Turnbull's NBN Chief: Buying Telstra's Copper Network Slowed the NBN

Diji1 on 30/04/2018 - 10:27
Last edited 30/04/2018 - 10:35 by 1 other user

At this point this NBN is a disaster. The government has spent 90 billion dollars on providing a slow network that doesn't work properly. This is over TWO TIMES the estimated cost of providing fibre to every premises.

Part of this disaster was caused by Malcom Turnbull insisting that the Australian taxpayer should pay Telstra 9 billion dollars for their unwanted copper network because he is a Telstra employee.

Now the outgoing NBN chief is claiming that this copper wire is responsible for low levels of service which is something that a 12 year old could have explained to him before he paid Telstra 9 billion dollars. At the time the NBN made a press release claiming they had no idea what they were doing when it came to copper which was reassuring.

So just vote for Turnbull next time if you want hopeless internet service because Malcom paid 9 billion dollars to Telstra, the countries largest and most expensive ISP, in exchange for junk.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/04/29/nbn_ceo_blames_copp…

After watching the Australian voter elect the Liberal Party one year after invading Iraq I have zero confidence that voters will punish the Liberal Party as they seem to love eating (profanity) and then voting for more.

Internet

Comments

  • cloudy on 30/04/2018 - 10:34
    +3

    I think the other word worth bolding is estimated.

    Any party can estimate the cost of anything.

    • dcep on 30/04/2018 - 11:22

      i think in the very beginning, Telstra offered to take on NBN project for $5b with FTTN rollout nationwide.

      • mskeggs on 30/04/2018 - 11:40
        +11

        The thinking was that paying Telstra to deliver the network would lock in their monopoly.
        Telstra have been very good at gouging customers for generations. The strategy to build a fibre based network once, that would last a very long time, and run it as a utility with regulated pricing, and then giving the telco companies the ability to compete on top was likely a sound one.

      • doc dogg on 01/05/2018 - 09:11

        Telstra's offer wasn't for nationwide FTTN, it was only for about 1/2 the population and they wanted to exclude any third party ISPs from accessing it.

  • try2bhelpful on 30/04/2018 - 11:18

    I think the biggest mistake was not dumping the NBN on Telstra in the first place. It was always going to be a political football and Telstra had the best infrastructure and manpower to make it work or, at least, they had less room for excuses for not delivering. Telstra is busily offloading its obsolete technology onto NBN and, if it had any sense, it should be ramping up alternate technology, like the mobile phone network, to take as much data as it can. In the long term I think these alternate technologies are where people will go as the start up is relatively easy and the access goes with you. It will all depend on bandwidth and price.

    • dcep on 30/04/2018 - 11:22

      i think in the very beginning, Telstra offered to take on NBN project for $5b with FTTN rollout nationwide.

      • try2bhelpful on 30/04/2018 - 11:24
        +2

        This is what happens when politics gets in the way of the best choice. They should take out the relevant minister of the time and tar and feather him. I'm pretty sure Telstra would've upped the price, as well, but I still think they would be well under the current price.

        • dcep on 30/04/2018 - 11:43
          +3

          If that went ahead, Telstra gonna cope the cost no matter what and recoup from wholesale prices in long run, as that's essentially privatized contract, not backed by Gov & entire infra owned/maintained by Telstra themselves.

          Sole purpose of NBNco is for Gov to take back the control of the nation infra network for future "national security" project.

        • try2bhelpful on 30/04/2018 - 12:04
          +1

          @phunkydude:
          I don't think the Government has "taken back control" of the national network infrastructure, in this case. If it has then it has been at the expense of a well working system at a reasonable price and a lot of stuff is being outsourced to Telstra anyway.

          There are ways of ensuring separation of Telstra wholesale and Telstra retail; which is also something that currently occurs and could've been expanded. This goes back to the debacle of privitising Telstra in the first place - they should've separated out wholesale and retail and kept the wholesale in Government hands; but that wouldn't keep with the ideology that Government tries to oursource, as much as possible, so they can try to say they aren't responsible for anything if there are any issues whilst simultanously pouring tax payer dollars into private companies.

          People may not like the "ideology" but I still think that a properly regulated system run by Telstra Wholesale would've been superior to what we have now and the Government could've put in a lot of safeguards to ensure that the network was, effectively, an open market.

