afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:Joffa wrote:ricecrackers wrote:Joffa wrote:ricecrackers wrote:Joffa wrote:ricecrackers wrote:Heineken wrote:Wants to save the planet, recommends Nuclear Power the way to go. :lol: you probably wont be around in 1000 years time, but I can guarantee you that nuclear energy will be the primary power source behind human civilisation by then Yes because it is much more likely that in the next 1000 years we don't develop or discover any additional primary power sources...after all in the last 150 years we've only gone through steam, coal, oil, hydro, solar and nuclear...amongst others. still getting your hopes up for dilithium crystals? Sorry my mistake, I thought you were having a serious conversation...carry on. you want serious answer? all of your examples were discovered more than 100 years ago. so progress hasnt exactly been swift since in finding entirely new energy sources Really? solar and nuclear? really radium was discovered in 1898 Harnessing Nuclear energy wasn't discovered until the 1930's. So according to ricecrackers the internet is only useful for watching Game of Thrones and porn. No business could possibly ever benefit from faster, more efficient internet and if they would then they should pay for it themselves. Because a company worth $10m is going to be able to afford a $50bn network construction. Because ricecrackers is a selfish asshole who would rather have tax cuts than see businesses remain competitive on an international scale.
|
|
|
|
DB-PGFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 499,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:ricecrackers wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:-Copper networks are degrading over time and costing a lot more in maintenance and upkeep -Greenfields construction areas have been fibre already for years -Fibre is the natural progression of technology as a medium for data transmission -More and more technologies are now IP based -One of the benefits of fibre is jamming more bandwidth through it but mainly is its transmission distances -International links are transceiver dependent moreso than medium dependent
List goes on, yada yada yada.
Checkmate.
Get over it.
-PB the taxpayer shouldnt fund it get that into your head then get over it Yet we used to before government sold off Telstra which has proven to be a fatal mistake. You say the taxpayer shouldn't fund it, yet we still are with an ageing out of date copper network. You seem to have this hate against fibre for the reason of people downloading movies, not because it is becoming an integral service like water, electricity and sewage. -PB the false dilemma seems to be a typical theme with you. however, the taxpayer neednt fund something that is primarily going to be used for downloading movies because thats whats going to take up most of the bandwidth, i can guarantee that. going from 25mb/s to 100mb/s is not essential to infrastructure. of course telstra are going to whinge about the ageing infrastructure. thats how they get billions of dollars from the government. so naive. Why do you keep paring 100mb/s to 25mb/s? I agree in a way that 100mb/s is pretty useless overkill. But no way in fuck is pretty much anyone in the country getting anywhere near 25mb/s. We are in need of an urgent upgrade before it becomes even more expensive.
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
DB-PGFC wrote:ricecrackers wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:ricecrackers wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:-Copper networks are degrading over time and costing a lot more in maintenance and upkeep -Greenfields construction areas have been fibre already for years -Fibre is the natural progression of technology as a medium for data transmission -More and more technologies are now IP based -One of the benefits of fibre is jamming more bandwidth through it but mainly is its transmission distances -International links are transceiver dependent moreso than medium dependent
List goes on, yada yada yada.
Checkmate.
Get over it.
-PB the taxpayer shouldnt fund it get that into your head then get over it Yet we used to before government sold off Telstra which has proven to be a fatal mistake. You say the taxpayer shouldn't fund it, yet we still are with an ageing out of date copper network. You seem to have this hate against fibre for the reason of people downloading movies, not because it is becoming an integral service like water, electricity and sewage. -PB the false dilemma seems to be a typical theme with you. however, the taxpayer neednt fund something that is primarily going to be used for downloading movies because thats whats going to take up most of the bandwidth, i can guarantee that. going from 25mb/s to 100mb/s is not essential to infrastructure. of course telstra are going to whinge about the ageing infrastructure. thats how they get billions of dollars from the government. so naive. Why do you keep paring 100mb/s to 25mb/s? I agree in a way that 100mb/s is pretty useless overkill. But no way in fuck is pretty much anyone in the country getting anywhere near 25mb/s. We are in need of an urgent upgrade before it becomes even more expensive. comparing typical best case vs typical best case for arguments sake you wont get 100 with fiber either in practice most in the country are probably getting 10 to 20. quite decent for majority of applications. no way in the world every street in the nation needs fiber.
