2Gbit Fibre Rolling out in Selected US Cities

• 

  Baysew on 03/02/2016 - 15:30

  tl;dr Internet faster somewhere else.

• 

  Clear on 03/02/2016 - 15:53

  Don't worry. We'll have it by 2080 at least.

• 

  [Deactivated] on 03/02/2016 - 15:57

  -8

  So you want to compare the USA with Australia. How about wages? Ghettos? Gangs? Drugs? Gun violence? Between the two countries.

  If you want to blame anyone for bad Internet blame Telstra and Howard. The Howard government should have never should have sold off Telstra in the first place. The whole NBN is a joke. Once something is in public hands it is up to the shareholders/company to raise the funds for upgrades.

  Some people really live in a Labor cloud. Yes everyone would love to drive a Ferrari but why should tax payers be wearing the bill so nerds and gaming freaks can have super fast internet connections? Turnbull is doing the best in a bad situation. If you don't like the speed move to the USA or vote Labor at the next election so you can send this country into more debt for nonsense the majority of people don't use, want or need!

  • 

    Jamiea on 03/02/2016 - 16:02

    +1

    You're an idiot if you think only "nerds and gaming freaks" need fast and reliable internet.

  • 

    cDNA on 03/02/2016 - 16:31

    +1

    One of the reasons we don't have a good technology hub in Australia is because our internet connection sucks. Businesses need faster internet and bigger pipelines.
    I need faster net to upload big data files to my colleagues. It's really hard to work from home sometimes, because it's not possible to upload work that I do at home.
    My colleagues work with files/data above 500GB up to 10 terabytes. A lot of it is sequencing data from medical research. They can't share it with their overseas colleagues, because of internet limitations. We can't utilise Microsoft Azure properly, because of, you guessed it, SLOW INTERNET!
    Imagine if this incompetent government spent more on our digital economy instead of bombing poor people in the middle-east, taxed our wealthy more heavily and that trillion dollar superannuation account that we don't need or giving churches tax concessions.

    • 

      burningrage on 03/02/2016 - 16:47

      Disagree completely with the comment on "bombing poor people.. tax wealthy.. etc". A too simplistic comment.

      Are you suggesting we should tax the wealthy 100%? The so called "wealthy" is paying more than 50% of the total taxes. What more do you want? 100%? Then what's the point of working?

      http://propertyupdate.com.au/factcheck-50-income-tax-austral…

      And your suggestion on superannuation, are you wanting to tax that 100% too? and lastly church tax concessions, you may not know this but this group does lots of charitable works which you can easily find on line if you want to look for.

      I think there needs to be some sense before going rage and go into socialist crap.

      I do agree with the first paragraph though.

      • 

        cDNA on 04/02/2016 - 09:41

        Yes, I was absolutely suggesting we tax the wealthy so they end up with zero income (sarcasm). There's a good chance you're not a wealthy person, so why defend them at all? Stop arguing with yourself. No one mentioned your magic 100% figure.
        Typical right-wing radical who doesn't care about getting trampled on. I suppose you vote against your interests too. Churches are corrupt organisations that spew lies and molest little boys.

        I am anything but a socialist. One of the biggest problems in this world is wealth inequality and for you to call it socialist crap just shows me you're another pawn of the establishment.

        Apple paid $85 million in tax out of their $8 billion revenue in the last financial year. How can you say that's fair? Australians are just the worst kind of sheep. NO wonder more than $100 billion has been wiped away from our stock market. That's a massive hit to GDP.

      • 

        burningrage on 04/02/2016 - 13:31

        @cDNA:

        "I am anything but a socialist. One of the biggest problems in this world is wealth inequality and for you to call it socialist crap just shows me you're another pawn of the establishment."

        That's the definition of a socialist…

        If you feel wealth inequality is to be dealt by taxing the wealthy till they have nothing for themselves and their families (and you said no one said 100% but currently it is 50%, how many % are you proposing? 60%, 70%, give me a figure), why not run as a MP and see how you go?

        I am not trying to defend the wealthy. I am not wealthy but the word "wealthy" is very far too much used as a derogatory term. The "wealthy" is also human. They work to create that wealth for their families just like all of us.

        You may think people like Gina Reinhart who I am sure you call "wealthy" should be taxed hard and fast until she has little for themselves. But would you want to be like Gina? With all her family feuds she is having. Want to swap places? I wouldn't.

        People whom you call "wealthy" often don't have certain things other people may do. They say money don't buy happiness.

        So being "wealthy" isn't as nice as you think it is, that they deserved to be taxed hard and fast.

        And lastly, you don't know anything about Apple situation at all. There are Australian companies who don't pay taxes too. Why aren't you attacking them as well?

        http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/a-third-of-top-a…

        All I want is people to take the rage out of the debate and put some sense back. There are two sides of story.

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 04/02/2016 - 16:41

        @burningrage:

        the problem is, while the tax rate is 50%, they never pay that much. a lot of rich people pay less tax than normal people do

  • 

    Vita85 on 03/02/2016 - 16:32

    Yes, we don't have any of those things in the US. So why do we have third world internet?

  • 

    burningrage on 03/02/2016 - 16:36

    I actually didn't disagree with your argument that the NBN is too expensive and ended costing so much and that Labor was to blame in the mismanagement of the NBN.

    But I didn't agree you then blamed Howard about he should not have sold Telstra. It would still be a monopoly had it not been sold and I am sure it wouldn't be the company it is if it wasn't privatized.