        • AddNinja on 02/05/2018 - 08:20

          @try2bhelpful: I agree that just about anything would be better than what we have now, but I think the original vision would have been best (and costly too). Fibre to the home, government owned, high initial price but massive value in the longer term. If Telstra did it, it would be cheaper, but you know what they are like - we’d be screwed every which way by them.

      • Thrawn on 30/04/2018 - 11:46
        +2

        Telstra pretty much didn’t put a bid on the first NBN mark-1 FTTN $4.7b tender (Rudd)

        Nobody else could do it because of copper access issues.

        As a result of that Rudd switched it to FTTH and still in the end purchased (leased more accurately) Telstra copper network ($11b deal) to access the copper ducting network

        • dcep on 30/04/2018 - 11:50

          So, Turnbull scored a bargain for us at $9b + maintenance contract, instead of $11b from Rudd original deal?

        • Thrawn on 30/04/2018 - 11:55
          +2

          @phunkydude:

          In essence the $11b Telstra contract remained pretty much the same. Nearly all of it is payments for forced migration of Telstra customers and lease payments for the duct network.

          The only difference is Turnbull ended up taking control and re-using the copper itself. And it’s likely as part of that Telstra extracted more money from NBN in “services”

        • Thrawn on 30/04/2018 - 12:01
          +1

          The key stumbling block over the 1st FTTN proposal (which was based on Telstras own FTTN proposal in 2005) is that Telstra didn’t accept what ACCC wanted in terms of wholesale acces and pricing. That killed the 2005 proposal and also the 2007 NBN tender.

          In the end.. what we have now is taxpayers paid ten times as much and we got wholesale prices that is likely worse under NBN than what Telstra wanted back then.

        • trongy on 30/04/2018 - 13:51

          @Thrawn:
          EDIT: was replying to wrong comment

        • trongy on 30/04/2018 - 13:52
          +1

          @Thrawn:
          From memory, when Turnbull's new contract was announced in December 2014, Telstra's share price went up slightly, so the analysts must have thought that it was a better deal for Telstra.

    • mskeggs on 30/04/2018 - 11:44
      +5

      There are technical reasons why it isn't possible to keep upping wireless bandwidth.
      Spectrum congestion becomes so high that it requires antennas spaced very close together, like every block or closer in areas with higher density housing. Since you need to feed bandwidth to those anyway, it doesn't offer a great advantage over delivering the bandwidth direct to premises via fibre.

      Unfortunately, we have the worst of all worlds in this current outcome. A costly, unreliable and poorly performing terrestrial network, with the prospect of cellular providers cutting into the low end margins so pushing the fixed costs up.

      • try2bhelpful on 30/04/2018 - 12:18

        Yes, there are technical reasons based on current technology. It was original thought that you couldn't get past 9600 bps for data access but the technology changed so the speeds increased. If they find a more efficient way to use the bandwidth, e.g a new compression techology, then this may well change again.

        This is why, I think, investing in research on non tethered technologies is a better place to find a winner.

        • trongy on 30/04/2018 - 13:34
          +2

          Technical improvements in compression or signalling are usually applied to both wireless and wired connections. This means that, at an equivalent technological level, wired connections maintain their relative advantage because it's simple to parallelize the connections to increase bandwidth.

          Historically, as the supply of affordable bandwidth increases, the demand also increases. Perhaps one day that will change, but I think it's a pretty safe bet that it won't happen in the next few decades so a wired NBN build is going to be worthwhile

        • try2bhelpful on 30/04/2018 - 15:51
          +1

          @trongy: It depends on the needs of the person and the trade offs they are likely to accept. There are already people who are happy to go with their wireless services rather than have wired services to the premises. I don't need the same bandwidth as a commerical business, so I don't need their kit - we may well get to the point where wireless is all that is needed for the average consumer.

          I think it is difficult to think of this in terms of "the next few decades" when you consider that during the 80s we were working with dial up modems that were 2400 bps and now we are looking at the sort of speeds shown in the guide (the reality is less than this but still significant improvements over a "few decades".)
          http://www.mobilenetworkguide.com.au/mobile_data_speeds.html

          Can you, honestly, tell me what technology will be like in a "few decades" time because if you had told me where the mobile network would be in the 1980s I would've thought you were nuts. Yes the data needs are increasing but if the average person is willing to have some buffering for films, based on whatever resolution this might go to, and don't play games online then this will, probably, be more than adequate. Let's face it most people use their current internet to look at films (if they are using streaming services) and surf the web and update their social media sites. It will be interesting to revisit this over the next few decades and see if Australia has got its bang for buck with the NBN network. My personal opinion is probably not for the average consumer - maybe for some businesses.

