I need to vent!

[jazzcomp]

http://www.billshrink.com/blog/5787/...tration-costs/

Pay for speed, not data.

[SkyWarp91]

Hong Kong is almost the size of Hobart!
With a third of the population of Australia, crammed into an area 1/6000th the size!!!

That sort of population density (the fourth most dense country in the world), makes infrastructure cheaper than here, and offers more competition from businesses that are all located in the same area (in Australia we might have more companies/providers, but some may only cover certain regions or cities - reducing competition in the country as a whole). Plus, our cities have to offset/subsidise the regional areas, which is the sticking point for our proposed National Broadband Network - some politicians are chasing votes by wanting regional users pay more for the higher set-up costs out there, while other politicians want everyone to pay the same, despite it costing less to set-up and operate in the cities, for 90% of the population.

In HK, they don't have that same cost variance issue, as their providers can cover the same amount of people with probably 1/2000th less expense (the differences in landmass and population densities of our two countries). As such, I'm not surprised that they have a significantly cheaper access to Internet, and don't see our prices as being excessive.
We do have adequate competition here for the limitations our providers have working against them (large landmass is difficult/expensive to 'hardwire' or provide full and/or affordable coverage).

For the record...
HK - 1,100 km2 - 7million people = 6,480 people per km2.
Hobart - 1,400 km2 - 210,000 people.
Australia - 7.6million km2 - 22.5million people = 3 people per km2.

Australia has six thousand times the land mass, but only 3 times the number of people as HK.
Think of it this way - take the population of Australia's largest and third largest cities (Sydney and Brisbane), and squeeze them into Hobart.
Now take all those services, businesses and infrastructure and cram them into that small area... now what cost savings can you imagine are now possible? You already have 2 large city's worth of duplication, plus less area to cover for just about every business being 'relocated' to a small city like Hobart.
Now imagine ISPs in those two Cities servicing the same number of people in an area the size of Hobart? A lot more competition and cheaper deals would occur, wouldn't they? But in Australia, with a density of just 3 people per square Kilometer... us city foke have to pay for services (not just internet) that can often cover large tracks of unpopulated or sparcely populated land.

Yeah that's not much we can do. Countless threads at whirlpool also complain about our comparatively weaker internet setups but in the end what can be done? I'm sure one year we'll catch up with cheap and unlimited broadband, one day.

So back to venting, I sure as hell don't miss the exam times of the year!

[jazzcomp]

the more excuses/justification we/you make, the longer things stay the same.

[MV75]

And the liberals just want to keep the existing network Although labor may overestimated the cost for the upgrade Either way Australia loses. Who does Australia want to match up with? Probably can't match some 3rd world country in terms of cost/service/speed. I guess there are more old people who aren't tech savvy than the youth in australia. I honestly don't know Aussie stats. But it seems the older gen has more say and they're general consensus is that the network is fast enough

It is fast enough, we just need *more* of it.

Also you forget the companies themselves. ADSL was 8Mb capable day one, yet they limited it to 150Kb/s for many years, then suddenly overnight it was "upgraded" to 8 megabit with the rollout of competitor adsl2 equipment.

Do not forget history.

Plus fiber isn't the big godsend either. Replacing the current copper, we still end up with a digital system that can only still take so many concurrent connections.

[jazzcomp]

There's a lot of that going on. Just holding technology down to keep making money of the old one.

Fast enough is relative. Before, it was ok to download overnight. Now people want stuff straight away.

I just wonder why on HD they want to be ones of the first, phasing out analog

I'm not on ADSL, my wireless sucks. I keep getting disconnected and wasting download data allocation because I need to restart my downloads every effing time. Can't help it though, I'm renting and it's tough to transfer if you're on a contract and the next place you find isn't serviced by your provider. I'm also in a poor connection area. Can't move right now as everywhere else is almost more expensive.

I just want to have a cable package with general stuff plus espn and maybe hbo on it. Not add so much on top of the basic. So expensive, I decided not to get cable.

What will you expect from history? More of the same? Lame ass service till a competitor offers a cheaper price Then you'll roll out the same. Do you know how old TIVO is?

My cell provider doesn't even provide loyalty offers after you finish your contract.

What is next to fiber? A lot already had fiber a long time ago.

[jazzcomp]

Can't listen to the NBA game on internet?

can anyone else do it? I used to be able to a few years ago, even live video.

[blackie]

i used to do it a bit last year and so did my mate
just google for a live stream

[gantz]

as far fetched as it was, and I am sure the entirety of Members didnt actually believe it, but f*#king hell!

Was there a need to police us and close the thread 'The Charlie Chaplin Time Traveller'?! Simply because a mod found it to be too 'ridiculous'?

[Bartrim]

as far fetched as it was, and I am sure the entirety of Members didnt actually believe it, but f*#king hell!

Was there a need to police us and close the thread 'The Charlie Chaplin Time Traveller'?! Simply because a mod found it to be too 'ridiculous'?

Gotta agree there. I found it quite comical and an enjoyable read.

[gantz]

Yeah that was the point, and it was!

oh well