Google Loon, Facebook Drones, Musk's 4000 satellites
Great news for country people.
With the other options being promoted by Google, Facebook, Elon Musk and others the satellites could well be obsolete in a shorter than expected period of time.
312 posts • joined 29 Sep 2011
Great news for country people.
With the other options being promoted by Google, Facebook, Elon Musk and others the satellites could well be obsolete in a shorter than expected period of time.
I think rather than Labor announcing 1Gbps just prior to the 2010 election in a knee jerk reaction to Google Fibre, they should have approached google.
We would now be seeing 1/1 Gbps with unlimited quota and the outback could be serviced by Project Loon.
Speeds have dropped over the past 12 months and I expect will continue to drop further as currently only 50% of premises with a service available are connected. I suggest it is reasonable to expect that those wanting 100Mbs (aka early adopters) would have been in the first 50% connected so the remaining 50% will connect at 12 or 25Mbps.
Your assumption is that Labor's FTTP budget was anywhere close to accurate. Considering in 2007 they started with a $5b budget for FTTN (12Mbps) I doubt it. Money is my main concern.
The NBN should be about nation building and based on Labor's predictions and the evidence so far both plans are going to have about the same outcome. A few people who want more than 50Mbps will need to move or install fibre but they are a small minority. I guess the equivalence highlights Labor's gross incompetence.
From page 28 of FY2015 Annual Report As at 30 June 2015,
* 18 per cent of nbn’s services used a 100/40 Mbps* wholesale speed tier (30 June 2014: 20 per cent),
* 42 per cent used a 25/5 Mbps* wholesale speed tier (30 June 2014: 37 per cent)
* 35 per cent used a 12/1 Mbps* wholesale speed tier (30 June 2014: 38 per cent).
* The average AVC speed provisioned across all fixed line wholesale service was 35 Mbps, a slight decrease of 1 Mbps from 30 June 2014.
> And why do you think retailer would care ?
Some will and some won't. There are online retailers who market to Australia (including posting deals on sites such as ozbargain) and freight forwarders who care about reputation. Plus the business can keep the GST for up to 56 days.
Below Steve 129 provides an excellent example of how punitive the government will be, except in this case it is likely to be the courier who will have to act as an interface between the government and recipient. Buyers will soon learn about this and will prefer to buy from sellers who pre-pay the GST because it save them money. Businesses won't care because they receive a credit for GST payments.
The shipping is built into the price of the goods, but you are correct. I can have cheap items (e.g cree led torches) delivered under $4, but postage in Australia would be $7.45 plus cost of torch. Mind you delivery from those sites typically does take a month.
eTailor: "Hello Mr. Australian Tax official, what can I do for you?
Tax Official: "We want you to charge, collect and forward an Australian Tax on orders sent to Australia, to the ATO."
eTailor: "Hmm, let me think... How about you get bent, and we call it even?"
Tax Official: "We will hold your packages at the customs until the customer pays the GST. A $20 fee will be charged to the delivery service who will be responsible for collection of the GST."
eTailor: "Umm... thats going to annoy our customers"
eTailor: "So we collect 10% and submit payment 28 days after the end of each month?"
Tax Official: "Yes"
eTailor: "Express delivery of packages through customs?"
Tax Official: "Yes"
eTailor: "I think that we can come to an arrangement."
From the article:
> Kaspersky Lab is preeminent among antivirus firms for investigating state-sponsored malware, particularly software nasties coming from the Five Eyes nations of the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
> Given their customer base, if this is true, Kaspersky is doomed.
I hope that Kaspersky has significant credit for investigating Stuxnet and the Equation Group (NSA?). For that reason it wouldn't surprise if many people recommend Kaspersky to friends simply to support the company.
I thought it was all pretty much PayWave or Chip & Pin now?
> I guess they don't own a Android device more than about a year old then. There's only a couple of makers out there that bother (Google and Sony spring to mind).
How hard would it be to write an app that checked the current firmware, compares it with the latest release from Andriod and lists unpatched critical security bugs?
