Aloysius Posted August 5, 2010 Posted August 5, 2010 http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technolog...0805-11kmv.html Coalition to dump flawed internet filter Well there you go - the NBN will approach higher speeds with the brake released. Might make up for the miniscule loss of speed in the short copper connections - eh?
achjimmy Posted August 5, 2010 Posted August 5, 2010 http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technolog...0805-11kmv.htmlCoalition to dump flawed internet filter Well there you go - the NBN will approach higher speeds with the brake released. Might make up for the miniscule loss of speed in the short copper connections - eh? We lose 1/2 our speed running from the the junction in the street to our router (40m) so I think copper in the whole street will make more than a minuscule difference IMO
Skid_MacMarx Posted August 5, 2010 Posted August 5, 2010 I thought the filter was "dead in the water" when Conroy announced yet another enquiry .. ie review = shelved As for the title of the thread, the National Broadband Network.. ... THE Liberals have been promising to axe Labor's fibre-to-the-home project, the national broadband network (NBN), without explaining what they will do instead, but a policy announcement deadline is approaching.A statement will probably come before Tony Abbott's campaign launch on Sunday. It will certainly appear by next Tuesday, when the opposition's communications spokesman, Tony Smith, debates Communications Minister Stephen Conroy. Announcing a rerun of the Howard government's untried plan for Opel, a government-subsidised, private-sector-built wireless and satellite network in the bush will not be enough. http://www.smh.com.au/business/coalition-n...0803-115km.html
(ツ) Posted August 5, 2010 Posted August 5, 2010 So finally the Libs (and the Greens) have vowed to block the filter - it should never have surfaced in the first place.
DrP Posted August 5, 2010 Posted August 5, 2010 Well there you go - the NBN will approach higher speeds with the brake released. .... that is until Tony rips it out and replaces it with his technologically inferior last mile copper solution that is guaranteed to delivered lower speeds than Labor's NBN. I wonder what will happen to the Libs poll standing once the right wing 'christians' that inspired the filter see that the Libs will not support it.
Aloysius Posted August 6, 2010 Author Posted August 6, 2010 I thought the filter was "dead in the water" when Conroy announced yet another enquiry .. ie review = shelved As for the title of the thread, the National Broadband Network.. ... http://www.smh.com.au/business/coalition-n...0803-115km.html So you support the Coalition and wait avidly for their policy announcement?
gone_bush Posted August 6, 2010 Posted August 6, 2010 So you support the Coalition and wait avidly for their policy announcement? No, Aloy, no-one waits "avidly" for a Coalition policy. They wait in vain!
DrP Posted August 6, 2010 Posted August 6, 2010 I wonder what will happen to the Libs poll standing once the right wing 'christians' that inspired the filter see that the Libs will not support it. ... and so it begins. Christian lobby slams "incomprehensible" filter block Trapped.
myrantz Posted August 7, 2010 Posted August 7, 2010 ... and so it begins.Christian lobby slams "incomprehensible" filter block Bloody hate lobbies. They don't speak for me.