        • trongy on 30/04/2018 - 22:55
          +1

          @try2bhelpful:

          Can you, honestly, tell me what technology will be like in a "few decades" time

          No, of course not, but that's my point. Suppose that someone proposed the invention of a practical anti-graivty generator that could make our cars levitate and make roads as we know them obsolete. Should we stop wasting millions of dollars building the new freeways and tunnels that our community will probably need, on the off chance that they are correct?

          I'm not saying that wireless technology won't improve dramatically- I think it will. However, it's reasonable to believe that optical fibre technology will also improve at about the same rate and maintain the same competitive advanage - since they are both based on the same physical laws as understood for over a century.

          if you had told me where the mobile network would be in the 1980s I would've thought you were nuts

          Same here. However, if you'd told a physicist in the 1980's, they would have understood. The technology has improved, but the internet we have now was not impossible under the physics of the 1980's.

          If you had told me then that there would be a freely accessible online library containing 1.3 billion videos, I would also have been sceptical. For Youtube to exist, vastly better CPUs, storage technology, digital video cameras and compression algorithms needed to be invented as well as a sufficient network technology.

          Let's face it most people use their current internet to look at films …

          Can you, honestly, tell me what consumer demand will be like in a "few decades" time? The popular technology might not even exist yet. Or, it might exist in an inventors mind or lab, but be considered too impractical by any investor they share it with, just like Youtube or Netflix would have seemed in the 1980's. If it's just better quality videos, then we will all be disappointed.

          It will be interesting to revisit this over the next few decades and see if Australia has got its bang for buck with the NBN network.

          The political shenanigans do our country no credit. Other countries are doing it better.

          Food for thought: a few years ago I read an article where the journalist dug through parliamentary records of the early 20th century when the politicians were debating the construction on an electricity network. Opponents felt it was a waste of money - only good for business and wealthy homeowners - electricity to the home wasn't something that the average consumer needed or could afford. The thing is - they were right in the short term, but very wrong in the long term.

        • try2bhelpful on 01/05/2018 - 07:34

          @trongy: we will have to agree to disagree on this. However, I think you might actually be arguing my point with using the electricity example the contemporary technology would’ve been expanding the gas network, going down the electrical path was radical.

        • liquid metal on 01/05/2018 - 21:25
          +2

          No offense mate but you should inform yourself a little bit better. There are actual physical limitations with wireless transfers. 5G already needs a super dense network of antennas cause of the very high frequency it uses. The higher the frequencies, the less the range of the radio waves. Technology won't change that given physical limitation. It's like saying that technology will make it possible some day to travel faster than the speed of light.

          If we would use wireless networks as much as we use wired networks, we'd all have crawling speeds 24/7.

          Your comparison with 9600 Kbps is not really valid cause compared to wireless, cable connections are not 'shared'/limited by a spectrum of frequencies. E.g. you can have 10,000 cables between point A and point B but you only have a limited radio frequency spectrum. The only way to increase wireless bandwidth is to either compress the traffic better or to use higher frequencies. Compression has its limits, frequencies have as well.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 02/05/2018 - 08:42
          +1

          @try2bhelpful:

          Men use the internet for "films" and women use it to compare themselves to others.

          So what you're saying is, if the women of Australia logged off and put out, they could reduce bandwidth demand by orders of magnitude and save the nation!!

          Aussie women, Uncle Scrooge wants YOU for the free love army.

  • grog on 30/04/2018 - 12:23
    +12

    Dont blame me i voted labor

    • Scrooge McDuck on 02/05/2018 - 08:45
      +1

      It's still your fault!! That's what you get for voting for Liberal or Labor!

      • Kangal on 02/05/2018 - 19:09

        Don't be scrooged, simply don't vote!

  • KaTst3R on 30/04/2018 - 12:24
    +1

    NBN is a hole that you cannot stop digging.

  • [Deactivated] on 30/04/2018 - 12:37
    -5

    TLDR - Single issue voters and identity politics.

