I wonder if this or the google glass approach is better for people wanting to complete a task with instructions also available. I'm thinking particularly of jobs like surgery where a high degree of manual dexterity and accuracy is required.
194 posts • joined 29 Sep 2011
> Under the FTTP NBN, Telstra/Foxtel kept their Pay TV HFC and paid for maintenance and operation.
I wasn't aware of this. Do you have a reference for this?
> Fttn will be only very average for Video streaming
25Mbps should be adequate for video streaming, especially at the quotas currently available.
> The Monopoly is maintained and extended at taxpayer expense
Sport is the #1 reason for PayTV profits and it is unlikely those licensing deals will change in a hurry.
If the amount of criticism levelled at the Coalition NBN was levelled at Labor's disaster then it might not have over promised (1 Gbps for all) and under delivered by millions of connections.
Re: I just want 5mbs, relaiably
> How many people get < 5mbs reliable. That is the real statistic. And it will not be pretty for Australia. And not just for people in remote places.
One of Labor's numerous mistakes with their NBN plans was not focusing on the areas of greatest need. A quick rule of thumb could be any suburb settled post 1970s when Telstra started installing RIMs and pair gain systems.
Re: I for one.....
Now this takes me back to a story told about my great-grandfather who would stumble out of the pub, climb onto his horse and let it walk him home.
Re: Car Insurance is a scam that can die with this device
How well do you think the scammer's word will be regarded against 360 degree camera vision from the Google car? Verification of what actually occurred is the main reason that every car in Russia has a dash cam. A side-effect is that we can have a good chuckle every month.
Re: Labor predicted 50% at 12Mbps
> So what your saying that is NBNco should not have $24 for 12/1 upto a $38 100/40 they should be the same price so everyone pays the same. While we are at it why don't we average the CVC charges to everyone we don't those high end users paying more than there far share.
I suggest a flat $20 for AVC. CVC is where you charge based on usage, because it is usage that puts strain on the network. To fix that NBNCo and RSPs would need to purchase additional infrastructure. Off peak quotas exist to encourage heavy downloaders to schedule their downloads in quieter times.
> While GPON was made with a 1:1 contention.
WRONG. GPON does have contention. Under Labor's plan the worst case scenario was 78Mbps per premises. Not really a problem since it is pretty unlikely that people will be maxing out their connections 24/7.
> Electricity and broadband runs completely differently.
WRONG. You may not have experienced a brown-out but it is what occurs in an electricty grid when too much power is being drawn and is rapidly followed by selective blackouts to prevent damage to electrical devices.
Re: Broken analogy
> Bloke up the road gets ~20 Mb/s on ADSL2. Later this year he'll be restricted to satellite, or mobile wireless because there's no signal at his place from the fixed wireless tower.
This highlights the stupidity of Labor's ideology first approach. Small rural communities would have been better served by FTTN than being pushed onto fixed wireless or worse satellite. HFC will be adequate for most people for a while to come yet. Labor should have focused on those areas of greatest need (e.g. suburbs established post 1970) first to deliver the greatest benefit.
Re: Broken analogy
> That being said, it's a bloody awful purchase. They have bought copper that was originally built for one way communications, namely broadcasting Pay TV. Internet was an afterthought.
Rudd took a FTTN policy to the 2007 election, but changed to FTTP when Telstra wouldn't negotiate. Labor were paying exactly the same just to rent ducting. This way we at least have the copper with an open wholesale market. Telstra was being paid to disconnect customers from the HFC. This way we get the HFC and can deliver faster internet more quickly.
> NBN is becoming a bigger joke the longer the LNP are allowed to be in charge, and will be a farce by the time they are kicked out of office.
Labor's NBN was full of spin:
- 1Gbps only announced prior to the 2010 election because of Google fibre)
- Prices to rise dramatically as demand increased (ARPU need to reach $100/month by 2020 for the numbers to work)
- eMedicine not realistic, because 50% had 12Mbps and those places that really need it would have only had wireless or satellite connections
> All I want is speedy internet for a reasonable price, why is that so freaking hard ??!? !
Because politicians didn't think through the outcomes of their policies. The second problem is thinking about yourself and not the nation as a whole.