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:ricecrackers wrote:MvFCArsenal16.8 wrote:Nuclear is clean but the waste is the hard part. Where to store it without making a place a dumping place for radioactive waste . hence why to spend some of that $50bn on research thorium reactors for example eat their own waste but to go conventional we have this stat To bad nobody will be able to download the plans for such reactors because the internet will be too slow. Pbagz 421 - Crackhead 0 Checking your mates. -PB your mental state is deteriorating with every post. not that you were coming off a high base to begin with however i suggest you take a break Nah, sometimes to deal with a retard you gotta stoop to their level so it's in a language they understand. You can't comprehend when you're wrong so you go into your shell defensive mode and just deflect deflect deflect. Sok. You're done now, you've been curbstomped enough so I will ease it up on you. Was a good game of chess, didn't put up much of a fight compared to other posters here but I guess you're now just some other lacky who has tasted my balls. Back on topic; Wonder what Obama and Tone will get up to this week, Climate Change discussion could get awkward. I just hope for the love of God they're aren't any long starting pauses :lol: -PB
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:DB-PGFC wrote:ricecrackers wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:ricecrackers wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:-Copper networks are degrading over time and costing a lot more in maintenance and upkeep -Greenfields construction areas have been fibre already for years -Fibre is the natural progression of technology as a medium for data transmission -More and more technologies are now IP based -One of the benefits of fibre is jamming more bandwidth through it but mainly is its transmission distances -International links are transceiver dependent moreso than medium dependent
List goes on, yada yada yada.
Checkmate.
Get over it.
-PB the taxpayer shouldnt fund it get that into your head then get over it Yet we used to before government sold off Telstra which has proven to be a fatal mistake. You say the taxpayer shouldn't fund it, yet we still are with an ageing out of date copper network. You seem to have this hate against fibre for the reason of people downloading movies, not because it is becoming an integral service like water, electricity and sewage. -PB the false dilemma seems to be a typical theme with you. however, the taxpayer neednt fund something that is primarily going to be used for downloading movies because thats whats going to take up most of the bandwidth, i can guarantee that. going from 25mb/s to 100mb/s is not essential to infrastructure. of course telstra are going to whinge about the ageing infrastructure. thats how they get billions of dollars from the government. so naive. Why do you keep paring 100mb/s to 25mb/s? I agree in a way that 100mb/s is pretty useless overkill. But no way in fuck is pretty much anyone in the country getting anywhere near 25mb/s. We are in need of an urgent upgrade before it becomes even more expensive. comparing typical best case vs typical best case for arguments sake you wont get 100 with fiber either in practice most in the country are probably getting 10 to 20. quite decent for majority of applications. no way in the world every street in the nation needs fiber. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:  -PB
|
|
|
u4486662
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.8K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
paulbagzFC wrote:ricecrackers wrote:DB-PGFC wrote:ricecrackers wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:ricecrackers wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:-Copper networks are degrading over time and costing a lot more in maintenance and upkeep -Greenfields construction areas have been fibre already for years -Fibre is the natural progression of technology as a medium for data transmission -More and more technologies are now IP based -One of the benefits of fibre is jamming more bandwidth through it but mainly is its transmission distances -International links are transceiver dependent moreso than medium dependent
List goes on, yada yada yada.
Checkmate.
Get over it.