ozdoc Posted August 7, 2010 Posted August 7, 2010 (edited) Trapped. How so? Surely no-one votes on just one issue. (except Mello - on Workchoices.. ) Personally, there are a few medical lobbies espousing the joys of the Superclinics and various other proposed labor health changes, but they certainly don't speak for me. They're just a lobby. Lobbies in and of themselves don't get to vote. (slightly OT, the head of the Australian Christian Lobby looks like a fairly tough dude - ex command of the SAS regiment. The idea of an ex-SAS cleaning up Kiddy-porn scum kind of appeals to me, just not through any technique Conroy is proposing to apply... ) Edited August 7, 2010 by ozdoc
mello yello Posted August 7, 2010 Posted August 7, 2010 How so? Surely no-one votes on just one issue. (except Mello - on Workchoices.. ) and me
mello yello Posted August 7, 2010 Posted August 7, 2010 "All That Jazz" ♫ MILES DAVIS - Round Midnight ♫
mello yello Posted August 7, 2010 Posted August 7, 2010 (edited) How so? Surely no-one votes on just one issue. (except Mello - on Workchoices.. )Personally, there are a few medical lobbies espousing the joys of the Superclinics and various other proposed labor health changes, but they certainly don't speak for me. They're just a lobby. Lobbies in and of themselves don't get to vote. (slightly OT, the head of the Australian Christian Lobby looks like a fairly tough dude - ex command of the SAS regiment. The idea of an ex-SAS cleaning up Kiddy-porn scum kind of appeals to me, just not through any technique Conroy is proposing to apply... ) Ah but the Christian "Lobby" is one of the most powerful ( as in sheer numbers alone ) lobby in the whole hotel. They frequently meet (every Sunday) I believe (excuse the pun) and talk about what is good and Right for all of us. Those who cannot decide for themselves have their minds made up for them by their "trusted' preachers, priests and various other pastors and and pastoresses. If they feel strongly enough on any given issue you can bet Rome to marble pillar they would cast enough influence on any election to achieve their desired outcome. They dont care who is pretending to be in "power" as long as they know they are pulling the strings and striking the Right chords on the old church organ, figuratively speaking Im sure mello would also agree Edited August 7, 2010 by mello yello
DrP Posted August 7, 2010 Posted August 7, 2010 (edited) How so? You have no idea at the level of control that some of these 'new age' churches exercise over their flocks, do you? Having seen it up close and personal, an immediate family member being involved, I can tell you its a scary thing to behold. Normal rational people that have been hooked follow the directions of their church like sheep. One GP I know, when the topic of evolution came up, proudly declared "I'm not related to a monkey" and left the cluster of people having the discussion. It takes quite a bit of intelligence to make it through medical education to become a GP in this country, so that rules out only the stupid being hooked. The 'Christian' lobby does have the sort of power that I've implied and the Libs are going to feel it in their vote count. The 'Christian' lobby tends to align itself more with the conservative Libs than it does with Labor, ie the Libs have more to lose than Labor does in not keeping the 'Christian' lobby happy. The Libs built the trap during their last terms in office by courting the 'Christian' lobby and now they have fallen into the trap. The only question remaining is can they claw their way back out of it. Whilst its too late for any more from the likes of the Family First party to run this election, assuming the Libs keep their word and do not do a 180 (let's face it, it is the Libs) should they get in at this election, lets see how many more people from the likes of Family First run in the next federal election. Edited August 7, 2010 by DrP
ozdoc Posted August 7, 2010 Posted August 7, 2010 (edited) The 'Christian' lobby does have the sort of power that I've implied and the Libs are going to feel it in their vote count. My point was more simple than that. I don't think that naturally conservative Christians are not going to suddenly jump the bandwagon and switch to team Julia (avowed atheist) over one solitary policy. Where else have they got to go to? Greens (with their approving of gay marriage)? Sex Party? I think reality dictates that the majority Christian conservative vote / preferences will continue to flow through to the Libs. Edited August 7, 2010 by ozdoc
mello yello Posted August 7, 2010 Posted August 7, 2010 ...unless one single policy mobilises them collectively, which has happened many times in the past. having said that I dont think the Net Nanny is the one single policy that would. Most likely will remain status quo, as you say, unless Tony The Phoney Abbott really puts his foot in it between now and election time
DrP Posted August 7, 2010 Posted August 7, 2010 (edited) My point was more simple than that. I don't think that naturally conservative Christians are not going to suddenly jump the bandwagon and switch to team Julia (avowed atheist) over one solitary policy. Where else have they got to go to? Greens (with their approving of gay marriage)? Sex Party? I think reality dictates that the majority Christian conservative vote / preferences will continue to flow through to the Libs. If you bothered to read my whole post you would have seen that while the full consequences are not seen in this federal election, just wait until the next. Family First etc already run candidates. If the Libs tick them off, which by all accounts the filter stance seems to be doing, expect a lot more of such candidates to run and expect them to be targetting marginal Liberal seats. Another example of the sort of influence these so called 'Christian' outfits have over their followers: Quite a few years ago when Assemblies of God sprouted up several members of the Anglican church I was attending at the time jumped ship and joined AoG. When ever I saw them they were extolling the virtues and benefits of AoG. One older woman declared that her poor vision had been cured by AoG. Unfortunately reality showed that her vision had not improved; when reading without her glasses she still held the book at distance and quite often was seen squinting at the text. Edited August 8, 2010 by DrP
ozdoc Posted August 8, 2010 Posted August 8, 2010 If you bothered to read my whole post Hey, cool your heels, I don't need the attitude. I did read your post. I was referring to my point. The reality is, Family First are never going to have any significant electoral backing. Fielding was a one off based on poor preference judgement on behalf of other parties. One term only.