Re: Labor predicted 50% at 12Mbps
> Again as I have told you those 50% would not have been paying for the but then you seam to have trouble understanding how economics works and the usage pay model.
WRONG. The 50% don't want the expense of a fibre upgrade. A similar situation exists in the electricity market. People built poorly designed McMansions in the suburbs and installed massive aircons which required upgrading of the electricity infrastructure which was passed on to everyone as increased service charges. Installing fibre so that less than 5% could have 1Gbps connections in 2028 is the same problem. It would have been much cheaper to install direct fibre just to those properties on demand.
If you argued that everyone was entitled to fast speeds (100Mbps and faster) then you could argue it was a national building project What Labor planned was not what the headlines promised (1Gbps for all) and instead would only have been of benefit to the rich (much like the school building program).
> Would you be happy to move to a house that has higher prices because it has fiber because your poor copper can only deliver you 25Mbps or would you be happy to pay for fiber while your neighbor doesn't have to?
I'm considering both, although I'm yet to see any evidence of higher prices for houses with fibre. If we assume that fibre install is under $5000 then this is less than 1% of the average house price. Optus have already discussed making the installation payments over 24 months when on a plan so that lessens the upfront cost.
Labor predicted 50% at 12Mbps
Where was the outrage when Labor repeatedly released NBNCOo Corporate Plans which clearly stated that 50% of fibre connections would be 12Mbps. The minimum Liberal speed is more than double this.
Sure some people are going to be worse off, but they have the option of moving or installing direct fibre when that becomes available.
Re: Well at least now..
> Now, if you want your 100MB, 1GB, etc communications, that's fine. But don't expect other people to pay for it.
Or fight for equality and campaign to have the speed tiers removed. Then I'll support FTTP as it won't be just for the rich.
Re: Fluffie Bunnies are Government Glove Puppets
> while the top users subsidise there connection by paying the maximum dollar for there own connection.
It is the transfer of data that puts load on the network, not the speed so I suggest that usage based pricing would support this and a lower AVC price would drive take up.
> the average connection speed of ADSL2+ is 6mbps
Are you sure about that? The only comprehensive survey I've seen is from Internode / iiNet which was published in 2007 when Rudd first proposed FTTN to show that his plan would offer little benefit over existing ADSL2+. The results were that the average ADSL2+ speed in Sydney was 11Mbps.
Re: Fluffie Bunnies are Government Glove Puppets
> You answered the your self for me. If the bottom 50% of users where subsidizing to users on 100Mbps wouldn't the ARPU but around the 12/1 of $24 not $39 it is now?
But the 50% of users on 12Mbps don't need FTTP, so would have been content with the existing system. You are also ignoring the fact that many of the 12Mbps FTTP customers would be equally fine on a 4G connection. Lets be honest here if they won't pay $5 more a month for double the speed, then using the data on their mobile plan is probably workable for them.
> But it is accurately the other way around. Eg. Google charges a $300 connection for a 5Mbps free for 7 years connection they must subsidies those people on 1Gps.
Different scenario. In this one a private company is paying for the fibre to be installed, not taxpayers. I much prefer the Google model of only one speed 1/1Gbps direct fibre (better than GPON). We could do worse than give Google $40 billion and ask them to build the network.
Re: Well at least now..
> Under FTTP You get your 12mbps at minimal cost I would get my 50/20mbps at my expense per month, and were both still paying an ISP for a service.
You are deluded over the minimal cost if you think building an entire FTTP network so half the population can have 12Mbps is good value.
A survey published by iiNet & Internode in 2007 when Rudd first proposed FTTN showed in Sydney the average ADSL speed was 11Mbps.
> why should others not have the choice of paying for 100mbps just because you dont want to?
I've never said I won't pay for 100Mbps. In fact I'll seriously consider installing direct fibre. What I'm against is the digital divide that is AVC speed tiers will create in this country. For example, an aunt has just cancelled her home phone line because she wasn't using it for phone calls and the extra $70/month (phone + ADSL) meant she could add additional data to her mobile plan and still be in front. For low data usage a 4G connection will often be better value than a 12Mbps FTTP connection.
Re: Fluffie Bunnies are Government Glove Puppets
> For the NBN to make money for the user and to pay back the gov loan its needs 20% of its user base to use its some if its top tier plans.