    • Iggemo on 01/05/2018 - 21:35
      +3

      How did you get identity politics out of the OP?

  • whooah1979 on 30/04/2018 - 12:50
    -4

    LNP is doing what the other parties can’t.

    • try2bhelpful on 01/05/2018 - 07:35
      +5

      Throwing away money hand over fist, I think they can all do that.

    • BigBirdy on 01/05/2018 - 10:02
      +6

      Pork barrelling margin seats? I think they can all do that.
      Lying without consequences? One Nation can do that.
      Winding back consumer protections re financial advice while claiming they’re protecting consumers? Got me there!

    • arcticmonkey on 02/05/2018 - 05:29
      +2

      Protecting the banks from a royal commission? The Liberals sure did that for a long time.

  • Wystri Warrick on 30/04/2018 - 13:39
    +2

    I currently live in an urban area, the max speeds I can obtain are 42Mbps down, 26Mbps up.
    Based on where I live I'm extremely disappointed.

    • BigBirdy on 01/05/2018 - 10:42
      +11

      You’re missing a load of complicated history.
      Remember the Telstra Three Amigos, playing hardball with govt, cutting maintenance and R&D on all fixed line comms, pumping huge cash into mobile (NEXTGEN) to try and kill off the only place other telcos had any hope of competing with them? Remember the lack of ADSL ports leaving customers stuck on dial-up? The only time Telstra installed more ports or upgraded ADSL gear, was when a competitor tried offering internet service to a particular suburb. Telstra refused exchange access in my then inner Melbourne suburb leaving residents stuck with a mix of ADSL1 (the ‘lucky’ ones) or dial-up, no chance for ADSL2 or any price competition. Basically all Telstra investment was driven by killing competition. Telstra showed no interest in a fibre network because of USO (Universal Service Obligation), they were regularly having issues with ACCC over wholesale pricing of the customer connection. At various times they were actually selling retail access cheaper than wholesale. The Howard govt got nowhere trying to negotiate a network upgrade with Telstra. Rudd had a shot at getting private enterprise to build a new network, but the player with existing infrastructure (yea, that’s Telstra) stonewalled him to. Finally, the only way to get a result that didn’t just pump money into the cause of the problem, the NBN was born. Yes, it’s way more complicated and my memory is not perfect. Of course Abbott and Turnbull politicised the whole things, stuffed up the technology, loaded it with partisan hacks, inflated the cost and did what they always do … blamed Labor.

      Edit: I’ve assumed you all understand Telstra was the monopoly owner of the fixed line network to all premises, courtesy of it originally being a govt enterprise that was privatised, and hence should be subject to regulation to either guarantee service level and pricing to consumers, or a guarantee to allow fair competition. It shouldn’t just be a ‘free for all’ private player.

    • [Deactivated] on 01/05/2018 - 21:13
      +2

      NBN was fine under Labor. Suburbs which had already started their rollout as of the change of government were left unchanged in design and there have been no problems for those Suburbs with FTTP (except for congestion which is easily fixed by changing to a better RSP).

      • BartholemewH on 02/05/2018 - 09:23
        +2

        Yep I've had FTTP for 7 years without changing a thing. I haven't talked to my RSP for 5 years.

    • dazweeja on 01/05/2018 - 22:04

      No, with advances like skinny fibre and micro-trenching we would have a full FTTH network for the money that we are spending now. Strangely, when Turnbull got in he asked NBN Co to model how much it would cost to scrap the Labor NBN and start again with a new FTTH network and then used that figure to bash Labor. I wonder why…

    • [Deactivated] on 01/05/2018 - 21:23
      +3

      I'll bet we'll see this magic bullet being pushed by LNP closer to election time and suckers like you will buy it up. 5G or any other Wireless technology is simply not capable of delivering our future bandwidth requirements at a price point which is less than running a Fibre optic in close proximity to the premises.

      Wireless is fighting Physics to cram enough bandwidth into a limited amount of space. Fibre-optic has more bandwidth than what our current generation of electronics can even keep up with. A single strand of Fibre has enough bandwidth that it could easily handle the traffic of the entire internet running through it at once (the only limitation is the speed of the electronic equipment on either end of the Fibre). The cost of Fibre is affordable to roll out to every urban area.

      I hate to be the "640K ought to be enough for anyone" guy, but Fibre will last us 100s of years into the future.

