TLS - TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED.

[sabretoothed]

TLS I think has it right, whats the point of building a fibre network at such high cost when the fibre will be outdated before they finish building it?

 

It's easier to upgrade wireless bases when new compression software arises or hardware. The only limit is frequency room, but they havn't run out of that yet have they?

 

It's like starting radio, then saying we went to wire up all the houses instead. It's like mobile phones then going back to landlines, the fibre doesn't make sense, and that's why TLS gave that couple page submission last time, it doesn't want to build it and neither does the government, so I think they'll do their usual we are going to pretend to do something and never do it technique like transport lol

[sabretoothed]

TLS nice intraday high 3.44, looks like she's back in an uptrend

[db76]

Mr X "... said slow broadband was holding Australia back. He compared a decent fibre network with the railway networks of the 19th century"

 

railways were then seen as a fast mode of travel better than the stagecoach - superceded by the car and the plane

 

holding australia back ! -from what ?-- a commodity exporter !

 

with fast BB would we be better off now ?

 

and where is that business case for an expenditure of $43Bn ? - dont need one - "Nation Building"

[Idyll128]

I don't think wireless is going to come to TLS's rescue here. If wireless could ever do 100Mbps on a large scale in say 10 years time then cable can do 1000Mbps today if needed. The important question really is how fast do we want to go today and in 10, 20 or 30 years time and how much do we want to pay for it. I am currently happy with 4Mbps, but there is surely an element of "build it and they will come" to having a nationwide superfast broadband network. That is exactly why the government has to take the initiative here because it requires vision and leadership to make such an investment. However they stilll have to run the numbers on this because people like me who are content with 4mbps will not want to pay any/much more for 100mbps, so the extra speed will need to be subsidised by the Govnt. The question is wether this subsidy will cost more than 4.9 bil.

[sabretoothed]

Why can't wireless go faster? Whats the difference? Both travel at the speed of light.

 

Wireless is better and its cheaper!

[balance]

Very interesting decision by the govt.

The ball in tls court now on whether it takes up the chance to be on the inside again and dominate the process with their tech and clout or do they go their own way altogether re the Melbourne experiment and try to render the NBN as planned redundant ? I certainly hope they begin to talk about the best way to go and not have parallel systems although wireless and cable will co-exist always as is now for some services.At least with cable/fibre optic their isnt an issue with radio spectrum availability and bandwidth as in how much info you squeeze onto an RF signal.

I suspect even the tech experts dont know what technology will throw up over the next few years.I do think that cable/fibre will carry more ones and zeroes at any given time than wireless tech but the cost will be higher.

 

why is it so important? In ways we cant envisage most likely.Instant HD quality media delivery will make many services more efficient.I'm sure even techo visionaries could not have seen the remarkable uptake of mobile phones nor the home computer not that long ago.Why would you want one of those, what would you do with it?

Like digital cameras, why Joe Blow wants 12 megapixels over say 6 meg for taking snapshots is a furphy in most cases but Joe buys it anyway.

Like some one has already said the "Field of Dreams " quote "build it and they will come" applies.

[sabretoothed]

Looks like a typical labour promise. Do some announcements, consult, look into it, spend heaps of money doing that, then don't end up doing it.

 

That's why TLS didn't even bother submitting properly, since whats the point, they won't build this thing in current times. Wireless is more then capable of delivering what we need.

[balance]

its about how much info you can superimpose on a radio signal and the availability of radio spectrum at the req'd frequencies.Also how much power wil be req'd to send up the antenna at these frequencies and banwidths? will they need more towers? likley. A lot of people dont want microwave transmitters blazing away all day everyday anywhere near them.

[sabretoothed]

Didn't stop them building all the mobile towers, federal laws can make them built anywhere

[db76]

there is a lot of fibre optic cabling around the country already - private lines - could be gridded up

 

we get digital TV wirelessly - bit of spectrum there for other things

 

why the grandiose toplofty nation building plan -- One has said it is bigger and more productive than the snowy mountains scheme

 

and how is watching a HD movie on the internet productive ?

 

video conferencing is already pretty good - and dont believe those who say that is all you need - face to face meetings are still required

 

maybe we can hold holographic meetings where everyone appears around the table

 

or downloading in 5sec as opposed to 50sec - what can I do with the other 45sec ?

 

probably end up like the excess capacity installed for the internet in the 1999s - will get used eventually

 

and wont that need upgrading also

 

for real transactional uses the dial-up is more than adequate

 

 

I want to say what I think but I shouldnt