The pricing of the plans is all based around spreadsheet models. Cheap AVC access with higher CVC would have cost NBNCo revenue initially, but I think everyone agrees that with faster speeds people download more simply because they can.
> So that 50% on 12Mbps are the one not paying for it its the top 20%.
WRONG. That 50% on 12Mbps are seeing very little benefit over an ADSL connection. Given that the cost to double speed is $5/month it is reasonable to argue that either these people don't care about speed or have very tight budgets. Therefore the NBNCo delivers little benefit to them, meaning that they are subsidising the 100Mbps users. The same principle applies in electricity networks. Electricity companies have increased the supply charge significantly because they've built new infrastructure to service McMansions running aircons all day because of poor design. Pensioners who struggle to pay for electricity pay the increased service charges for zero benefit.
The equitable solution is to charge based on usage.
Re: Fluffie Bunnies are Government Glove Puppets
> ADSL2+ - it nearly gets 1kbps on a very good day
Somehow I seriously doubt this as dialup modems were able to exceed 1kbps in 1984.
> Come to the large corporate office that I work at, based in the Hills, that struggles to get even 3G phone clearly
Since the telcos are owned privately, mobile coverage would be an issue to take up with your provider.
Are you sure you were on Labor's fibre footprint? Being outside of 3G coverage that might be doubtful.
> We can bloody see the Sydney CBD from the roof
Thought about using microwave links then?
> One day it's going to have to crawl into the 20th century, whether your Reverend Tony 'Mad Monk' Abbott likes it or not.
Labor's plan wasn't going to deliver that. Sure they promised 1Gbps, but Labor's published corporate plan predicted less than 5% connecting at this speed in 2028. Ubiquitous 1Gbps now would be considered world leading. In 2028, I suspect our ranking would be lower than what it is now, especially when you consider that Labor predicted 50% on fibre would connect at 12Mbps.
> Funny how the ones who go on about not putting a burden on 'the taxpayer' are the ones usually paying 2c in the $ despite the Eastern Suburbs mansion, garage full of cars and dressed in smarmy $10,000 suits.
Guess what? Because of Labor chose to introduce tiered pricing for speeds, the only people who could have afforded the fast speeds would be the exact people you describe. Have you noticed how NBNCo released 1Gbps plans to wholesalers in December 2013, but retailers aren't offering them? I'd suggest it is because the pricing models simply don't work because of Labor's abhorent pricing model.
Thanks for your rant. I'm saddened that so many people were blinded by the shiny fibre light and failed to read what Labor was actually promising.
Re: Cheaper CVC = Higher AVC = Slower Speeds
> The takeup of higher level plans was substantially higher than budgeted.
But the percentage of 12Mbps remained unchanged, exposing the digital divide that AVC pricing creates.
> These differences support the lower CVC charges. These are a clear benefit for endusers, despite the impression you have sought to create to the contrary.
There is a clear benefit in low CVC charges for that category of end users who want unlimited data plans with speeds of 100Mbps or less. Dropping AVC charges would encourage take up and people on faster speeds tend to download more meaning that usage goes up resulting in CVC prices dropping.
Finally, it should be clear to all that it is the data transiting the network which puts load on the system and is therefore what charging should be based on.
Cheaper CVC = Higher AVC = Slower Speeds
First, I want to make a few points:
1. The costs of NBNCo are fixed and do not rise substantially with more customers because the bulk of the cost is is building the network.
2. NBNCo has two sources of revenue: AVC (connection charges) and CVC (data or usage charges)
3. NBNCo revenue target is costs + 7% (return on investment, ROI)
This means that if you reduce the cost of CVC this means that AVC will need to rise. There is little room to increase the price of the popular base plan (12/1Mbps) because of competition with mobile phone operators. Therefore it is the higher speed plans which will need to increase in price to cover this decision. The increase in the more expensive faster plans will make them less attractive.
Less people connecting at faster speeds will justify the Liberal government's position that most people are not prepared to pay for fast Internet (>100Mbps). Less people connecting at faster speeds will also mean less people downloading data because they have to wait for data.
Re: Is this now more expensive than the FTTP alternative?
> That aside, you're argument is that only those who can afford it will be early adopters of higher speeds. Ok so you're saying its a bad thing that it costs so much?