Apple or Microsoft might even be interested in 'helping'. Alternatively Cyanogen might be interested with a link to installation.
There is a choice pay for speed, pay for data or a mix. I would argue that data based charging is the most efficient because:
- pay for what you use (like most other utilities)
- encourages ISPs to run congestion free networks so you can consume more
- encourages ISPs to upgrade speeds because you can consume more
After exceeding the quota, speeds should be capped and preferably extra quota available for purchase.
Speed based charging discourages investment because a relatively small number of users consume a disproportionate amount of the bandwidth making faster speeds prohibitively expensive and discouraging the average person from buying faster speeds.
As for a 5GB quota, for Great-Grandma to check her email and video conference with the great-grandkids a couple of times a month that is better than Great-Grandma being stuck on 512Kbps and video conferencing sucking.
The advantage of a luggable is that you can take it with you on family holidays to visit the in-laws and have an excuse to spend some 'alone time'. It also means you can extend family visits because if you spend a few hours each day keeping on top of work when the kids are watching a movie.
IDC Smartphone OS Market Share suggests iPhones have < 20% market share with a total of ~1.2 billion smartphones shipped each year that is 240 million iPhones. tablets show a similar picture with iPad market share of 25% with 200 million tablets shipped each year that is 40 million iPads. So yes I would guess your figure of greater than a billion is defensible depending on average lifespan of an iPhone.
For Android on the other hand you would need to multiply those numbers by approximately 4.
Lets just be happy that bugs are being fixed.
One advantage of Zuckberg's solution is that it flies at 60,000-90,000 feet well above most aircraft (especially passenger aircraft).
> The fee would probably include a processing charge of around $100 per package to cover administrative costs.
The threat of a $100 processing charge is exactly one of the reasons that large overseas retailers will be happy to comply.
Considering that GST (and other applicable charges) are levied on goods that travellers bring in from overseas I would doubt that the ATO woudl agree.
Now restating the value might, but without reasonable evidence the ATO might decide that you paid Australian RRP. Also don't forget the ATO can access your credit card and paypal transactions.
In the USA different states impose sales taxes and infact counties or cities can impose additional tax. Refer to Wikipedia for an overview.
GST is paid to the government at the end of the month for the previous month. I suggest that the 10% should be sufficient incentive for most retailers.
Express passage of goods through customs should be a second incentive.
The government has a very simple stick 'Verified Seller / Importer' program. If you agree to collect GST on products sent to Australia then GST your parcels will be fast tracked. If you opt not to join the program then packages will be delayed while GST is assessed. Pretty sure that will encourage major overseas retailers to join.
Most retailers are used to dealing with different rates of sales tax based on the destination so it should be a simple change and the retailer can earn interest on the 10% they hold for up to 2 months before paying the government.
The $14m attributed to windows phone is probably higher on a per device in the real world than iOS & Android devices.
> FTTN now consider that report are saying upto 70% of the copper is not up to scratch and our national average before the NBN was only 4Mbps
What is the basis for this figure? The only meaningful public figures I've seen on ADSL network speeds were published by Internode & iiNet in 2008 in response to Labor's FTTN plans to demonstrate that close to 50% already had 12Mbps on their ADSL2+ networks. 12Mbps was the promised minimum speed of Labor's FTTN plan.
As for Telstra comments on the state of the copper network you need to be aware that the cost of maintenance on the copper network is a big input into the ACCC determination on wholesale prices that Telstra can charge. Telstra's comments are slightly more trustworthy that Labor promising a budget surplus.
> As the current design only delivers a 5Mbps on a full node.
Is all your knowledge on the NBN as accurate as this statement? I suggest reading The Register article 'nbn™ plans for future backhaul upgrade to FTTN cabinets'. In particular I suggest paying attention to this quote from nbn™ chief architect Tony Cross:
“In areas where the nbn™ Transit Network is available we could provide all the way up to 20Gbps backhaul for an FTTN cabinet if we chose to do so – but it’s highly unlikely that we will need that amount of backhaul capacity for an FTTN cabinet for quite some time. The reality is that we can quite easily upgrade our FTTN cabinet backhaul capacity whenever we need to do so by simply installing a new optical interface – there is no need whatsoever to run any new fibre."
