Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Federal Election 2013 (Read 29282 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Federal Election 2013

Reply #45 –
So there is the rub.

Put fibre down the street, then connect them with copper. If you want fibre you can have it, but it will come at a premium, you pay tax to fund the building of the network, and then you pay through the nose to get a modern connection!
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: Federal Election 2013

Reply #46 –
Quote from: LP – on
An associate in HK was complaining about his slow fibre broadband speeds, he only gets 400Mbps, he thinks something is wrong because his neighbour gets 1000Mbps. Apparently HK stripped out 25Mbps FTTN hardware years ago as obsolete technology.

FTTH (Fibre to the Home) = 400Mbps up to 1000Mbps
At least 16X faster than the best Australian ADSL2+ connections!

FTTN (Fibre to the Node)(Copper to Home) = 5Mbps up to 25Mbps.
Just equal to or slower than the best Australian ADSL2+ connections!

Rumors are that Brandis and Abbott barely even know how to use a PCs for basic email but are making IT policy!

My colleagues in the UK get 300Mbps 4G cheaper than we get 25Mbps ADSL2+ connections here, some UK areas already get 3000Mbps fibre connections to home at about the same price as Australia's ADSL2+!

Many 3rd world countries have started rolling out fibre, because not only is it superior, it is cheaper than copper and has no value on the black market unlike copper which gets stolen all the time!

Over the life of a copper conductor, the energy need to send the signal, compared to the same for fibre, means the copper network uses more than 20X the power to operate! Conspiracy theorists claim the retention of copper is being driven politically by the energy providers, but I think that is extremists as both are low but one is much lower than the other! However 4G uses far less energy than copper phone lines, so maybe there is something in it!

While I agree with most of what you are saying Australia is 32x bigger than the UK and 6962x bigger than Hong Kong making it a lot harder to upgrade the infrastructure.

Quote from: LP – on
So there is the rub.

Put fibre down the street, then connect them with copper. If you want fibre you can have it, but it will come at a premium, you pay tax to fund the building of the network, and then you pay through the nose to get a modern connection!

I think the government should ensure that everyone can access the internet in a stable, reliable, and functional manner.

I don't think the government need to ensure that everyone gets access to premium speed for free.

Re: Federal Election 2013

Reply #47 –
Quote from: LanceRomance – on
While I agree with most of what you are saying Australia is 32x bigger than the UK and 6962x bigger than Hong Kong making it a lot harder to upgrade the infrastructure.

That is actually a supporting argument for fibre, because the transmission / re-transmission requirements are much lower. A set of Ytterbium fibre telecommunications lasers costing about $70K(Not including the fibre network) in total can span the continent via fibre providing 5GB/s of multiplexed channels, is super reliable, easy to repair, secure(hacker safe) and lower cost to build than a copper or microwave network.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: Federal Election 2013

Reply #48 –
The problem is that with the Liberals NBN you do not get a choice and will never get a choice of FTTP. If they gave the choice and said user pays then fine, but they are so short sighted that that will not be an option.

Re: Federal Election 2013

Reply #49 –
Quote from: Raydan – on
The problem is that with the Liberals NBN you do not get a choice and will never get a choice of FTTP. If they gave the choice and said user pays then fine, but they are so short sighted that that will not be an option.

They are going to give you the option, provided you pay for it, it will be a tax on a tax!

Like a tax payer funded tunnel, that requires tolls to use!

If you are a home owner, watch your rates go up next year, and if you rent watch your rent rise!
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: Federal Election 2013

Reply #50 –
Quote from: LP – on
Quote from: Raydan – on
The problem is that with the Liberals NBN you do not get a choice and will never get a choice of FTTP. If they gave the choice and said user pays then fine, but they are so short sighted that that will not be an option.

They are going to give you the option, provided you pay for it, it will be a tax on a tax!

Like a tax payer funded tunnel, that requires tolls to use!

If you are a home owner, watch your rates go up next year, and if you rent watch your rent rise!

Sorry got mixed up, the cable they are laying now is being terminated so that it can easily be fed to your home. The Liberals will require that the cable goes into the node then from there run back to your home, so if you live 100m away from the node the cost will be huge, and in effect you won't be able to afford it.

They can keep what was done before and give termination points for each house while feeding it to the node. Then if you choose FTTP or FTTH it can be done at a realistic cost not what some country homes are being quoted of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Re: Federal Election 2013

Reply #51 –
Quote from: LanceRomance – on
Quote from: denimundies – on
@Raydan

My concern is primarily with the changes to education. One of the unique Australian traits is 'a fair go for all'- regardless of socio-economic background. The ability to change ones circumstances, through which education is a primary mechanism, has until now been limited only by an individual's own personal will. We went from the lucky country to the country of opportunity. The changes to education will alter Australia forever, Its a stupid and short sighted solution to economic reform. Even Hokey has admitted that, as the son of migrant, he was fortunate to have been able to go to university and gain an education. To restrict it to those that can afford it will only emphasize class divide. This is not the Australian way.

People can still go to uni?