Restricting access to high speeds is firstly bad for the country because it limits what people can do with the network. If you only have a 12/1Mbps connection then eHealth, HD video conferencing, etc. are out. Secondly it makes a mockery of what Labor promised, because only a very limited few would ever experience the benefits.
> If I want 1Gbps with FTTN what do I do?
Install direct fibre. At ~$5000 with RSPs already offering to spread payments across a 2 year contract not much of issue when compared with Labor's AVC pricing.
> so to me the NBN isn't expensive
It isn't expensive to me either, but chances are you are earning above average wages which means your connection could be described as middle class welfare.
Re: In other news...
> The Austfailian Governmunt unveils a new Intertubes-to-the-hovel scheme agreed personally with Fox, the big movie studios and other copyright owners called 'Damper-Net'.
Once you are above 12Mbps streaming works, since the minimum is supposed to be 25Mbps I don't see how the movie studios have anything to benefit from the difference between 25 & 100Mbps, especially when you consider that HFC will offer 100Mbps and that covers the biggest market regions.
Now if you had talked about Telstra imposing speed caps on ADSL1, to prevent VoIP on the slower speeds and video streaming on even the highest 1.5Mbps speed then I would agree.
I refer you back to my previous comment about being distracted by the "shiny light" and ignoring the technical reality.
Re: Is this now more expensive than the FTTP alternative?
> Apologies if I've misunderstood you, but Labor's plan promised everyone the choice of any speed they wanted.
This is the true in the same way that anyone in Australia can buy a Ferrari, yet most people drive something a tenth of the price because it is adequate. So yes a few people would have 1Gbps connections. Labor's predication was less than 5% in 2028. The reality is because of Labor's AVC / CVC pricing model even though NBNCo made 1Gbps plans available at wholesale level in Dec 2013 there are none available at a retail level because the cost would be ridiculous.
I'll also point out that people in small regional towns (<1000 premises) would have been significantly worse off because their ADSL would have been disconnected and replaced with wireless. Most homes in rural townships are very close to the telephone exchange so FTTN speeds would have been good, but Labor's ideological path prevented this option.
Re: Is this now more expensive than the FTTP alternative?
> We could have gotten a full fibre to the premises network for less than we are paying for this MTM turkey.
This assumes you think the estimates from the previous government were correct.
> Hockey doesn't give the Reserve Bank another $10 billion or so to play with
I think you meant repay the money taken from the Reserve Bank in a futile attempt by Labor to balance the budget.
> When it can be done properly, and will become an asset for the nation.
I agree with that, but the reality of Labor's plan was 50% connected at 12Mbps and almost no one on 1Gbps. Too many people have been distracted by the shiny fibre and failed to actually read what Labor were promising.
it is doubtful that you would recoup the value since there is no evidence of buyers paying a premium to live in suburbs on the fibre map. The reason for this can be found in Labor's old Corporate Plans where they predicted that 50% of people on FTTP would opt for the slowest 12/1Mbps speed tier. The draft of their last plan showed that it was one of their more accurate estimates with 47% on 12/1Mbps.
The good news is that it is likely to be less than 1% of the average home value to install fibre, but probably only worth it if living in a non HFC area and 50Mbps is inadequate.
Consider this: All the Liberals need to do is abolish the 12Mbps speed tier or eliminate speed tiers on FTTN and the average network speed will be faster than Labor's plan.
I suggest that car hire companies, particularly the newer ones with membership where you can book a car online and unlock it electronically from it's parking spot are best placed to take advantage of driverless cars.
In Australia, taxi licenses are around $250,000 - $500,000 and are rarely owned by the driver. Cars are upgraded every 4 years so. Drivers make ~50% of the fare so once driverless cars are available it won't take long for the taxi industry to take advantage.
Re: Am I the last one...
You are not the only one. I'd like a browser that doesn't allow any access to my hardware or file system. I really don't want websites able to switch on my webcam.
Re: What is systemd
> Systemd kills both of these as Debian projects because the Systemd developers insist on inserting their tentacles into nearly everything, and won't accept patches which will make Systemd cross-platform (e.g, make it compatible with a BSD kernel).
