40

Australia is not the first to do FTTP. You don't have to wait, its already available in many countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber_to_the_premises_by_countr...

You can also look at how much people valued the additional speed, what new things they did, etc.

Wish someone would write an article summarising the overseas experience of FTTP.

Also, what is opportunity cost of NBN? Could we spend money to create a high-tech sector in Australia perhaps?

The ALP tend to use the NBN as a catch-all for tech policy - "don't worry we have innovation covered - its all the NBN".

Which technology is being install that its "at the end of its generation". Surely FTTN will reduce the cost of FTTP. What is wrong with charging for FTTP - this is what UK is doing.

You can already find plenty case studies on the NBN here: http://www.nbn.gov.au/case-studies/ and here: http://www.nbnco.com.au/nbn-for-business/case-studies.html

The problem I see is that most are already possible with current internet speeds.

The ones like media production studios (http://www.nbnco.com.au/nbn-for-business/case-studies/increa...) do offer new opportunities which aren't possible with ADSL2.

The only issue here is that they can easily afford to pay the 2K for FTTH under the Coalition policy.

I just visited http://www.nbnco.com.au/when-do-i-get-it/rollout-map.html and saw that construction will start in one year. :)

I have absolutely no problems paying 2K or 5K for FTTH.

2K is not much either if you amortize if over a few of years.

Seeing lots of people I know posting this on Facebook made me very uncomfortable. It feels the far-left and far-right crazies (we all know the type) breaking into the mainstream.

It's desperate, disrespectful and just plain inaccurate.

The problem with something like this spreading on social media is its only going to polarize our country taking us further towards the toxic political environment of the US.

Let's take a look at some of the claims:

* Gay Marriage

“GAY MARRIAGE WITH LOVE & RAINBOWS AND SHIT vs. ARCHAIC DISCRIMINATORY FUCKWITAGE Tony Abbott is a bigot. Fuck him and his hateful, backwards, repressed nasty fuckery. If two people are in love who the fuck are you to tell them it's not 'valid'. Fuck you.”

Gay marriage was defined as between a man and a woman with bipartisan support in 2004.1 Both party platforms opposed gay marriage until this year 2011, when the ALP said they would allow a conscience vote. Our old prime minister Julia Gillard, an athiest, from the ALP party personally opposed gay marriage. Kevin Rudd, current prime-minster only changed his position in support of gay marriage in May 2013. Tony Abbott has a lesbian sister, his daughters support gay marriage and his wife is open to the idea.2 So the fact is the ALP is not for gay marriage. They are only for a conscience vote and only very recently. The LNP conducts conscience votes inside their caucus and choose their position as a party as a whole.

Gay marriage is a nuanced issue in every country. It is not black and white. Most Australians are religious 3 and if that is what you have been brought up to believe its going to take time to work through it. If this is bigoted to you, have some balls and go call every religious person a bigot, don't single out one Australian.

If someone supports a civil union bill which provides equal rights to hetero and homo but is sensitive to the use of the term 'marriage' for some strange religious reason, are they the same as someone who believes being gay is a lifestyle choice. If this is still bigoted, go label that group as bigots - just watch out because they might be a decent person voting for your party because of another issue.

It's better to bring people with you on this issue than to call them bigots.

* Climate Change

“SAVING THE FUCKING PLANET vs. TOTALLY FUCKING THE PLANET Abbott fucked Turnbull on the basis of climate change being "crap”, he's a climate-denying, self-serving, short-sighted, right wing tool and he will actively fuck up your children's future. Do you want to look back in 20 years time and remember that you voted for the guy that was against saving the planet? You'd be like one of those dipshits that opposed women voting.“

In Oct 2009 Abbott said "the argument is absolute crap… However, the politics of this are tough for us. 80% of people believe climate change is a real and present danger”, then in Dec 2009 said he had used “a bit of hyperbole” at that meeting rather than it being his “considered position”.

In Nov 2009 Abbott said “we should take reasonable precautions against credible threats”.

The issue is how proportionate should our response to climate change be - and this has always been Abbott's point. There are opinions throughout the spectrum on this issue, it is certainly not black and white. What kind of increase in cost of living are people acceptable with, how much debt should we incur to invest in new enviro-friendly energy sources, what spending wil we forgoe because of the drop in revenue from reducing our use in coal, how less internationally competitive are we willing to be as a result of exporting to countries without a price on carbon.

Most importantly, how much do we want to economically handicap ourselves before the US, China and Russia act.

ALP is now for an ETS. LNP is for direct investment in renewable technologies whilst we wait for the rest of the world to act. It is a reasonable debate to be had.

* Economy

PRETTY FUCKING GOOD ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT vs. IGNORANT ARSE-BACKWARDS ECONOMIC POLICY THAT WILL FUCK US ALL FOR A LONG TIME Even the motherfucking right wing Economist reckon's Labor's economic policy is a much better idea than slashing, cutting, and burning our economy. Keynesian stimulus bitches, it works.

