NBN3 Wireless plan needs 4G spectrum fast-track

Rod Speed wrote
son of a bitch wrote
Mr.T wrote
Rob<mesamine_at_gmail.com> wrote
son of a bitch wrote

I thought we all agreed that wireless was fucked as a Mainstream
Broadband system regardless of how many G's you put out there,
3G, 4G, 5G or 69G's.

Big cities have fibre - its the country areas (that last 10% of the population) that need a sensible priced
access to a faster broadband.

Actually, the biggest use of mobile broadband is in the cities, and
probably always will be. Firstly because people don't want to be
tied to a fibre all the time. Secondly because many country areas
have no mobile broadband access anyway.

The HUGE use of mobile phones compared to fixed land-line phones
these days should be enough of an indication as to what most people
really want. Too bad stupid politicians have NO idea.

That is what wireless is good for, for people are Mobile but still
need intermittent access. Using it in Fixed Location as your only
access, you'd need to get your head red.

That is just plain wrong, particularly if you dont need much volume.

Wireless is just as good as fixed broadband for everything except
large downloads and is a lot easier if you move around much from one place you are living to another or want to do
the browsing at more than one place most days like home and work etc.

Having it in House as a Fixed Service, shared by several PC's, it's going to really suck.

If you're in a House where the Fridge is Connected to Internet, using
.. TIVO, X-Box / PayStation, 2 Laptops for the Kids and a Desktop, you
might find it a Tad Slow and then there's the Microshit Updates and Virus Scanner Updates and the Kids downloading
Pirate Music from Limewire.

Rob wrote
son of a bitch wrote

I thought we all agreed that wireless was fucked as a Mainstream
Broadband system regardless of how many G's you put out there, 3G, 4G,
5G or 69G's.

Big cities have fibre - its the country areas (that last 10% of the
population) that need a sensible priced access to a faster broadband.

Wrong, the bulk of that 10% have access to very decent broadband right
now if they want it.

Rod Speed wrote
Rob wrote
son of a bitch wrote

I thought we all agreed that wireless was fucked as a Mainstream
Broadband system regardless of how many G's you put out there, 3G,
4G, 5G or 69G's.

Big cities have fibre - its the country areas (that last 10% of the
population) that need a sensible priced access to a faster broadband.

Wrong, the bulk of that 10% have access to very decent broadband right now if they want it.

Yep, let's just not look at the cost

or lag.

Big cities have fibre - its the country areas (that last 10% of the
population) that need a sensible priced access to a faster broadband.

Actually, the biggest use of mobile broadband is in the cities, and
probably always will be. Firstly because people don't want to be
tied to a fibre all the time. Secondly because many country areas
have no mobile broadband access anyway.

The HUGE use of mobile phones compared to fixed land-line phones
these days should be enough of an indication as to what most people
really want. Too bad stupid politicians have NO idea.

That is what wireless is good for, for people are Mobile but still
need intermittent access. Using it in Fixed Location as your only
access, you'd need to get your head red.

That is just plain wrong, particularly if you dont need much volume.

Wireless is just as good as fixed broadband for everything except large
downloads
and is a lot easier if you move around much from one place you are
living to another
or want to do the browsing at more than one place most days like home
and work etc.



Having it in House as a Fixed Service, shared by several PC's, it's
going to really suck.

If you're in a House where the Fridge is Connected to Internet, using
TIVO, X-Box / PayStation, 2 Laptops for the Kids and a Desktop, you
might find it a Tad Slow and then there's the Microshit Updates and
Virus Scanner Updates and the Kids downloading Pirate Music from
Limewire.

Big cities have fibre - its the country areas (that last 10% of the
population) that need a sensible priced access to a faster broadband.

Wrong, the bulk of that 10% have access to very decent broadband right
now if they want it.

Yep, let's just not look at the cost or lag.

"son of a bitch"<bitchin_2008_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4c7f4bb8$1_at_dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Big cities have fibre - its the country areas (that last 10% of the
population) that need a sensible priced access to a faster broadband.

Actually, the biggest use of mobile broadband is in the cities, and
probably always will be. Firstly because people don't want to be
tied to a fibre all the time. Secondly because many country areas
have no mobile broadband access anyway.

The HUGE use of mobile phones compared to fixed land-line phones
these days should be enough of an indication as to what most people
really want. Too bad stupid politicians have NO idea.

That is what wireless is good for, for people are Mobile but still
need intermittent access. Using it in Fixed Location as your only
access, you'd need to get your head red.

That is just plain wrong, particularly if you dont need much volume.


Exactly, why should taxpayers subsidise movie downloads?


Wireless is just as good as fixed broadband for everything except large
downloads
and is a lot easier if you move around much from one place you are
living to another
or want to do the browsing at more than one place most days like home
and work etc.



Having it in House as a Fixed Service, shared by several PC's, it's
going to really suck.