      • [Deactivated] on 02/05/2018 - 10:56

        Maybe you should look at the results of the 5G trial that is taking place right now on the Gold Coast? This is the first trial in the world, which is pretty impressive.

        • [Deactivated] on 02/05/2018 - 17:38

          You mean this? https://exchange.telstra.com.au/first-taste-of-5g-gold-coast…

          10 GB per day per device limit keeps usage low and aggregate bandwidth available for all users is only 3 Gbps.

          This is nowhere near a real world test of it's viability to meet the bandwidth needs of every home and business in a built-up area.

    • Dreamcast on 01/05/2018 - 22:34
      +1

      4sure you must be Turnbull.

  • AncientWisdom on 01/05/2018 - 14:14
    +3

    There are still people around the interwebs defending the MTM strategy… Showing us exactly what kind of logic some liberal voters use when excercising their right to vote.

  • diceman99 on 01/05/2018 - 14:26
    +2

    I liken the NBN to trying to flying to the moon using a steam engine. It may be possible if you pump enough money into it. But really you need a rocket.
    The nbn or high speed reliable data should be using fibre. It may work on copper but copper was for alexander graham bell and voice. Fibre is for high speed data.

  • Iggemo on 01/05/2018 - 21:34
    +5

    Honestly, it would have been better if Libs/Turnbull/Abbott did nothing, just left it alone. It's a colossal waste of money for little to no improvement whatsoever. If you aren't going to do it properly, just step aside and leave it for someone who will.

    • arcticmonkey on 02/05/2018 - 05:32

      Its the same with the Liberals cuts to the climate change policy. Instead of being seen globally as a leader, Turdball and co have made Australia a laughing stock overseas.

  • OzzyOzbourne on 01/05/2018 - 21:50
    +8

    The level of incompetence in this country is simply staggering. We're the laughing stock of the world.

  • ipiok on 01/05/2018 - 22:30
    +7

    let's not forget that the LIBERAL party were the ones that sold off our majority share in telstra to begin with…. so technically speaking we've bought back what we already owned… telstra and it's shareholders must be laughing all the way to the bank.

    • Charity on 01/05/2018 - 23:42

      Only if you were given shares. Executives, Directors, Employees, Brokers, Advisors, Friends etc.

      Standard shareholders that bought them have also been bent over :)

  • Dreamcast on 01/05/2018 - 22:36
    +3

    Lol. Turnbull, what a complete arse. Go on help your friends out and get away with it.

  • grog on 01/05/2018 - 23:59
    +2

    Labor put aside 46 billion $ to pay for FTTP

    LNP said "we will do it differently for 26 billion $

    Recent financial report from NBNco said they were trying to keep cost for the current shambles to 46 to 51 billion $.

  • twig on 02/05/2018 - 00:19
    +16

    The whole issue still makes me so damn angry.

    After decades of being crimped by the Liberals (Howard) privatising Telecom (to become Telstra we all love to hate), Labor gave us a glimpse of what fast internet could be for Australia.

    Fast and stable connections which didn't turn to shit when it rains. 100Mb connections over optic fibre into your very home, but upgradable at endpoints to suddenly become 1000Mbps without the need for replacing cables. It's a technological wet dream.

    It was building an infrastructure for the future and it made sense. New Zealand did it. Parts of the US did it. Parts of the UK is doing it now.
    Parts of Asia are running 1Gb connections for a fraction of what we're paying for ADSL2.

    Then Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull come around and decide we can't have nice things. For the pure sake of not allowing Labor to claim the NBN as a successful project for the future of Australia, they began to unravel NBNco by claiming Labors vision is too expensive and they can provide an NBN "faster, cheaper and sooner".

    Well what did they do?

    • Replaced Mike Quigley (knows his shit) with Bill Morrow (knows shit all)
    • Replaced plans for fibre to home with a mixture of; fibre to the node (somewhere in your suburb) then copper to home. They actually had to order 1800kms of brand new copper. Yes, copper that we all know is absolutely shit when it rains.
    • Spent bucketloads of money buying HFC/cable infrastructure from Telstra/Optus without actually checking if it'll work (Optus' network turned out to be a dud, but hey we bought it anyway)
    • Spent a crap tonne of money on rebranding and marketing the NBN on billboards and adverts, even though end users can't directly raise issues with NBN as all communication must go through their ISP
    • Faffed about with nonsense about how this is a network "for now" even though its failing to deliver the speeds we currently get on ADSL during peak hour. It's obsolete before its even completed. There's no way for us to upgrade to faster internet without ripping it all out and starting again with fibre anyway…
    • Now they're over the cost of the original NBN, so far it's delivered a slow/unstable network and it's not gonna finish any sooner than the original NBN would.
    • Since Bill Morrow resigned, he's actually stated that Abbott/Turnbull's vision for the NBN is the reason it's rubbish

    If this sounds funny, then just remember that we've paid for each and every mistake of the (profanity) with our tax dollars.