There was plenty of waste with stimulus. The ALP's argument is that as long as we didn't go into recession they did the right thing. The fact is our net debt was 0% and will now peak at about 13%. Both parties are now in agreement that we have to make cuts to spending to reduce our structural deficit. The LNP is simply arguing that the ALP could have spent less. When people see unpopular cuts to programs like the ALP cutting university funding to put into high schools, it is right to ask the question: would we have to make this choice if we used less stimulus money. There are arguments from credible professors that the stimulus actually caused higher unemployment, given that our low Australian dollar and strong demand for exports from China actually kept us out of recession rather than the stimulus spending. 4 If the author feels its so obvious, he might have been better to mention the complex counter arguments and illustrate how obviously false they are rather than “Keynesian stimulus bitches, it works.”. But that would probably require an understanding of economics, some careful thought and research, and wouldn't fit in with his diatribe. Despite your entitled moaning about cost of living pressures (while you sip imported beers looking at wall-sized plasmas in your McMansions) shit is pretty good. You vote for Abbott and you'll find out pretty fucking quickly what austerity results in and feels like.

LNP is not doing austerity. This is just a scare tactic from the ALP. All LNP costings are out today, no-one would consider it austerity and its simply spending 6bn less than ALP which is not much at all. Macro-economics is not a household budget and our debt levels are fucking negligible. Seriously, wake the fuck up and stop being a credulous cock.“

Debt will peak at 13% and is unlikely to be paid off in our life times. The number of consecutive surpluses we would need is huge. Considering at each election each party wants to promise bigger and better than the other party, to have a government with the fiscal discipline to actually reduce our debt faster than we grow it is unlikely to happen. They just wouldn't be popular enough. A bit of debt is fine, but you only get to run it up once. The LNP has been attacking the ALP because they fervently promised surpluses by this 2012-13, but instead produced a $30bn deficit. Both parties agree that debt is an issue and a return to surplus soon is neccessary. The LNP has slightly more cuts than the ALP. Again the author is not on steady enough ground to make claims with such hyperbole.

* Ramblings

Also, despite all of Labor's faults and instability, they do actually give a shit about people and communities and, usually at least, create policy that's informed by evidence instead of ideology.

You can read this as the LNP doesn't give a shit about people and communities. It's just not neccessary. It sounds so desperate. I could list plenty of pros and cons for each party but its just not worth it.

So you could just take it as a joke, but the way he finishes it makes it sound like he believes everything he has written, and then appeals for you to vote for the ALP. It doesn't come across as satire, or comedy.

The comedy is in the way he captures what would be written by a biased obnoxious bleeding-heart Labor party voter after everything the party has been through. I don't think he realized this though :P

Normally you could ignore something like this or but seeing how popular its got is alarming. Yes, free speech and all that, but I would prefer this to be removed from Facebook, and something equally popular and vulgar from the LNP be removed if it came about.

The difference between the two policies is ideology. ALP wants everyone to have same speeds regional/city, rich/poor, home/business. ALP wants fairness - this is their guiding ideology as a party in general. This obviously comes at an additional cost, scope and risk (lack of competition, cost-blowouts, etc.).

NLP is just less concerned with fairness and more concerned with cost/benefit even if that means that some people will not have access to the fastest possible internet.

Life is not fair. Look at private/public with respect to schools, uni, health insurance, taxation, etc. Top 25% earners pay 60% of tax. Some children will never be able to attend a private school. Some will never have access to certain treatments or medication. Some will never be able to afford the things they want.

Some people are okay with this, others are not. Both parties will work towards measurable outcomes but in the large areas of grey they fall back to their ideologies.

Yes, the benefits of FTTH are fantastic, but its important not to get swept up in thinking we must do something at all costs.

There are very sensitive assumptions that underpin the cost of the NBN which would change the cost of it substantially such as how many people sign up, how much they will be prepared to pay, etc. There are plenty of risks to the project and even more so considering the involvement of the government. These are just some reasons to be very considerate about the cost.

The ALP worries less about wasteful spending than the LNP. This is easy to do because its only in the long-term where we have to make tough spending decisions because of past wasteful spending.

In the same way you can't fathom the opportunities brought about by the NBN, you also can't fathom the future challenges to the country - ageing population, world population growth, climate change, war, etc.

The frustration the author feels about having a focus on cost/benefit and risk will only become apparent with time. I could argue for anything too if I didn't have to address how much it costs.

Where is the link to the evidence?

Before reading this I felt the logo resembled the Google logo quite a bit in terms of the complexity of the font and the use of bevels, and felt like Marissa was involved and wanted to go for a familiar feel to that of Google. I feel its more likely after reading this considering who level in input.

My first reaction is I don't like it.

It looks dated. The bevel looks like Word Art or something I would have thought was cool when I first started playing around with Photoshop.

Its too complex. I was expecting them to embrace the current trend of flatness, and simplicity is a timeless aesthetic. The cutaways from the tops of the lines add to the complexity along with the many different angles, letter heights, and "O" bowl-size.

It is similar to the Google logo with the bevel, rather than say Apple or Microsoft. Considering Marissa's work on the Google homepage, the familiarity with the Google logo might have made her more confident in this variation.

Losing that distinctive "Y"

I prefer the old logo.

I can see it growing on me though. I would remove the bevel and the caps on the "YAH" letters.

If it were me I probably would have tweaked the original logo and made the font look more mature and symmetrical.