For this reason alone, the pitchforks should be raised in anger. Cross platform software is often of a higher quality because corner cases are found.
Re: A small payment will make it manageable
> Instead of using technology as a means to shift populations and companies into regional areas.
Under Labor's plan many regional areas (population < 1000) were going to have their ADSL connections ripped out and replaced by wireless. Secondly in regional areas you tend to live closer to the exchange so the distances are less and it is often easier to run fibre.
Providing reasonably priced backhaul to country towns should be a higher priority.
Labor's NBN - 50% at 12Mbps
> . . . which is one of the problems we have now - a two (or more) tier system - and one of the problems the NBN was originally designed to rectify.
Labor's NBN was designed with speed tiers and Labor's estimates, as documented in each update of the NBNCo Corporate Plan, was that close to 50% on fibre would connect at 12Mbps well into the future, while only a tiny fraction (<5%) would connect at 1Gbps in 2028. To me that defines a two tier system between the poor and rich. Sadly almost 12 months after NBNCo reportedly made 1Gbps plans available to RSPs it is still not possible to order one, because it is simply not economically viable.
The reality is that direct fibre for high speed users (>100Mbps) is likely to be cheaper than Labor's NBN and RSPs (e.g. Optus) have already commented that they would spread connection fees out over a 2 year contract, so the price difference (if any) shouldn't be that high, especially when Labor predicted that 12Mbps would be adequate for half the country.
The second observation I would make is that imposing speed tiers on FTTN is likely to be more challenging because performance is more variable, so for the average person who would have connected at 12Mbps they will likely see a speed increase.
The losers are those seduced by Labor's shiny fibre who didn't realise they wouldn't be able to afford the fast speeds anyway.
Re: Some interesting possibilities here...
I think this has merit in the suburbs when combined with a delivery van. Software plots out where packages require delivery and instructs the driver where to park. The roof opens, a dozen drones take off while the driver (wheeled robot?) delivers a heavy package. The drones return and the van moves to the next spot while the drones recharge or swap batteries.
Re: Ummm, no.
> The draw of automated driving systems for many if not most people is that you won't have to pay attention and can do something else entirely. Take that away and you may have a safer system in which no-one is interested.
I agree I would much prefer to sit in the car and engage with the kids while travelling somewhere rather than concentrating on the traffic, but before we have full automation there is the 'stop stupid mistakes' stage which we have already reached with features like: automatic braking, distance keeping cruise control, lane following, blind spot monitoring, etc. I considered it worth $2500 for some of these features when buying a car earlier this year.
Try servers + sewerage pipes
> And a general contractor didn’t understand why he couldn’t run a water pipe through the cabinet containing a rack of media servers (the pipe wasn’t on the blueprints).
I worked in a small 2 story office where the toilets were between the ground and first floor. The servers were jammed in a storage room under the stairs with the sewer pipes ran across top of the room.
The other interesting thing was the toilets had louvre windows and it did occasionally snow.
Re: I call Bulls*&$
> I manage a large stable of linux servers that generate an excessive amount of income for my company.
So you are expecting the rest of Australia to reduce the costs of running your business?
> VDSL will do close to bugger all for my situation, yet 1 km away from my house NBN in the correct implementation is working just fine.
I have a suggestion for you: MOVE! If fibre NBN delivers the benefits you claim, then the increase in productivity should easily cover the moving costs.
Bringing a sense of reality to a beautiful dream
> "Bringing a sense of reality to a beautiful dream is never going to invite popularity"
Labor over promised on the NBN, highlighting 1Gbps connections on fibre when the reality is they were planning for 50% of connections on fibre to be 12Mbps (47% in April 2013), meaning that many would have connections slower than HFC, 4G and even a large number of ADSL2+ connections. They oversold the benefits like distance education and medical consultations, when the reality is that these consultations would be conducted in a hospital or clinic and that it would be much cheaper to run fibre from the closest exchange to the hospital. Labor failed to invest in the areas of greatest need first - suburbs established in 1970s and later where Telstra skimped on infrastructure.
Like so many of Labor's policies the concept was laudable, but the implementation was incompetent and underfunded.