    Not to mention that these Liberal Party jokers are the ones that:

    • Did what they could to stop gay marriage from happening, threw an expensive survey and still claimed it to their name
    • Wanted to prevent a banking royal commission from happening at all, and now claiming it was a great decision in their name
    • Fired Centrelink staff and cut funding, introduced robodebt (which is based off incorrect calculations), and now claiming they're hiring more contractors to cover the callcenter (from their mates at Serco)
    • Did their best to redirect money from Clean Energy Finance Corporation to a (profanity) coal power station. No joke, our treasurer Scott Morrison brought in a lump of coal to parliament to talk about how great it was.
    • Is still trying to push for the Adani coal mine deal somehow, even when banks won't touch that shit. Oh by the way, that's the same coal mine that'll endanger the Great Barrier Reef (but don't worry, they care about it now that's ramping up to election campaign time)
    • I'm not even gonna mention all the bullshit digital surveillance and censorship that passed under their way, but remember that our dipshit PM Turnbull said "The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia."

    If you're thinking of voting for Liberals at the next election, please don't.

    • arcticmonkey on 02/05/2018 - 05:39
      +3

      Well summed up. And you didn't mention the Liberals cuts to health, education and penalty rates.

      • twig on 02/05/2018 - 08:14
        +3

        It was getting too long and I was getting sleepy.

        • as you said, the usual cuts to fundamental keystones of society being welfare, health and education
        • reducing penalty rates for people who need it most
        • wage stagnation at it's worst
        • tax cuts for big business and high income earners, while tax increases for the poor
        • making it illegal to protest and protect the environment!
        • constantly shouting about budget crisis before an election, but silent as they go on a spending spree putting us further in debt. For example, purchase $16b worth of lemon war planes and $50billion on submarines
        • speaking of which, submarines were supposed to promote "jobs and growth", but contracted out to the French.
        • keeps pushing for "trickle down economics" which every credible economist says is a myth
        • constantly brown-nosing old man Murdoch and doing his bidding. Their nbn destruction announcement was made at Fox studios FFS
        • taking donations from Chinese business (both Liberal and Labor), yet actively destroying relations with China

        I'm sure there are plenty of more things they've screwed us over with over the two terms.

        These asswipes are NOT "better economic managers", they're just excellent at blaming Labor and being morally corrupt.

        • Kangal on 03/05/2018 - 12:14

          Interesting post.

          I guess a sensible party/government does things such as Proper Research, Data Analysis, and Future Consequences and Aims. But applies those concepts without corruption/bias and to the highest degrees of transparency.

          It's not about making the country "Great", it's about concocting a system that is custom tailored to us and is fair/unbiased to the highest degrees.

          But such a thing isn't known to most people, and isn't attractive for votes. What people want to see is "tackle the debt, decrease taxes, better education, extra funding to health, etc etc".

          I'd much rather see ministers appointed for Education and Health sectors that force the Hospitals and Schools to increase their quality and undercut their spending. Because there really are inefficiencies out there, and it's much more rational to go for the low-hanging fruit and fix these issues. But the same could be said about the internal spending within the government. Some of its corruption, some of its apathy, but most of its just incompetence.

  • Rukiata on 02/05/2018 - 08:36
    +1

    What about us on nbn hfc… thats worse

  • wannagrababargain on 02/05/2018 - 08:54
    -1

    Where does your "$90 billion" figure come from?

  • [Deactivated] on 02/05/2018 - 11:03
    -1

    For those who voted down 5G. It is operating on the Gold Coast at 16G per second download. For those who have talked about saturation, look up mm wave spectrum.

    • diceman99 on 02/05/2018 - 17:44
      -1

      Itll be saturated. Wireless is no replacement for point to point fibre

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join