-PB the taxpayer shouldnt fund it get that into your head then get over it Yet we used to before government sold off Telstra which has proven to be a fatal mistake. You say the taxpayer shouldn't fund it, yet we still are with an ageing out of date copper network. You seem to have this hate against fibre for the reason of people downloading movies, not because it is becoming an integral service like water, electricity and sewage. -PB the false dilemma seems to be a typical theme with you. however, the taxpayer neednt fund something that is primarily going to be used for downloading movies because thats whats going to take up most of the bandwidth, i can guarantee that. going from 25mb/s to 100mb/s is not essential to infrastructure. of course telstra are going to whinge about the ageing infrastructure. thats how they get billions of dollars from the government. so naive. Why do you keep paring 100mb/s to 25mb/s? I agree in a way that 100mb/s is pretty useless overkill. But no way in fuck is pretty much anyone in the country getting anywhere near 25mb/s. We are in need of an urgent upgrade before it becomes even more expensive. comparing typical best case vs typical best case for arguments sake you wont get 100 with fiber either in practice most in the country are probably getting 10 to 20. quite decent for majority of applications. no way in the world every street in the nation needs fiber. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:  -PB
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
All this talk of 25 vs 100 misses the point. It's upload speeds which are dire in this country. That's what's hamstringing businesses. I can download at a pretty reasonable clip for my purposes but try and send something and you've got all sorts of dramas. Edited by munrubenmuz: 11/6/2014 10:05:55 AM
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
rocknerd
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.6K,
Visits: 0
|
Munrubenmuz wrote:All this talk of 25 vs 100 misses the point.
It's upload speeds which are dire in this country. That's what's hamstringing businesses.
I can download at a pretty reasonable clip for my purposes but try and send something and you've got all sorts of dramas.
Edited by munrubenmuz: 11/6/2014 10:05:55 AM This, I listen to an interview with an animator, who works out of Sydney and it is faster to download all her work onto a USB and mail it to her employer in Europe than it is to upload it to them. Seriously, think of how slow that is!
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
Glad our taxpayer money is being spent well on jetting Tone over to the USA to have a good ol yarn to his mate Rupert Murdoch. Sure there will be plenty of 20 year old single malt flowing during that chat. -PB
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
rocknerd wrote:Munrubenmuz wrote:All this talk of 25 vs 100 misses the point.
It's upload speeds which are dire in this country. That's what's hamstringing businesses.
I can download at a pretty reasonable clip for my purposes but try and send something and you've got all sorts of dramas.
Edited by munrubenmuz: 11/6/2014 10:05:55 AM This, I listen to an interview with an animator, who works out of Sydney and it is faster to download all her work onto a USB and mail it to her employer in Europe than it is to upload it to them. Seriously, think of how slow that is! Meanwhile, those European clients are wondering exactly how backward things are in Australia and considering not bringing their patronage back to the company. But hey, ricecrackers got a few bucks off his tax bill so it's all good, right?
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Munrubenmuz wrote:All this talk of 25 vs 100 misses the point.
It's upload speeds which are dire in this country. That's what's hamstringing businesses.
I can download at a pretty reasonable clip for my purposes but try and send something and you've got all sorts of dramas.
Edited by munrubenmuz: 11/6/2014 10:05:55 AM you need to pay your ISP more for better upload speeds
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
paulbagzFC wrote:ricecrackers wrote:DB-PGFC wrote:ricecrackers wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:ricecrackers wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:-Copper networks are degrading over time and costing a lot more in maintenance and upkeep -Greenfields construction areas have been fibre already for years -Fibre is the natural progression of technology as a medium for data transmission -More and more technologies are now IP based -One of the benefits of fibre is jamming more bandwidth through it but mainly is its transmission distances -International links are transceiver dependent moreso than medium dependent
List goes on, yada yada yada.
Checkmate.
Get over it.