Re: Political more than commercial
> Abandoning WP is a daft idea from Huawei if on purely commercial grounds, because it gives them less of a stick to wave at Google
It is barely shorter stick considering that Huawei have the option of open source Android (e.g. CyanogenMod) or Tizen platform (supported by Intel) plus the potential of discounts from Google for not selling Windows Phone.
How likely is it that Huawei are worried by Microsoft owning Nokia and being second in line for information and continually squeezed, especially if they have no way to differentiate?
Google enables Huawei to go after the higher volume lower end market by choosing which trade-offs they wish to make to appeal to a particular market segment.
All vendors need to be careful with the preference that many are showing for vanilla Android UI. The open source nature of Android also means that Huawei are not
NBN for average or high end users?
The fundamental question that requires answering is should the government be providing an NBN service that meets the average needs or high end users?
If high end users expect the government to subsidise their connections then they should be advocate for everyone in Australia to receive the same speeds on fibre and usage based charging.
Re: Major failure
> If I gave somebody a 25Mbps connection and they only downloaded 62GB, I would take it away again. They obviously aren't serious enough.
This comment is the exact reason that the Liberals are able to justify FTTN. If your main usage is a HD video conference twice a month, you need the high speed, but not the data consumption. Fast speeds enable activities that simply aren't possible with slow speeds.
Quotas are not an artificial constraint
"As a network engineer said to The Register: “With the cap, virtually all of the actual utilisation numbers you can dream up are artificially constrained.”"
Contrary to popular opinion, data is not free. Every other utility service charges based on usage, because if you don't charge based on usage a critical link is broken and this leads to the "Tragedy of the Commons".
Quotas enable ISPs to control network usage. Customers who want to download large amounts of data and are prepared to schedule it can take advantage of off-peak periods. Customers who are light users have reasonably priced connections which are fast.
The problem is speed tiers which limit the benefits of a fast network. If a person's primary requirement is a video conference twice a month why should they be required to spend additional money for a high speed connection with data they are not consuming?
Internode / iiNet ADSL heat map in Sydney
"The other howler in this assumption – one that will fuel accusations that the whole Vertigan process represents a political report to serve a political end – is that Australia's average ADSL line speed is above 12 Mbps, citing the government's MyBroadband data cube as its source."
On 25th Feb 2008 Internode & iiNet published a heat map of ADSL2+ speeds in Sydney - http://www.internode.on.net/news/2008/02/76.php. Quoting from the article "Combining the results of these two ADSL2+ surveys indicates that half of all their customers(3) regularly enjoy download speeds of 11.9Mbps. In addition, 80% of customers, today have access to speeds about 6 Megabits per second." Of course some people will be well below, but it does make the 12Mbps speed reasonable.
It is interesting to note that it was in response to Labor's FTTN policy promising 12Mbps. How times change.
Data is not directly related to speed
"The ABS records of download volumes show that from 2009 to 2013, CAGR ran at more than 64 per cent."
A 12Mbps connection is capable of almost 4GB month which is well in excess of the current average.
100Mbps is capable of 32GB a month.
Having said that faster connections are important because it enables interactive real-time services (e.g. video conferencing).
No more turning over a USB thing, then turning it over again to plug it in: Reversible socket ready for lift off
20V at 5A
"delivers faster data rates of 10Gbps and up to 100W of power – from 5V at 2A for handhelds, to 20V at 5A for workstations and hubs."
Finally USB fridges and coffee warmers might work properly or more likely the escaping magic smoke will be more spectacular.
Labor's NBN was for the rich
Actually the reality is that Labor's NBN model would have benefited the 1% most. Labor predicted that 50% of connections on fibre would be 12Mbps and in 2028 less than 5% would be 1Gbps. For the 50% on 12Mbps those speeds could be easily achieved on HFC, 4G & FTTN. Heck approaching half of ADSL2+ connections reached that speed 6 years ago.
Labor's NBN policy started as FTTN, switched to FTTP only when Telstra wouldn't concentrate and beyond the headline of 1Gbps FTTP (which RSPs are refusing to sell) has been a total disaster.
Re: Where is percentile pricing?
95% percentile doesn't make sense for a wholesaler with only a few customers.
NBNCo is a wholesaler providing last mile connection across the entire country. RSPs connect to NBNCo for the last mile and send the data out to the wider world.