    I particularly didn't agree when you imply only "nerds and gaming freaks" use super fast internet. In my place of work, Nurses rely on Tele Health rely on NBN connection to do a face-to-face consultation for remote or too-far-from-base clients. I can imagine NBN can help provide hi-res medical diagnostic made by doctors using skype or some other video conference apps or polycom. So it's not just "nerds and gaming freaks", which is by the way, offensive for gamers like myself because I am neither "nerds" nor "freaks".

• 

  ilikeradiohead on 03/02/2016 - 19:01

  +2

  Wow, another post complaining about the internet speeds here, wanting taxpayer dollars spent on faster internet. I haven't seen one of these posts before.

  Google Fiber has 1GB speeds and is privately run. This article is about Comcast and that is also privately run. If you want fast internet for farmers in the boonies then getting the government to pay for it is a great idea. If you are a city dweller the private sector could provide the service for you without cross subsidising rural folk, saving you money.

  Now US internet users have problems, esp. with local monopolies in most cities, but you can't deny that there are people there with much faster internet than here.

  [PS. I have NBN 100/40. It's OK although it didn't change my life like the upgrade from dial-up to adsl did].

• 

  zombie hunter on 03/02/2016 - 20:20

  Dont forget they still installing old school copper to new estates
  https://delimiter.com.au/2016/01/21/telstra-says-govt-policy…

• 

  sir_bazz on 03/02/2016 - 20:58

  Actually Telstra gave it's "crappy old infrastructure" to NBN for free.

  And just for context, the country with the fastest average internet speed in the most recent Akamai State of the Internet Report, is South Korea with an average speed of 20.5Mbps.

  • 

    RockyRaccoon on 03/02/2016 - 22:51

    And just for context

    South Korea 100,210 km² Population: 50.22 million
    Australia 7,682,300 km² Population: 23.13 million

    Higher density means less cost for installing the fibre.

    eg My house gets NBN. It took 5 people to install the Fibre from the street 5 days. Thats just one connection. Estimated cost $10K (not to mention another team had to come back 6 months later to re-install the botched job and that took 3 days to fix.

    • 

      cackmobile on 04/02/2016 - 09:34

      Thats completely disingenuous. While we are a big country most of us are clustered in the big cities. Almost half our population lives in Sydney & Melbourne. We are actually one of the most urbanised countries in the world

      • 

        RockyRaccoon on 04/02/2016 - 11:03

        I wasnt meaning to be completely disingenuous.

        Like the post I was commenting on. Using just one figure to quote doesnt qualify to make a true comparison. (context)

        Sure we can have faster internet if we invest in it. And yes the investment maybe worthwhile. But also there are other demands on the public purse that is also urgent, Hospitals, education, disability, social welfare, public transport. And we elect politicians for many different reasons, so getting all those to line up with what we want doesnt always match.

        While you are correct, about the totality of the size of the nation, we still have vast differences in distance. The McMansions add far greater distances to cover than the Oft quoted South Korea and Singapore, where high density living is far more common.

        Likewise the High speed broadband the Op mentioned in the US is only in larger cities. Parts of the US country like here doesnt have mobile coverage or even reasonable internet access. In 2015 over half the country had "inadequate" internet access

        Rural America continues to be underserved at all speeds: 20 percent lack access even to service at 4 Mbps/1 Mbps, down only 1 percent from 2011, and 31 percent lack access to 10 Mbps/1 Mbps, down only 4 percent from 2011.

        https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/broadband-progr…

      • 

        cackmobile on 04/02/2016 - 14:17

        +1

        @RockyRaccoon: and here. I live in the blue mountains and struggle to get 3mbps. 0mbps when it rains. Id love 12mbps

      • 

        sir_bazz on 04/02/2016 - 19:46

        +1

        This isn't about cost though. South Korea with it's relatively small land size advantage and high population density is perfect for FTTH and hence why they have the fastest internet on the planet.

        For all it's worth though, it gives them a whopping average internet speed of a bees dick over 20Mbps. Anyone here who is expecting symmetrical 2Gbps internet access, (as per the OP's reference), to be anything more than a marketing gimmick is in for a rude awakening.

        And for just a bit more context….our average internet speed, (also measured by Akamai), is just 12Mbps behind South Korea. And the U.S with their recently updated definition of broadband, (it was only 4Mbps a year ago), has an average speed of just 12.6Mbps

        https://www.stateoftheinternet.com/resources-connectivity-20…

        And while we're correcting the OP:
        - the current definition of broadband in the US as set but the fcc is 25Mbps not 12Mbps.
        http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/29/7932653/fcc-changed-defini…
        - Our 12Mbps bottom speed tier was set by the ALP during the original framing of NBN policy. Had naught to do with Turnbull.
        - Most of Australia will have access to gigabit speeds via either HFC or FTTH. (Only added that one as the OP appears to imply everyone will have no option but DSL like speeds).

• 

  Baysew on 04/02/2016 - 10:37

  From the article OP linked.

  the 2Gbps fiber service's standard price is $300 a month with $1,000 in startup fees.

  Would you pay that ?

• 

  [Deactivated] on 04/02/2016 - 12:56

  Just returned from Seoul. The speed of the internet and the integration with different services is outstanding.
  Returning to Oz is like stepping back in time.

  • 

    cDNA on 04/02/2016 - 13:36

    That's a good enough reason for me to live there, but if I do think about it, I don't want to live in a country with so much suicide, inequality and the most dangerous nuclear armed teletubby living so close by.

    • 

      [Deactivated] on 05/02/2016 - 09:36

      I guess that if your are suicidal that's a serious consideration.