myrantz Posted August 8, 2010 Posted August 8, 2010 The reality is, Family First are never going to have any significant electoral backing. Fielding was a one off based on poor preference judgement on behalf of other parties. One term only. Hope you're right on this... Nothing against God (quite scared of him TBH), but the people "doing his work", don't really trust 'em... Attended some churches myself, but so far all of them don't feel right somehow ...
(ツ) Posted August 10, 2010 Posted August 10, 2010 (edited) Oh well, for what it's worth here's the Coalition's Broadband... Coalition unveils $6b broadband plan "The Coalition has promised over $6 billion to improve broadband services for Australians if it is elected to government. Finance spokesman Andrew Robb and communications spokesman Tony Smith have unveiled the plan which would replace the Government's National Broadband Network if the Coalition took government. Under the plan, 97 per cent of homes would have access to networks which would deliver broadband at speeds of between 12 Mega bits per second (Mbps) and 100Mbps by 2016 through a combination of technologies. The remaining three per cent of homes would be serviced by satellite services. The Coalition says its broadband plan would be private-sector based, in contrast to the Government's NBN. A Coalition government would provide $6.315 billion over seven years in grants and investment to funding the construction of the network. It would also identify "underserved" areas, such as those in rural and remote areas, to improve services as soon as possible. It would do this by providing $2 billion in funds for fixed wireless networks and $750 million to increase the number of homes that can receive a DSL service. Labor has pledged to spend $43 billion on a National Broadband Network, of which the Government would be a majority stakeholder. The network has already begun to be rolled out in Tasmania and is due to be completed by 2018." Private sector based? Does that mean the consumer pays more for it? Edited August 10, 2010 by PZ.
FMB Posted August 10, 2010 Posted August 10, 2010 Private sector based? Does that mean the consumer pays more for it? No, it means they are going to give money to Telstra and let them build and own it. Then Telstra can charge what they like for it and if anyone wants to connect to the NBN, they'll have to pay whatever Telstra demands.
Skid_MacMarx Posted August 10, 2010 Posted August 10, 2010 (edited) Most medical practitioners I come across, these days, are just glorified "drug pushers" ..shame we can't clean that up Edited August 10, 2010 by Skid_MacMarx
ozdoc Posted August 10, 2010 Posted August 10, 2010 Most medical practitioners I come across, these days, are just glorified "drug pushers" ..shame we can't clean that up Eh? How's that relate to the Nbn?? (and can I suggest you're going to the wrong practitioners.. I spend most of my day trying to keep lazy slobs off medications )
DrP Posted August 10, 2010 Posted August 10, 2010 (edited) Ah wonderful. Not a mention of replacing the existing copper which is the source of so much grief for those that can actually get ADSL at the moment. Thanks Tony, you've committed us to years of un-ending problems with our broadband services. Thanks Tony, you've gone nowhere in addressing the speed issues that everyone in Regional Australia faces. Thanks Tony, you've enshrined Telstra as the dominant player for decades. Thanks Tony, you've given us an even more complicated regulatory frame work to try to de-Telstra broadband access in this country. Thanks Tony, for nothing. Tony a dud? You bet. Edited August 10, 2010 by DrP
Recommended Posts