Eliminate the AVC charge
The "Tragedy of the Commons" means that restrictions on network traffic need to be imposed for the pricing to be reasonable.
Abolishing the AVC charge means that people pay only for the data that they use, which is the same model used for other utilities (power, water, etc.). Giving everyone the fastest speed possible will encourage innovation in a way that Labor's NBN failed completely, because people will be able to experience the benefits of FTTP (if only for a limited time).
If you only have a 12Mbps connection on fibre (which in April 2013 was 47% and rising) then the connection is slower than FTTN, 4G, HFC and almost half of ADSL2+ connection which means people aren't able to experience a difference (e.g. HD video conferencing). If you have a 1Gbps connection with 5GB of data you can test the HD video conferencing and if you start to run out of quota move up to the next plan.
NBNCo need to make a fixed amount of money to cover the build costs and maintenance. The costs of sending more data is significantly less than the extra revenue generated, meaning that as average data downloaded per user increases, prices of CVC will fall. If people have faster connections, they will download more data simply because they aren't waiting around. This creates a positive feedback loop: more data is downloaded so it becomes cheaper, quotas rise so people download more.
Pricing purely on CVC also creates positive feedback for NBNCo to upgrade their internal network infrastructure because fixing congestion issues will enable people to download more data increasing revenue significantly more than the cost of the fix.
Currently I can purchase a 30 day unlimited calls plan for $39.95 with 4GB of data. In a 4G area the performance could be close to 12Mbps speeds. For a light user that could easily be more than enough. If extra data is needed a 4G data pack is $29.95, which is less than the cheapest NBNCo plan. However if the speed difference is 4G versus 1Gbps then there is more incentive to connect. Reducing the base connection charge will encourage more people to connect and once connected people are likely to start using the network more.
Sure the heavy downloaders will whine, but with more people connecting on faster plans, CVC prices will start to fall rapidly. Labor's biggest mistake was AVC pricing because it enabled the Liberals to claim that FTTN would be adequate for most people and those who needed a faster connection should pay for it themselves.
Serval Project is much more interesting
I think that the Serval Project is much more interesting and a better approach, because it doesn't need separate hardware.
This is the description from wikipedia: The project aims to provide infrastructure for direct connections between cellular phones through their Wi-Fi interfaces, without the need of a mobile phone operator. The project allows for live voice calls whenever the mesh is able to find a route between the participants. Text messages and other data can be communicated using a store and forward system called Rhizome, allowing communication over unlimited distances and without a stable live mesh connection between all participants.
Re: Just a regular software audit.
Yes, Microsoft do audit customers and IT departments will tell you it is a nightmare unless you have signed up to an all encompassing volume licensing package that covers just about everything.
I know personally of global companies that are trying to move towards open source as quickly as possible because of the cost and business impact of audits.
The solution is metered pricing, because like other utilities it charges people for what they use. Can you image the waste if people paid a fixed charge for water, electricity & gas regardless of consumption? I find running water makes a nice background noise, but I don't leave a tap on because water is precious and it is costs per litre used.
Metered pricing will encourage ISPs to build faster networks, because you can download more data meaning that they can charge more.
Speed tier pricing makes each jump more expensive. A 10Mbps connection is about 3.24TB/month, 100Mbps is 32.4 TB/month, 1Gbps is 324TB/month. I shouldn't be expected to pay for someone else's 24/7 4HD netflix streaming habit, when I only want my fast connection to video conference for a couple of hours each month.
Re: Ball Ox
It may have been reasonable for Moylan to assume that his hoax would be quickly uncovered (within an hour) and that at best the hoax would have rated an item on the evening news.
Re: What losses?
Here are three examples of where investors may have lost out without making a conscious decision:
* Investors operating with a margin trading account may have been forced to sell by their bank if certain thresholds were reached.
* Investors using stop-losses to manage their risk (especially with options trading)
* Funds with rules covering the composition of their portfolio.
However, the point is very valid. The shares opened at $3.55, plunged from $3.52 to $3.21 shortly after noon, but recovered to $3.53 so it is likely that only those investors with stop-losses would have been impacted and options trading has a higher risk associated with it.
What the above reasons do highlight is the risks inherent in the market can accelerate movements in share prices, especially with automated trading.