They can, provided that they can afford to pay fees, those that cant will have their prospects for education determined by their ability to obtain a relevant loan, and later repay it. So the current barrier of self will is no longer the only majorly relevant barrier. Which raises another issue, its been suggested the loans will come at a cost, interest, and the individual will bear the entire burden of that cost. While that may seem fair on its face, it should be noted that not all University courses result in the same economic prospects for the individual (on completion), an example of this is Arts related courses. However its undeniable that the nation benefits as whole, by way of national intellectual capital. Its seems fair to me that if we all benefit on a national level, then we should all partly contribute to the costs of obtaining that benefit.  A nation built predominately on pragmatic disciplines, which is what I think will happen if this Bill goes through, will IMO end up a dry one. Without intending to appear racist, that's my observation of some nations like China, who place major emphasis in pragmatic disciplines. Efficient, committed to a community cause, but lacking the intellectual capital to shape that community cause. This Bill is a narrow minded Bill .
“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

― Mark Twain

Re: Federal Election 2013

Reply #52 –
But they don't pay their fees back until after they earn enough yeah?

Re: Federal Election 2013

Reply #53 –
Quote from: LanceRomance – on
But they don't pay their fees back until after they earn enough yeah?

My understanding is that hasn't really been determined as yet. That's certainly the case under the current system, ie the Fed Gov is the body funding the Education upfront by way of the Higher education Contribution Scheme, and shares part of the cost with the student. But that's the scheme being put a risk under the current proposal. The other point is an equitable one ie if an individual has to pay back the full cost of his education, with interest, and his chosen field is not one which provides prospects for economic return to the extent of that another course may, then the prospect of being lumbered with a three figure loan may result in more students choosing fields with higher economic related prospects. We end up a poorer nation by way of intellectual versatility.     
“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

― Mark Twain

Re: Federal Election 2013

Reply #54 –
New figure is 50k to pay your HECS back ...was around 53K......I'd expect that change to make it through the senate as will the debt tax.
The GP co payment and rise in pension age wont make it through IMO and you can look forward to a GST of 12.5% so the states can fund the State's budget hole now the Libs have cut back on the health and education monies.

Look forward to the Uni's raising fees and looking to grab more fee paying overseas students thats where the goldmine in education is......they will be building student housing complexes on mass to accomodate the overseas market...thats after they have sacked half their non academic workers in response to research money being cut which is whats happening now.

That new medical research centre wont get off the ground if that co payment policy doesnt get through the senate........

Re: Federal Election 2013

Reply #55 –
@Elwood

I read somewhere last week that fees for some course , such as science related courses were anticipated to go down and various other non science related course fees were anticipated to increase. The ones going down appeared to be the courses with more limited places. But then given course fees themselves don't come under the scope of federal gov, how can they index entry fees to any strategy?. The fees will be set by each of the institutions in each of the states. They could all agree to somehow index them, but that wouldn't be in the control of Fed gov unless they somehow buy in with some sort of funding program, which they're wanting to privatize. So how can such a claim of decrease be assured?
“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

― Mark Twain

Re: Federal Election 2013

Reply #56 –
Quote from: denimundies – on
@Elwood

I read somewhere last week that fees for some course , such as science related courses were anticipated to go down and various other non science related course fees were anticipated to increase. The ones going down appeared to be the courses with more limited places. But then given course fees themselves don't come under the scope of federal gov, how can they index entry fees to any strategy?. The fees will be set by each of the institutions in each of the states. They could all agree to somehow index them, but that wouldn't be in the control of Fed gov unless they somehow buy in with some sort of funding program, which they're wanting to privatize. So how can such a claim of decrease be assured?

I like the idea of the Government providing a higher level of for funding courses that industry are looking for at any point in time.


Re: Federal Election 2013

Reply #57 –
If it was an inducement then there would be some merit,  provided it acts as an additional inducement rather than an additional penalty at the expense of those that aren't. It's no coincidence that the fields being penalized are those in the fields of arts, yet one of the great and unique things about Australia is our spread of intellectual capital. Take China for example they appear to have focussed on the more pragmatic fields, they're as efficient as can practically be, but??????. The other issue is that it's not really an inducement at all because the limited places, by way of entry scores prevents competition and therefore a decrease in fees in those selected fields. It's nothing but a guess, unless the Fed Gov plough money into more university resources to be able to lift competition. But then they are saying they want to cut funding. It's all crapola
“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

― Mark Twain
 

Re: Federal Election 2013

Reply #58 –
Quote from: denimundies – on
If it was an inducement then there would be some merit,  provided it acts as an additional inducement rather than an additional penalty at the expense of those that aren't. It's no coincidence that the fields being penalized are those in the fields of arts, yet one of the great and unique things about Australia is our spread of intellectual capital. Take China for example they appear to have focussed on the more pragmatic fields, they're as efficient as can practically be, but??????. The other issue is that it's not really an inducement at all because the limited places, by way of entry scores prevents competition and therefore raised fees in those selected fields. It's nothing but a guess, unless the Fed Gov plough money into more university resources to be able to lift competition. But then they are saying they want to cut funding. It's all crapola

I also think there should be more focus on TAFE training rather than University.

Re: Federal Election 2013

Reply #59 –
Absolutely agree with you
“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

― Mark Twain