So don't share it, dongles are cheap now, and most mobile phones are 3G
capable these days.


If you're in a House where the Fridge is Connected to Internet, using
TIVO, X-Box / PayStation, 2 Laptops for the Kids and a Desktop, you
might find it a Tad Slow and then there's the Microshit Updates and
Virus Scanner Updates and the Kids downloading Pirate Music from
Limewire.


And the taxpayers should subsidise all that, WHY exactly?

"son of a bitch"<bitchin_2008_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4c7f4bb8$1_at_dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Big cities have fibre - its the country areas (that last 10% of the
population) that need a sensible priced access to a faster broadband.

Actually, the biggest use of mobile broadband is in the cities, and
probably always will be. Firstly because people don't want to be
tied to a fibre all the time. Secondly because many country areas
have no mobile broadband access anyway.

The HUGE use of mobile phones compared to fixed land-line phones
these days should be enough of an indication as to what most people
really want. Too bad stupid politicians have NO idea.

That is what wireless is good for, for people are Mobile but still
need intermittent access. Using it in Fixed Location as your only
access, you'd need to get your head red.

That is just plain wrong, particularly if you dont need much volume.


Exactly, why should taxpayers subsidise movie downloads?


Wireless is just as good as fixed broadband for everything except large
downloads
and is a lot easier if you move around much from one place you are
living to another
or want to do the browsing at more than one place most days like home
and work etc.



Having it in House as a Fixed Service, shared by several PC's, it's
going to really suck.


So don't share it, dongles are cheap now, and most mobile phones are 3G
capable these days.


If you're in a House where the Fridge is Connected to Internet, using
TIVO, X-Box / PayStation, 2 Laptops for the Kids and a Desktop, you
might find it a Tad Slow and then there's the Microshit Updates and
Virus Scanner Updates and the Kids downloading Pirate Music from
Limewire.


And the taxpayers should subsidise all that, WHY exactly?

MrT.

On 2010/09/03 08:08, Mr.T wrote:
"son of a bitch"<bitchin_2008_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4c7f4bb8$1_at_dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Big cities have fibre - its the country areas (that last 10% of the
population) that need a sensible priced access to a faster
broadband.

Actually, the biggest use of mobile broadband is in the cities, and
probably always will be. Firstly because people don't want to be
tied to a fibre all the time. Secondly because many country areas
have no mobile broadband access anyway.

The HUGE use of mobile phones compared to fixed land-line phones
these days should be enough of an indication as to what most people
really want. Too bad stupid politicians have NO idea.

That is what wireless is good for, for people are Mobile but still
need intermittent access. Using it in Fixed Location as your only
access, you'd need to get your head red.

That is just plain wrong, particularly if you dont need much volume.


Exactly, why should taxpayers subsidise movie downloads?


Wireless is just as good as fixed broadband for everything except large
downloads
and is a lot easier if you move around much from one place you are
living to another
or want to do the browsing at more than one place most days like home
and work etc.



Having it in House as a Fixed Service, shared by several PC's, it's
going to really suck.


So don't share it, dongles are cheap now, and most mobile phones are 3G
capable these days.


If you're in a House where the Fridge is Connected to Internet, using
TIVO, X-Box / PayStation, 2 Laptops for the Kids and a Desktop, you
might find it a Tad Slow and then there's the Microshit Updates and
Virus Scanner Updates and the Kids downloading Pirate Music from
Limewire.


And the taxpayers should subsidise all that, WHY exactly?

MrT.



If you use Wireless in rural areas as suggested....

They you are going to have a school either having one wireless
connection shared across all PC's or all PC's with their own
wireless.
strawman

than a Fibre link or the speed of each PC will be that of a Dial-up
Modem. Both of these is Looney tunes. Unless each of these
schools only have ONE PC, and that is also Nuts.
it;s your suggestion thats nuts

"terryc" <newsninespam-spam_at_woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:i5o042$e1g$1_at_speranza.aioe.org...
Big cities have fibre - its the country areas (that last 10% of the
population) that need a sensible priced access to a faster
broadband.

Wrong, the bulk of that 10% have access to very decent broadband
right now if they want it.

Yep, let's just not look at the cost or lag.

And spending another $43Billion will reduce the cost, HOW exactly?

MrT.

terryc wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Rob wrote
son of a bitch wrote

I thought we all agreed that wireless was fucked as a Mainstream
Broadband system regardless of how many G's you put out there, 3G,
4G, 5G or 69G's.

Big cities have fibre - its the country areas (that last 10% of the
population) that need a sensible priced access to a faster broadband.

Wrong, the bulk of that 10% have access to very decent broadband right
now if they want it.

Yep, let's just not look at the cost

That is not very different to what those in the citys pay.

or lag.

There is no lag with other than satellite and most of that 10% dont use
satellite.

That is just plain wrong, particularly if you dont need much volume.