-PB the taxpayer shouldnt fund it get that into your head then get over it Yet we used to before government sold off Telstra which has proven to be a fatal mistake. You say the taxpayer shouldn't fund it, yet we still are with an ageing out of date copper network. You seem to have this hate against fibre for the reason of people downloading movies, not because it is becoming an integral service like water, electricity and sewage. -PB the false dilemma seems to be a typical theme with you. however, the taxpayer neednt fund something that is primarily going to be used for downloading movies because thats whats going to take up most of the bandwidth, i can guarantee that. going from 25mb/s to 100mb/s is not essential to infrastructure. of course telstra are going to whinge about the ageing infrastructure. thats how they get billions of dollars from the government. so naive. Why do you keep paring 100mb/s to 25mb/s? I agree in a way that 100mb/s is pretty useless overkill. But no way in fuck is pretty much anyone in the country getting anywhere near 25mb/s. We are in need of an urgent upgrade before it becomes even more expensive. comparing typical best case vs typical best case for arguments sake you wont get 100 with fiber either in practice most in the country are probably getting 10 to 20. quite decent for majority of applications. no way in the world every street in the nation needs fiber. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:  -PB 95 < 100 last time i checked didnt you learn that in grade 1 maths?
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
Thinks that 20mbps is 'adequate' when comparing 'typical best case' where he cited 25mbps.
States 95mbps isn't 100mbps and should therefore be dismissed.
What an A-Grade fuckwit.
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
afrodope getting angry again inventing false arguments and leveling abuse
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
Are you shitting me? inventing false arguments? You stated that 10-20mbps was adequate on a 25mbps network (which by the way is some of the slowest in the developed world). But 95mbps on a 100mbps network isn't 100mbps and so the argument is invalid.
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
afromanGT wrote:Are you shitting me? inventing false arguments? You stated that 10-20mbps was adequate on a 25mbps network (which by the way is some of the slowest in the developed world). But 95mbps on a 100mbps network isn't 100mbps and so the argument is invalid.  I never made such a claim afrodope
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
Uncanny that both Afro and ricecrackers manage to login at the exact same time once a day.
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:Uncanny that both Afro and ricecrackers manage to login at the exact same time once a day. cool conspiracy bro perhaps you need to go back to your women bashing forum of like minded paranoids
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:ricecrackers wrote:DB-PGFC wrote:ricecrackers wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:ricecrackers wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:-Copper networks are degrading over time and costing a lot more in maintenance and upkeep -Greenfields construction areas have been fibre already for years -Fibre is the natural progression of technology as a medium for data transmission -More and more technologies are now IP based -One of the benefits of fibre is jamming more bandwidth through it but mainly is its transmission distances -International links are transceiver dependent moreso than medium dependent
List goes on, yada yada yada.
Checkmate.
Get over it.
-PB the taxpayer shouldnt fund it get that into your head then get over it Yet we used to before government sold off Telstra which has proven to be a fatal mistake. You say the taxpayer shouldn't fund it, yet we still are with an ageing out of date copper network. You seem to have this hate against fibre for the reason of people downloading movies, not because it is becoming an integral service like water, electricity and sewage. -PB the false dilemma seems to be a typical theme with you. however, the taxpayer neednt fund something that is primarily going to be used for downloading movies because thats whats going to take up most of the bandwidth, i can guarantee that. going from 25mb/s to 100mb/s is not essential to infrastructure. of course telstra are going to whinge about the ageing infrastructure. thats how they get billions of dollars from the government. so naive. Why do you keep paring 100mb/s to 25mb/s? I agree in a way that 100mb/s is pretty useless overkill. But no way in fuck is pretty much anyone in the country getting anywhere near 25mb/s. We are in need of an urgent upgrade before it becomes even more expensive. comparing typical best case vs typical best case for arguments sake you wont get 100 with fiber either in practice most in the country are probably getting 10 to 20. quite decent for majority of applications. no way in the world every street in the nation needs fiber. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:  -PB 95 < 100 last time i checked didnt you learn that in grade 1 maths? Was waiting for you to say this as it shows your complete lack of knowledge on networking :lol: You can never hit the full 100 due to a thing called TCP overheads, Google it. Crackhead down, repeat we have a crackhead down. Just stop posting about the NBN :lol: -PB
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:Uncanny that both Afro and ricecrackers manage to login at the exact same time once a day. uncanny that you do the same.
