Why doesn't the NBN consider Wireless?

I have no problem with the whole thing bar this.

b) The NBN will probably cost more than expected and likely take years longer to complete than the Government has stated.


There is absolutely no need to include probably in that sentence.

700mb in 15-30 minutes is ****house . just another example of why telstra are ****ing ****s when it comes to internet . I get better download speeds on my iinet naked adsl2 connection .

yes but remember that most of the time I have 5 to 6 download at the same time and I am as fast as the other end is slow! If I download from the Telstra server it is at light speed!

OK I am a computer retard, but if you can keep getting faster and faster with fibre, or copper, just due to better data encoding can't also do that with better data encoding on wireless?

Also, when some peanut cuts the cable it is a very lengthly process to fix it (took a week where I am, and that was just the poxy one we have now, not the NBN standard cable)

I do believe that wireless signals also travel at the speed of light, Panda

Well, faster than a heavy Panda?

Yeah, you got me, comma now inserted.

I think you might have your numbers wrong there. I think 1000Kbits a sec will give you a lot longer than 3 minutes. For 3 minutes, a 350Mbyte file, probably means you are getting close to 16Mbps, which is pretty good! You must have a reasonable line or be reasonably close to the exchange.

Usually if its something the ISP caches, then you will get a much faster download, so it helps if it is a common file that other people have already downloaded through your ISP. I expect that the NBN is going to see a lot more deployment of these caches to really provide high speed downloads.

Fiber rocks, the wranger sucks and Australia is loaded.

I'm on terrestrial wireless broadband, coz that, 3g and satellite are my only options. I'm on a 2mbit/sec connection - the fastest available. Compare that with the 20+mbit/sec which is standard ADSL2. It also costs me about double the price of a land line ADSL2 connection, for a very limited download allowance. $100/month for an unreliable 2mbit/sec with 20gbyte/month download allowance - and that's the top plan!

Wireless is slow and expensive! 3g is supposed to be a little faster than terrestrial wireless, whereas satellite is considerably slower and is "laggy", but both are even more expensive.

Btw, I suspect that there might be a little confusion between bits and bytes in his discussion. 8 bits = 1 byte. 1000Kbytes/sec (1Mbyte/sec) is entirely possible on a good ADSL connection. Even faster would be common for some. Theoretically, a 24Mbit/sec connection would proffer 3Mbytes/sec. You won't get that in practice, but a friend of mine with servers in Perth gets >2Mbytes/sec all the time.

The real problems with the NBN as it's happening now are:
1. It's already old technology - see Sth Korea.
2. It's going to cost >$5,000 per household
3. It puts the gummint in control of ALL of your internet enjoyment - "Hello, I'm from the gummint and I'm here to help you". There is only 1 avenue of truly free press left and your friendly gummint wants to control it. The Obamanation is moving to do similar in the US.

Oh no not a conspiracy theory?

I'm for one hope I am not confused about bits and bytes. Usually the convention is that b is for bits and B is for bytes, but usually link speeds are expressed in bits per second, and file sizes are usually expressed in bytes.

What's South Korea got? One thing that is always important to remember is a lot of these countries have a much higher population density than us, so it is always going to be hard to provide the same service.

'Old' Technology or not, 1Gbps is huge, when 10Mbps for most people is more than enough. 100Mbps is just a bonus.

24Mbps is the theoretical maximum for ADSL 2, and I think you would have to be living very close to the exchange to get that. I am about 3kms away and I get 14Mbps.

I don't know about the cost, but I haven't costed electricity delivery, water delivery, or the cost of roads either.

Please separate any idea of the government net filters from the NBN. My understanding is that NBN are providing the services as a wholesale service to ISPs. This is to avoid putting the ISPs out of business and to allow some sort of competition. You will still be using the same ISPs, but with the link to your home being part of the NBN, which the ISP effectively rents from NBN. The ISP also provides something similar to an ADSL router to terminate the service, which 'probably' is going to be used to limit link speeds so they can charge you different rates.

I saw something on the TV the other day that reminded me that even though we think of the Internet as 'free', it is not a public service, and in reality the ISPs can probably manipulate it as much as they want to. They can delay VoIP traffic to make it useless, and they can keep trying to stop file sharing sites for all they want. The only thing that makes the Internet 'free' is market competition.

Its funny how most people take broadband for granted, including wireless. I worked on some 1-way and 2-way satellite internet services a few years ago and at the time they were fast and way better than you could get from a modem. Now, you expect that service or better everywhere...