonsense at all, but the paragraph of drivel I was referring to is. To the point of it ceasing to be coherent, from a technical perspective at least.

cherry picking responses to prove rebuttal of the whole?

apart from the emotive language, my point was that this extra bandwidth should have been factored in from the start, and just showed how inept the initial project was.
Did you not do the same by cherry picking oversubscribed satellite services (a sign that better internet is sorely needed, as a matter of fact) as rebuttal of the entire NBN rollout as Labor had arranged it? Despite less than 7% of premises being intended to remain on this type of service?

In any case, I won't argue that there were aspects of the rollout which were not the best in a project management sense - BUT it is fallacious to equate this with meaning the project itself was poorly conceived from a technical standpoint.

Worrals in the wilds 10th Apr 2014 07:27


Or with new estates, done at the start by the developers.
That'll be the day :bored:. After they've sweet talked the relevant government authority you're lucky if they put in town water and sewerage.

500N 10th Apr 2014 07:34

Yes, you are right, wishful thinking :O

rh200 10th Apr 2014 08:34

Chuboy! why the F$#% do I want the government to spend billions supplying fibre to the home when we can't even supply the bandwidth to reliably saturate the copper. I don't even bother with the land line anymore.

I know they don't have the infrastructure to supply for a fact. Upgrade the backbone and all the bottle necks we have first, when that has the capacity to saturate the copper and have a good go at fibre performance, then by all means go to fibre in the home.

A mate early today was speaking about penaltys of going over the monthy limit, he said its alright when they choke your download speed, you don't notice any difference.

chuboy 10th Apr 2014 10:47


Originally Posted by rh200 (Post 8427943)
Chuboy! why the F$#% do I want the government to spend billions supplying fibre to the home when we can't even supply the bandwidth to reliably saturate the copper. I don't even bother with the land line anymore.

I know they don't have the infrastructure to supply for a fact. Upgrade the backbone and all the bottle necks we have first, when that has the capacity to saturate the copper and have a good go at fibre performance, then by all means go to fibre in the home.

With respect, you are mistaken. The copper is definitely too slow for plenty of those of us who are on it.

It is sometimes true that when surfing to a single website, you don't saturate your home connection. But start watching videos on youtube and you'll soon discover whether your internet is up to scratch. Sooner again if someone else in the house is trying to use the internet, or you are trying to download something in the background.

And don't even think about trying to skype while there are others on the computer.

It's certainly not the case that the bottleneck between the PC and the "internet" is the backbone. Whoever gave you that idea is telling pork pies. Invariably it will be the copper, either between your PC and the ISP, or between the website's ISP and their server, that is the weak link. The backbone itself is already very high bandwidth fibre optic cable, so there you go.

There are of course other advantages to fibre including the fact that the signal can go much further without losing any strength and the medium is not susceptible to corrosion.

In fact the only bad thing about fibre is that it's not in the ground already, which means we have to pay expensive labourers to put it there.

A mate early today was speaking about penaltys of going over the monthy limit, he said its alright when they choke your download speed, you don't notice any difference.
How does your mate know he has been choked if he can't notice the difference? Does he just not use the internet all that much? Or is it a case of his internet being so slow under normal circumstances that it doesn't matter - in which case the copper connection is clearly in dire need of replacement?

In any case, if you don't want the government spending billions on fibre to the home, you'll be mortified at what the government is about to spend billions on instead :hmm:

500N 10th Apr 2014 23:29

Remember the child bride story ?

How about this for revenge ;) :rolleyes:

Child bride forced into marriage makes poisoned meal which kills groom and three of his friends in Nigeria
  • Wasila Umaru, 14, married to Umaru Sani, 35, a week ago
  • Umaru invited his friends to village in Nigeria to celebrate
  • Wasila bought rat poison from market and put it in rice
  • She has admitted killing Umaru and three of his friends
  • Told police she did it because she was forced to marry him

Read more: Nigerian child bride poisons husband and three of his friends | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Nigerian child bride poisons husband and three of his friends | Mail Online

rh200 11th Apr 2014 00:31


It is sometimes true that when surfing to a single website, you don't saturate your home connection. But start watching videos on youtube and you'll soon discover whether your internet is up to scratch. Sooner again if someone else in the house is trying to use the internet, or you are trying to download something in the background.
The fact is its all about value for your asset. If you are going to be sitting around allday watching videos yes of course you can saturate the copper. I would be suprised that your one of the lucky ones that an ISP can supply a regular high bandwidth to your copper.

The vast is the vast majority of the Australian public doesn't need to intergrated bandwidth that fibre brings, it doesn't even need the maximun bandwidth a set of copper pairs brings. Yes there is surge demand in some households that can be overcome.


It's certainly not the case that the bottleneck between the PC and the "internet" is the backbone. Whoever gave you that idea is telling pork pies. Invariably it will be the copper, either between your PC and the ISP, or between the website's ISP and their server, that is the weak link. The backbone itself is already very high bandwidth fibre optic cable, so there you go.
I'm well aware of where the slowdowns are. Its all about what you call backbone. I have been involved in shunting terrabytes of data around the country on the spare fibre, and sit on the back of a 40 Gige back bone I can share the frustration. But it also makes me aware of usage patterns and what we actually need.

The infrastructure supporting the copper is lacking, for the vast majority, solve that and your home free. In fact at home all I use these days is my phone as an access point. Lightning fast for general usage.

rh200 11th Apr 2014 00:34


Child bride forced into marriage makes poisoned meal which kills groom and three of his friends in Nigeria
Wonder if we could offer her asylum:p. My kind of gal.


All times are GMT. The time now is 15:46.


Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.