Sadly too many people who have the technical knowledge to know better have been distracted by the shiney fibre and failed to understand what Labor was actually implementing.
> consequences - only benefits the rich as poor cannot afford fast speeds
Firstly if you consider 100Mbps fast, then excellent as you will find HFC, FTTB and many FTTN connections to be acceptable. Secondly 76% of Australians have voted with their wallets that faster thatn 25Mbps is too expensive and faster than 100Mbps plans will be significantly more expensive again.
If you read Labor's first NBNCo Corporate Plan they explained that 100Mbps symmetric was the minimum recommended speed for most applications. Personally my opinion is that the minimum speed to be considered a global leader is 1Gbps.
> Yes but Mathew the NBN under FTTP only need 20% on high their consuming data.
As pointed out previously, NBNCo plans are currently discounted versus actual costs. Significant increases particularly in CVC are required to break even.
> Labor decision gives you a choice of upto 100Mbps whether you need it or not.
Labor's play favoured the rich by building out a 1Gbps capable network that only the rich could afford to use, making everyone pay for infrastructure that only a few would use.
> NBN could go the way of Google. $120 for 1Gbps + pay TV, $75 for 1Gbps only or $300 connection fee for a free 5Mbps for 7 years free (makes FOD a joke)
I agree that asking Google to build the NBN could have been a much wiser decision, especially when according to Quigley 1Gbps were only announced just prior to the 2010 election in response to Google Fibre. However the reality is that 1Gbps plans will be higher than $1000/month which is the reason that zero ISPs are offering the plans, which have been available wholesale since December 2014.
To have 1Gbps prices around $120/month would require completely redesigning the NBN wholesale pricing model (most likely removing speed tiers). The most likely alternative is that FTTB through TPG and other providers will deliver faster speeds more cheaply.
> The old labour government had its problems, sure. But the NBN was to be it's legacy to the people.
The NBN does sum up Labor's failures nicely:
- Good idea (sound bite)
- Poorly planned and implemented
- Unintended consequences - only benefits the rich as poor cannot afford fast speeds
- Over promised and under delivered (e.g. 1Gbps speeds, yet predicting <1% connecting at those speeds in 2028)
- Under costed and over budgeted
> You haven't quite picked up on the fact that you are still talking about right now, and he is talking about the future?
I specifically mentioned Labor's prediction that 50% would be connected at 12Mbps in 2028.
i offered options for those who want faster speeds - move or fibre on demand. People move for other reasons like public transport or school zones, so moving for broadband is acceptable.
> I'd also suggest you try asking those people on slower connections if they wouldn't like a faster connection if it didn't cost them any extra.
The point is that Labor chose a pricing model for NBNCo which included speed tiers, so faster speeds do cost extra and 76% have opted for speeds achievable on HFC, FTTN & 4G.
If you want to argue for an NBNCo without speed tiers then you have a defensible argument for FTTP.
> Second, there is a false assumption - bordering on a straw-man argument - that the idea of the FTTP NBN was to be an efficient network that fills the needs that exist today.
Labor came up with the NBN when Telstra refused to negotiate on building FTTN.
> It wasn't - it was designed to be a network to cope with future needs.
Each of Labor's NBNCo Corporate Plans had ~50% connected on fibre at 12Mbps out to end of the forecast period (2028).
> So the argument from people like Turnbull (and you) that people don't need more than is currently available is really an argument for not planning ahead when building essential infrastructure and only building what is necessary now.
The most recent connection figures are 38% on fibre opting for 12Mbps and further 38% opting for 25Mbps. People who require faster speeds have options: move to a FTTP area or FoD. The average house price in Australia is reported to be >$700,000. That means FoD install almost certainly less than 1% and if it is in demand add value like repainting the house or renovating the kitchen.