Exactly, why should taxpayers subsidise movie downloads?
suck.

Mr.T wrote
son of a bitch<bitchin_2008_at_yahoo.com> wrote

Big cities have fibre - its the country areas (that last 10%
of the population) that need a sensible priced access to a
faster broadband.

Actually, the biggest use of mobile broadband is in the cities,
and probably always will be. Firstly because people don't want
to be tied to a fibre all the time. Secondly because many
country areas have no mobile broadband access anyway.

The HUGE use of mobile phones compared to fixed land-line phones
these days should be enough of an indication as to what most
people really want. Too bad stupid politicians have NO idea.

That is what wireless is good for, for people are Mobile but still
need intermittent access. Using it in Fixed Location as your only
access, you'd need to get your head red.

That is just plain wrong, particularly if you dont need much volume.

Exactly, why should taxpayers subsidise movie downloads?

Wireless is just as good as fixed broadband for everything except
large downloads and is a lot easier if you move around much from
one place you are living to another or want to do the browsing at
more than one place most days like home and work etc.

Having it in House as a Fixed Service, shared by several PC's, it's going to really suck.

So don't share it, dongles are cheap now, and most mobile phones are 3G capable these days.

If you're in a House where the Fridge is Connected to Internet,
using TIVO, X-Box / PayStation, 2 Laptops for the Kids and a
Desktop, you might find it a Tad Slow and then there's the
Microshit Updates and Virus Scanner Updates and the Kids
downloading Pirate Music from Limewire.

And the taxpayers should subsidise all that, WHY exactly?

Work out who it is that will be using these services. And the answer is - (Tada) Taxpayers!

On 2010/09/03 08:08, Mr.T wrote:
"son of a bitch"<bitchin_2008_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4c7f4bb8$1_at_dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Big cities have fibre - its the country areas (that last 10%
of the population) that need a sensible priced access to a
faster broadband.

Actually, the biggest use of mobile broadband is in the cities,
and probably always will be. Firstly because people don't want
to be tied to a fibre all the time. Secondly because many
country areas have no mobile broadband access anyway.

The HUGE use of mobile phones compared to fixed land-line phones
these days should be enough of an indication as to what most
people really want. Too bad stupid politicians have NO idea.

That is what wireless is good for, for people are Mobile but still
need intermittent access. Using it in Fixed Location as your only
access, you'd need to get your head red.

That is just plain wrong, particularly if you dont need much
volume.


Exactly, why should taxpayers subsidise movie downloads?


Wireless is just as good as fixed broadband for everything except
large downloads and is a lot easier if you move around much from
one place you are living to another or want to do the browsing at
more than one place most days like home and work etc.

Having it in House as a Fixed Service, shared by several PC's, it's
going to really suck.


So don't share it, dongles are cheap now, and most mobile phones are
3G capable these days.


If you're in a House where the Fridge is Connected to Internet,
using TIVO, X-Box / PayStation, 2 Laptops for the Kids and a
Desktop, you might find it a Tad Slow and then there's the
Microshit Updates and Virus Scanner Updates and the Kids
downloading Pirate Music from Limewire.


And the taxpayers should subsidise all that, WHY exactly?

MrT.



If you use Wireless in rural areas as suggested....

They you are going to have a school either having one wireless
connection shared across all PC's or all PC's with their own
wireless. The cost of all the Wireless stations would be more than a Fibre link or the speed of each PC will be that
of a Dial-up Modem.

Both of these is Looney tunes.

Unless each of these schools only have ONE PC, and that is also Nuts.

On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 08:09:40 +1000, Mr.T wrote:

"terryc" <newsninespam-spam_at_woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:i5o042$e1g$1_at_speranza.aioe.org...
Big cities have fibre - its the country areas (that last 10% of
the population) that need a sensible priced access to a faster
broadband.

Wrong, the bulk of that 10% have access to very decent broadband
right now if they want it.

Yep, let's just not look at the cost or lag.

And spending another $43Billion will reduce the cost, HOW exactly?

Well, it would certainly be cheaper than they are forced to pay now
for decent broadband, however, I am assured that there are cheaper
ways than that. Bottom line is that the backhaul should be in public
ownership as an equity service and to provide a "level playing field"
for competitive delivery of services.

Rod Speed wrote
terryc wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Rob wrote
son of a bitch wrote

I thought we all agreed that wireless was fucked as a Mainstream
Broadband system regardless of how many G's you put out there,
3G, 4G, 5G or 69G's.

Big cities have fibre - its the country areas (that last 10% of the
population) that need a sensible priced access to a faster broadband.

Wrong, the bulk of that 10% have access to very decent broadband right now if they want it.

Yep, let's just not look at the cost

That is not very different to what those in the citys pay.

That is a meaningless statement.

or lag.

There is no lag with other than satellite and most of that 10% dont use satellite.

Another meaningless statment to hide a goal post shift.