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
paulbagzFC wrote:ricecrackers wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:ricecrackers wrote:DB-PGFC wrote:ricecrackers wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:ricecrackers wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:-Copper networks are degrading over time and costing a lot more in maintenance and upkeep -Greenfields construction areas have been fibre already for years -Fibre is the natural progression of technology as a medium for data transmission -More and more technologies are now IP based -One of the benefits of fibre is jamming more bandwidth through it but mainly is its transmission distances -International links are transceiver dependent moreso than medium dependent
List goes on, yada yada yada.
Checkmate.
Get over it.
-PB the taxpayer shouldnt fund it get that into your head then get over it Yet we used to before government sold off Telstra which has proven to be a fatal mistake. You say the taxpayer shouldn't fund it, yet we still are with an ageing out of date copper network. You seem to have this hate against fibre for the reason of people downloading movies, not because it is becoming an integral service like water, electricity and sewage. -PB the false dilemma seems to be a typical theme with you. however, the taxpayer neednt fund something that is primarily going to be used for downloading movies because thats whats going to take up most of the bandwidth, i can guarantee that. going from 25mb/s to 100mb/s is not essential to infrastructure. of course telstra are going to whinge about the ageing infrastructure. thats how they get billions of dollars from the government. so naive. Why do you keep paring 100mb/s to 25mb/s? I agree in a way that 100mb/s is pretty useless overkill. But no way in fuck is pretty much anyone in the country getting anywhere near 25mb/s. We are in need of an urgent upgrade before it becomes even more expensive. comparing typical best case vs typical best case for arguments sake you wont get 100 with fiber either in practice most in the country are probably getting 10 to 20. quite decent for majority of applications. no way in the world every street in the nation needs fiber. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:  -PB 95 < 100 last time i checked didnt you learn that in grade 1 maths? Was waiting for you to say this as it shows your complete lack of knowledge on networking :lol: You can never hit the full 100 due to a thing called TCP overheads, Google it. Crackhead down, repeat we have a crackhead down. Just stop posting about the NBN :lol: -PB no fucking shit which is why i said you wont get 100 in the first place you're mentally ill
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
Brilliant, even the denials were coordinated.
|
|
|
jlm8695
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
PB's upload speed makes me sad sad sad sad. 110/2 4 lyf 3
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
jlm8695 wrote:PB's upload speed makes me sad sad sad sad. 110/2 4 lyf 3 Ditto, when I'm lucky I get 2.5 up!
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:ricecrackers wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:ricecrackers wrote:DB-PGFC wrote:ricecrackers wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:ricecrackers wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:-Copper networks are degrading over time and costing a lot more in maintenance and upkeep -Greenfields construction areas have been fibre already for years -Fibre is the natural progression of technology as a medium for data transmission -More and more technologies are now IP based -One of the benefits of fibre is jamming more bandwidth through it but mainly is its transmission distances -International links are transceiver dependent moreso than medium dependent
List goes on, yada yada yada.
Checkmate.
Get over it.
-PB the taxpayer shouldnt fund it get that into your head then get over it Yet we used to before government sold off Telstra which has proven to be a fatal mistake. You say the taxpayer shouldn't fund it, yet we still are with an ageing out of date copper network. You seem to have this hate against fibre for the reason of people downloading movies, not because it is becoming an integral service like water, electricity and sewage. -PB the false dilemma seems to be a typical theme with you. however, the taxpayer neednt fund something that is primarily going to be used for downloading movies because thats whats going to take up most of the bandwidth, i can guarantee that. going from 25mb/s to 100mb/s is not essential to infrastructure. of course telstra are going to whinge about the ageing infrastructure. thats how they get billions of dollars from the government. so naive. Why do you keep paring 100mb/s to 25mb/s? I agree in a way that 100mb/s is pretty useless overkill. But no way in fuck is pretty much anyone in the country getting anywhere near 25mb/s. We are in need of an urgent upgrade before it becomes even more expensive. comparing typical best case vs typical best case for arguments sake you wont get 100 with fiber either in practice most in the country are probably getting 10 to 20. quite decent for majority of applications. no way in the world every street in the nation needs fiber. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:  -PB 95 < 100 last time i checked didnt you learn that in grade 1 maths? Was waiting for you to say this as it shows your complete lack of knowledge on networking :lol: You can never hit the full 100 due to a thing called TCP overheads, Google it. Crackhead down, repeat we have a crackhead down. Just stop posting about the NBN :lol: -PB no fucking shit which is why i said you wont get 100 in the first place you're mentally ill LOL Yes, because you referenced things like TCP overheads rofl. You got fucking served son. Off to other threads ya go. -PB
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:Brilliant, even the denials were coordinated. If I'm replying at the same time, how can I be logged in to both accounts simultaneously?
