Labor MP: Fibre broadband will be obsolete in 12-16 years

in context she was probably talking about GPON technology

ie: in 15 years, it might be obsolete compared to 40GPON or point to point fibre

David, has the member been misquoted.

And to expect a new member on a doorstep interview to get all her words as she may intend!

The question the reporter asked is not included.

I suggest the question was along the line of how many more reviews must the NBN go through. Then the quote makes sense and a little sarcasm may be interpreted.

A piece of the quote has been left out, the first part goes "Why not 20 or 30 more" then stops and you or someone inserts [reviews]. Without that the that part is meaningless, why not put in the full quote!

The members reply questions were obviously rhetorical. By splitting it up as you have it leads to a different meaning than if you put it as one quoted question or why not split it into 3 questions?

In paragraph 4 where she is better (but not fully) quoted I interpret her as saying not to delay for, "20" "or" "30 [reviews]" or" 3 or 4 terms" or" when the technology is outdated". We often use a silent or.

Silly woman.

[Comment edited for sexism]

Neither know anything about technology, but the latter is the more likely to say, "I want it now."

For myself? I don't pretend to know a great deal about electronics generally, but I do have my experience that current telecommunication is far more efficient than I will ever need and maybe 99.9% of the population.

I also know enough about economics/the global financial crisis and that, depending means of measure, per capita we are in as bad a state (if not worse) than the US.

All we do is gig stuuuf out of the ground and sell it mainly to China, then buy it back "value-added".

In any case, whichever way yoy slice it, this is not a good time to be spending millions on such luxuries as fibre broadband vwhich no one will really benefit from.

Reminds me of the old days (I am 67).

First you got a mono record player, which was certainlt better than a gramophone ... then you went stereo ... then hifi. But if you went further than that, the "law of diminishing returns" set in.

Back some forty years I knew some with $10,000 systems, but (to my 'untrained ear') I could not tell the difference from my $100 system.

I laughed so hard when I heard this, I think the equipment and GPON will be obsolete, as other countries like Japan will most likely have 10Gbps when the NBN is built, but the Fibre will not be, equipment must be upgraded once the NBN is built, every 5-10 years we need to upgrade equipment but the actual fibre is good and will service us for many years to come.

What should be obsolete is DATA caps that companies like Telstra and iinet inst on having. We need more plans like TPG's unlimited plan for 59.99. I just hope when NBN comes to my house I can get unlimited 1000/400 mbps, otherwise spending 43billion was just a waste if you can download more on ADSL2+ with TPG.

@ Tom Brown,

She hasn't been misquoted. We did a quick interview and I read back the statement, which she confirmed as accurate.

The main point of the piece is that she claimed the technology involved would be obsolete within three to four terms, contrasting her Minister.

If I ever keeps things out, it's for style purposes only. The subject of discussion for four questions prior to this one (and at least one afterward) was whether or not to do more cost-benefit analyses and reviews on the viability of the NBN.

There is no suggestion the Member was calling for more reviews; that was clearly designed to point out what she claims is unneeded time-wasting.

Best regards,

David Ramli

Thanks David for the clarification and I am sorry that my cynicism regarding the veracity of journalists so often shows.

Does the article title capture her central argument? No.
Does the quote capture her central argument? No.
Does the quote capture attention and therefore readers and therefore money? Yes.
Is this good journalism? No.
Is this good capitalism? Yes.

Is the quote accurate? Yes.
Does is show us something about what she thinks of what the party preaches? Yes.
Does it make her look a little silly? Yes.
Do you sound like a pretentious loser? Yes.

Buy the latest state of the art computer today and in a week it is obsolete but does that mean I delay in buying one. No, because no matter when I buy one the same will happen.
We can only use today what we have today.
We know optic fibre will provide the fastest service today and who knows what may be made of it in the future.
Remember when the experts insisted that 14kps is copper wire's limit, then the same was said for 28kps and again at 56kps yet here we are with 25mps.
Bottom line is we just do not know what the future holds and anyone who claims they do is no better than a shaman.

This woman as a pollie NEED's to get her facts right before opening her mouth. the Fibre itself will last for around 50 odd years, tho the equipment running it, will need to be upgraded at least a couple of times over that period.

#3

"current telecommunication is far more efficient than I will ever need and maybe 99.9% of the population"

If your current communications needs are being met then you fall into one of 2 categories. The first being on the upper end of the broadband divide where you get a far better connection than the majority of Australians or 2. Your communication needs are significantly lower then the majority of Aussies, like really significantly. Please don't pretend that you represent the majority of Australians in your opinion. Thanks

"I also know enough about economics/the global financial crisis and that, depending means of measure, per capita we are in as bad a state (if not worse) than the US."

In fact we are not. We are doing significantly better than most of the western world (Thanks Big Mining :). Also I think you will find that most people who know more about these things than both you and I found that spending alot of taxpayer money is the thing that kept is is pretty good nick. But this is another conversation

"In any case, whichever way yoy slice it, this is not a good time to be spending millions on such luxuries as fibre broadband vwhich no one will really benefit from."

Again, people who know more about these things than you or I found that the best way to avoid a bad recession is to keep people employed. The best way for the gov't to help with this is to spend big on national projects. Spending money, and even wasting money on investments that go back into our own economy only benefit us. As long as you don't go into mega debt (which is measured against GDP and not in the billions) then your return on investment is brilliant.