The NBNCo Corporate Plan is based on ARPU rising steeply in future years. If you usage doesn't change then overtime prices should fall, but if you want faster speeds or larger quotas then expect to pay more.
> Because, in many cases, the copper is already rotting away?
Is it really many cases or a few? The copper connecting my home was direct buried in the 50s and apart from a couple of contractors going through it with a backhoe it has performed as expected.
Because at this point in time we are still discussing Labor's incompetent NBN implementation.
Because without those customers on the NBN, the financial viability of the NBN is called further into question. One would think that the $800 per customer that Labor agreed to pay Telstra for each customer to be migrated would be ample incentive for Telstra.
Clearly those not migrating to the NBN don't understand the benefits. However if they don't use more than 10GB/month then they may find that 4G is a cheaper solution.
> NBN as much as legally possible to limit competition for News Corp
In what way? If you are talking about streaming then 12Mbps is more than sufficient.
> feed Telstra billions of tax payer dollars buying networks that were going to be scrapped
Labor was responsible for the over generous payments to Telstra for renting ducts and customer transfer payments.
> Yes they have tons of spare bandwidth but that's because they've priced it out of reach for the RSP and their customers.
Somebody has to pay for the infrastructure to be built. Labor policy was for the NBN to be revenue neutral so that means customers have to pay the full cost. Pricing can be based on two components: connection fees and usage fees. Labor chose to reintroduce speed tiers (AVC) and also have data charges (CVC).
- If AVC is priced too high, then less people connect. FoD demonstrates this as many complain $5000 is too much even when arguing that FTTP will improve property values and $5000 is less than 1% of average house prices and cheaper than painting or a kitchen renovation.
- If CVC is expensive, then people will still connect, but choose more wisely on what content they consume. Unlimited netflix is the counter example to this and a major cause of the current issues.
> The NBN was meant to be a catalyst for changing. For advancing Australia. Instead its expensive, of worse quality then say ADSL and it has major limitations and issues.
Speed tiers severely undermined the ability of NBNCo to act as a catalyst for change especially when Labor predicted that 50% would connect on fibre at 12Mbps. I would countenance a serious argument that internet access should be subsidised by the government for those receiving government benefits.
> Just because they can charge so much for it doesn't mean they should.
Current NBNCo wholesale plans are discounted. The NBNCo Corporate Plans document the steep rises in ARPU to north of $100. The NBNCo plan is for revenue growth to mainly come from growth in CVC. Those people who think that NBNCo should be providing 1Gbps plans with unlimited quota for $150 wholesale have no understanding of the flawed foundations that Labor set for NBNCo.
> I have already noticed now that Netflix is here in Australia my net slows to a crawl during those times and I have a decent 100mbit connection, I am now lucky to get 1/3 of what I am paying for.
Have you correctly identified that the issue is with the NBNCo portion of the network or is the issue with your RSP purchasing inadequate backhaul? Some RSPs have chosen to provide unlimited Netflix and their networks are suffering because of this. If the RSPs metered Netflix then they would have the cashflow to purchase additional backhaul.
> EVERY other country that implemented FTTN has already started replacing it because it can't handle the bandwidth everyone is using.
Labor predicted 50% on fibre would connect at 12Mbps. The most recently released figures are 38% on fibre connected at 12Mbps and a further 38% connected at 25Mbps. These speeds can be easily provided by FTTN, HFC and even 4G. More accurate would be to say that minority feel entitled to high speed connections but expect to be subsidised by others.
The reality is that with speed tiers in Australia
> The first is that a certain grinning war criminal decided that 50% of school leavers should go into further education.
This is the greater of the two reasons. A similar issue exists with the pension system whereas people live longer more people are entitled to a pension.
The other issue with 50% having a university degree is that way too many people are trained in fields (e.g. law) for jobs that simply don't exist.