|
|
|
Heineken
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 49K,
Visits: 0
|
afromanGT wrote:notorganic wrote:Brilliant, even the denials were coordinated. If I'm replying at the same time, how can I be logged in to both accounts simultaneously? Different Computers. Ermagherd. Yur a Murlti!! =; =; =; Gotcha! Checkmate!
WOLLONGONG WOLVES FOR A-LEAGUE EXPANSION!

|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
afromanGT wrote:notorganic wrote:Brilliant, even the denials were coordinated. If I'm replying at the same time, how can I be logged in to both accounts simultaneously? Incognito mode. -PB
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
paulbagzFC wrote:ricecrackers wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:ricecrackers wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:ricecrackers wrote:DB-PGFC wrote:ricecrackers wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:ricecrackers wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:-Copper networks are degrading over time and costing a lot more in maintenance and upkeep -Greenfields construction areas have been fibre already for years -Fibre is the natural progression of technology as a medium for data transmission -More and more technologies are now IP based -One of the benefits of fibre is jamming more bandwidth through it but mainly is its transmission distances -International links are transceiver dependent moreso than medium dependent
List goes on, yada yada yada.
Checkmate.
Get over it.
-PB the taxpayer shouldnt fund it get that into your head then get over it Yet we used to before government sold off Telstra which has proven to be a fatal mistake. You say the taxpayer shouldn't fund it, yet we still are with an ageing out of date copper network. You seem to have this hate against fibre for the reason of people downloading movies, not because it is becoming an integral service like water, electricity and sewage. -PB the false dilemma seems to be a typical theme with you. however, the taxpayer neednt fund something that is primarily going to be used for downloading movies because thats whats going to take up most of the bandwidth, i can guarantee that. going from 25mb/s to 100mb/s is not essential to infrastructure. of course telstra are going to whinge about the ageing infrastructure. thats how they get billions of dollars from the government. so naive. Why do you keep paring 100mb/s to 25mb/s? I agree in a way that 100mb/s is pretty useless overkill. But no way in fuck is pretty much anyone in the country getting anywhere near 25mb/s. We are in need of an urgent upgrade before it becomes even more expensive. comparing typical best case vs typical best case for arguments sake you wont get 100 with fiber either in practice most in the country are probably getting 10 to 20. quite decent for majority of applications. no way in the world every street in the nation needs fiber. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:  -PB 95 < 100 last time i checked didnt you learn that in grade 1 maths? Was waiting for you to say this as it shows your complete lack of knowledge on networking :lol: You can never hit the full 100 due to a thing called TCP overheads, Google it. Crackhead down, repeat we have a crackhead down. Just stop posting about the NBN :lol: -PB no fucking shit which is why i said you wont get 100 in the first place you're mentally ill LOL Yes, because you referenced things like TCP overheads rofl. You got fucking served son. Off to other threads ya go. -PB why would i need to go into that when its not even central to the discussion? you're a snotty IT nerd who thinks he's a king shit know it all, but you probably work in a call centre in reality you dont know half of what you think you know you're desperately trying to demonstrate your expertise when all you're doing is highlighting how much of a wingnut you are
|
|
|