Additionally, National Infrastructure actually benefits everyone. We actually have quite the history when it comes to public works benefiting the country.

And lastly, your analogy of the record player is about as coherent and to the point as a lobster winning a fuzzy beard in a 12 leg, 2 arm sack race... ON STILTS!

The fibre in the ground is not going to become obsolete because we have long since mastered the science of glass production (or really good plastic production)
The actual "technology" behind fibre optic networks is not the actual fibre itself, its the transmission equipment

The transmission equipment (which I have greatly oversimplified) is essentially the little flashy laser and wavelength meter at each end of the cable in combination with the computing hardware that manages the data the lasers transmit. It is true that this hardware can become obsolete, but the beauty is that the depreciating asset is the cheapest to replace

To highlight my point, I offer this example. Recently the Fraunhofer Institute for Telecommunications and Fujitsu recently broke the 100Mile speed record over fibre, the existing record was 1.28Tbps and the new record is 2.56Tbps. They did this by increasing the amount of wavelengths they send down the cable, a cable that was essentially the same as the one used to break the previous record.

"Smyth was referring to a term of Government, which is four years."

No it's not. It's three years. Wikipedia - "Members of Parliament (MPs) serve for terms of approximately three years".

The headline of this article should be NBN obsolete in 9-12 years.

"Why not continue into three or four terms into the future when the technology that might be being considered becomes obsolete?"

Actually she doesn't refer to fibre. She says "technology that might be being considered". Fibre isn't being considered. Fibre has been chosen. The opposition is considering wireless. So the only technology being considered is wireless.

Therefore it is more likely that she is saying: Lets not wait 3 or 4 terms until the alternatives technologies that are being considered by the opposition, such as wireless, become obsolete.

Where is the full transcript of the interview? I'm better at comprehension than David and won't have the problem of misunderstanding a quote at the periphery of her argument in order to create controversy and increase advertising revenue.

Hello Phil, I'm flattered.

@ #14

Well spoken Gary :)

This is one of those non story's that shouldn't have been reported on. She was either misquoted, didn't use the right words to get hear meaning across or is not entirely sure what she is talking about. Its not like she's the communications minister or anything...

Its news if Conroy is caught out with this kind of gaff. Not a ALP member with a Law Degree who chose her words poorly

@15 David, yes, it seems to be a measure of how thin some of the debate on NBN has become when a doorstop comment by a clearly non-tech new MP is given prominence.

And since the average HoR term is 2 1/2 years, the more easily excitable NBN opponents could, and no doubt will, extrapolate inanely that "the NBN will be obsolete in seven years".

No it won't, but why let the facts have any bearing on the debate.

How typical of you silo-loving NBN fanboys! Let's slam all the people wanting decent transparency and try to kill the stories that don't agree with us!

@David Shears ...
I would really like to see a "lobster winning a fuzzy beard in a 12 leg, 2 arm sack race... ON STILTS!"

@ #17 Phil

These story's don't need any help in falling over by themselves. This story is essentially equates to "look at what this person said, its wrong and does not tie in with their actual belief's.. HAHA!!"

The reason I don't agree with most anti-NBN people is because they typically fall into 1 of 3 category's

1. The Opposition: The kind of person who actually knows of the real benefit that this kind of infrastructure offers but opposes the idea because someone they done like came up with it before them

2. The blissfully ignorant/selfish jerk: The kind of person who does not want to see the real benefit of this kind of infrastructure because they either have fast broadband already and don't care about those who done or their attitude is "well, I only read 3 emails a week so no one should ever need more internet access than I"

3. The what have the Romans ever done for us person, a.k.a the teabagger: The kind of person who thinks that every cent the government spends is a waste, except for the the roads, law and order, the sewers, security, oh, don't forget the aqua-ducts!

And if you want to use the term “silo-loving”, I suggest you get out of your own and find out exactly how bad the internet is for many home and businesses across the country.

A fan-boy I am, but at least my argument is progressive and in the service of the greater community

@ Mike Gee

Hooray for Windows Paint!!!

http://i1142.photobucket.com/albums/n612/davidshears/analogy.png

@David Shears ...
Brilliant, David ... brilliant ... it's almost worth an award ... almost ...

Hi Phil,

I guess it is within all our rights to question and expose inaccurate and misconstrued statements that are taken out of context in this debate.

Attempts to inject meanings that were neither intended nor factual into words and statements from individuals is a slippery slope at best, careless in the medium and can easily become misinformation.

Extrapolating what the statement *could* have meant without confirmation is speculation at best and entirely subjective, and again is easily and often misconstrued to represent something that the person quoted never intended.

That is called "putting your words in someone else's mouth..."

Decent transparency is fine, as long as it remains decent.

Trying to suggest conflicts where they do not exist is an attempt the generate conflict, and is an age old modus operandi.

*Gotcha* practices are unseemly at best, mostly cheap and often a basis for misinformation.

Taking someone's statement tat they like red, and then asserting that they dislike the Party's colour blue, or that their favorite actor is Brad Pitt and therefore they are in conflict with their partner who likes Tom Hanks, is again an age old conflict generator and suspicion fanning strategy...

I would also like to see the question posed to Laura and the response quoted:

"What did you actually mean by that? Do you disagree with the Minister and Mr Quigley??"

Some might consider that decent transparency?