There have been plenty of free / very cheap offers for Netflix, Stan, etc. in the past couple of months. It will be interesting to see how may people still have streaming services when they need to pay.
With storage devices, I'm typically more concerned about reliability and just possibly given the 3TB failure rate Seagate might want to consider employing some more people in their QA team.
> So based on 12mil premises which is about $24 a month.
Except that you didn't include operating costs (e.g. maintenance, NBNCo's bloated bureaucracy, interest payments, etc.).
> Let say makes a profit of $2 on the 12/1 $24 price to help pay back the loan.
NBNCo ARPU needs to approach $100 for the 7% ROI to be reached, there isn't any profit to be made on AVC at 100Mbps or less. CVC is where the profit is to be made. I consider this fair and reasonable as it allocates costs based on who is using the system and lower AVC encourages higher take-up. Whereas if the AVC is too high then people will simply opt for 4G.
> Iinet have only themselves to blame. Their idiotic decision to offer Netfix downloads quote-free to all their customers is the problem here.
Agreed. I wonder if it was part of the agreement for Netflix installing connections direct to their network.
> You pay for (say) 60GB a month and you expect that 60GB to be delivered reliably and at a decent speed.
Actually most people don't consume their entire quota and RSPs rely on this to make a profit.
> Most ADSL connections would be luck to get anywhere near the sustained network speeds of 12Mbps.
Actually the only known reliable data from iiNet / Internode published in 2008 showed that for Sydney almost 50% of connections achieved 12Mbps. At the time it was used as evidence to explain that Labor's FTTN plan would deliver little benefit to half of the country. Sadly, Labor's FTTP plan predicted that 50% on fibre would connect at 12Mbps.
> You also forgot the 19% on the 100/40 that pays more than those combined.
I'm curious as to how you arrive at this. Assuming 100 customers The AVC charges are as follows:
12Mbps = $24 * 38% = $912
25Mbps = $27 * 38% = $1026
100Mbps = $38 * 24% = $912 (best case as there will be some 50Mbps customers)
> Now Telstra wanted to charge $35 to keep the copper running.
Telstra's ambit claims for the costs of running the copper network are considered by most to be inflated and the ACCC regularly determines a lower cost.
The NBN pricing model is a compromise between charging based on speed and data. I would argue that it is speed that will deliver the benefits not higher quotas with slower speeds.
NBNCo require steep rises in ARPU to meet the desired ROI. If iiNet want to see cheaper CVC then AVC will need to rise, suppressing the take-up of higher speeds. Extrapolating from the NBNCo Corporate Plan, the price of CVC is forecast to fall by 2.5 times, while the average data usage grows by 18 times = growth in revenue from CVC of 720% when accounting for price falls.
As of February 26th, 38% on fibre have connected at 12Mbps while a further 38% have connected at 25Mbps. Hardly a justification for FTTP.
Unfortunately under N's previous stewardship, they kept changing direction and technologies every year or so.
- GTK to QT
- Debian (apt) to Fedora (rpm)
Back in 2005 Maemo was something promising, but constant changes ruined that.
I still remember my N810 and N900 fondly, so I'm hoping that just possibly a Jolla table will arrive next month.
Going back a few years, a co-worker purchased a house and was intrigued as to how the garage was connected to power. Turned out the previous owner had run an extension cord from the house through the gutter. Not particularly bright, but using two extension cords and joining them in the gutter is another level of stupidity again.
I feel very sorry for those in IT support who have been hassled by CEOs because webapps are down.
It would be interesting to know if the revenue includes deductions for penalties paid by Microsoft to clients for failing to meet the SLA.
Is anyone tracking the availability of the various cloud environments?
> Thanks to this article, I'll advice all my clients, family and friends -again- to steer well clear of Windows phones.
Steering clear of WIndows Phones is easy enough. Steering clear of windows laptops is more challenging.
It does raise the potential of legal defence that even a 'secured' access point may have a person you don't know connecting. It would be interesting to see that tested in a court of law.