Based on the https://developers.facebook.com/docs/apps/changelog, v1.0 is available until 30-Apr-2015.
I cannot find any indication of the new API being added to libpurple.
210 posts • joined 29 Sep 2011
Based on the https://developers.facebook.com/docs/apps/changelog, v1.0 is available until 30-Apr-2015.
I cannot find any indication of the new API being added to libpurple.
More likely pidgin. That is what I use to connect to Google's hangouts and Facebook Messenger.
When you consider that many corporate networks have firewalls which perform man in the middle "attacks" so that SSL traffic can be inspected, this does offer some interesting possibilities.
One thing I appreciate about voting in Australia is the simplicity. Turn up at any polling booth within your electorate on polling day, grab a sausage or steak sandwich, queue for ~30 minutes take 5 minutes to vote and leave. If you happen to be a reasonable distance from your electorate, then you can cast an absentee vote. If you don't feel like voting on the day, submit a postal vote.
I also like preferential voting, because it makes it easy to cast a protest vote or single issue vote and use your preferences to support the candidates you prefer.
> I expect they will be selling off NBNco to the highest bidder (amongst a selected range of bidders of course, can't have our infrastructure falling into foreign hands)
You do realise that Labor's stated plan was to sell NBNCo as soon as the network was shown to be viable commercially? I believe the term for this is "socialising the risk, privatising the profits".
It amuses me no end to see people whining about Liberal policy when Labor policy was the same or worse.
Unfortunately very true. Labor created NBNCo as a monopoly provider and there is even less that competitors can do about it, because with FTTN, HFC & FTTP competitors cannot install their own hardware and connect directly to the client.
Australia would have been better serviced by selling concessions to operate each of the 141 POIs. This would mean a company would provide wholesale services for a fixed timespan with maximum pricing and appropriate KPIs.
> Meanwhile renters
Renters in the correct areas (e.g. those where people have high disposable income) who want FoD will simply have it on their check list and agents will negotiate with landlords.
> and those with lower disposable incomes are stuffed.
Those on lower disposable incomes are stuffed whatever happens. The result of Labor's plan is that 38% on fibre are connected at 12Mbps and a further 38% connected at 25Mbps. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to estimate the proportion of those with low disposable income who are on the cheap plans versus the 24% on faster plans.
The application cost for an area is only $1000. Local councillors can be elected for as little 400 votes, so it isn't that hard to game the system.
> FTTH, it takes just a simple *golden* screwdriver upgrade
I think your choice of the word *golden* conveys the perfect meaning. You will need plenty of spare cash to purchase 1Gbps with the current pricing model.
> And like a parrot, matthew42 trots out the old 12Mb/s line again
Before it was based on Labor's predictions. Now we have the actual numbers and with 38% on fibre choosing to connect at 12Mbps and a further 38% choosing to connect at 25Mbps it is clear that the take-up of speed tiers was probably the most accurate of Labor's predictions in the NBNCo Corporate Plan.
> If the NBN forks into 100Mbps-capable and 10Gbps-capable branches, what's a developer to do? Develop for the lesser service and the faster offering? Or go for the lowest common denominator?
Sadly the lowest common denominator on FTTP NBN is 12Mbps. NBNCo have a media release on their website (http://www.nbnco.com.au/corporate-information/media-centre/media-releases/nbn-co-tracks-towards-full-year-targets-as-network-transitions-to-new-rollout-model.html) which has an attached presentation with a slide showing that 38% of fibre customers have selected 12Mbps speed and a further 38% selected 25Mbps.
The problem is that the Australian public (as Labor predicted in the NBNCo Corporate Plans) doesn't have a desire to pay more for faster speeds. In the latest published documents from NBNCo (sse the media release on their website), 38% are connecting at 12Mbps and a further 38% have chosen to connect at 25Mbps.
Sadly by supporting Labor's speed tiers many whining on this forum and others have put at risk their own high speed connection.
> Users still default to lower speeds on connection, with only 19 per cent taking the 100 / 40 Mbps product compared to 38 per cent on each of 12 / 1 Mbps and 25 / 5 Mbps, but user downloads are growing.
Based on these numbers a minimum 76% of customers won't notice a difference between FTTN & FTTP roll outs. If we assume that the majority of those people keen for faster speeds have connected within weeks of the service being available, then this percentage on slower plans is likely to rise.
Even if Labor had been re-elected, it is clear from these numbers that they would have failed at creating a revolution in internet speeds for all Australians. Possibly this is because Labor's original plan was for FTTN and only changed when Telstra wouldn't negotiate.
If you have a Windows PC on a corporate domain then odds are the IT department is doing exactly the same thing. The firewall is almost certainly decrypting your SSL sessions, checking the content and re-encrypting the content before sending it to the original site.
If you are lucky they might have white listed major financial institutions.
$12,500 as the biggest cheque so far from facebook makes it unlikely that people could make a living from this. However it is a nice bonus.
I think this is the most sensible comment so far.
Clearly it is transmitting data that is causing the load on the system, so on a user-pays basis cutting the access fees (AVC) and increasing the data charges (CVC) would encourage people to modify their behaviour. RSPs could moderate this by:
1. peak / off-peak quotas
2. prioritisation based on volume of data transferred in the last 30-90 days
The government could see this delivered as essential service by providing quota free or rebates for traffic to certain government services (e.g. school of the air, medical services, etc.).
> Restrictions put in place by people in the city who have no idea and obviously failed to do their initial usage calculations correctly in the first place.
That would be the responsibility of Labor who over promised, under delivered and over spent.
There was always going to be shortage prior to NBNCo launching their own satellites.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
> . . . 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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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 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.