How to Invest Outside the Government-Controlled System

wrcmad said:
If you think communications technology won't evolve in the next 50 years, you are in denial and just kidding yourself.
Evolution - YES, Revolution - NO. Technology has peaked. Nothing revolutionary has been done since the 70s or even before that. Big companies are to blame, buying up all the ideas and shelving them (most get forgotten) to get the ROI on current tech.
 
Dogmatix said:
Okie dokie... so, it looks like he's made a few assumptions in that article.

That's the whole point of making a forecast. Many of those predictions are perfectly logical and simply extrapolate on from existing usage patterns.

Its not a huge stretch to say that since bandwidth has increased everywhere that bandwidth will continue to increase everywhere. People everywhere use bandwidth for the same things.

Cisco is obviously in the hardware market, but whether their attempt to correctly forecast future consumption patterns is a "conflict of interest" or a normal commercial interest in getting it right depends largely on how cynical you are (and I am cynical by nature which is why I think they don't need to turn the study into a sales pitch because they'll make as much money simply by correctly predicting what will happen. They'll send their sales people out later to actually get signatures on the dotted line).

Do we need streaming HDTV? No, not really, but we're going to want it. Obviously exponential growth is impossible, but we're nowhere near our potential peak since we can't even get streaming HDTV yet.

And the Cloud? People have been saying its a fad for years, yet it continues to grow and people keep finding new ways of using remote applications. It's potential is limited to everything that everybody in the world currently does on their local devices which is a staggeringly large amount of stuff.


article said:
In the first year of usage, the average 4G user consumed 28x more data than other users. An artefact of early adopters? Maybe. But history shows early adopters have always led where others followed.

So what they're saying is that people who paid for the faster 4G service, actually used more data because... they wanted to be able to use more data. How did these people survive on 3G! It must have been hell. Some of them might have trouble sleeping until we can get 8G and the latest Apple gadget no doubt. To me all it says is that people who wanted faster data speeds, were also people who wanted access to more data. It is not a weathervane for the rest of the population.

Its been a pretty reliable metric in the past. I used to max out a 28.8k modem and now I'm maxing out 24Mbit ADSL2. I used to max out GPRS on a Nokia 5110 and now I'm maxing out 3G on an iPhone. I'm not an atypical user. People who have more bandwidth end up finding useful things to do with it.

article said:
If the global technology sector, the Fibre To The Home Council and Cisco's report is wrong, then the Coalition needs to say why and not just casually dismiss everything. It can't just keep saying that we don't need fibre to the premises and that fibre to the node (and 4G) is enough when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Why can't they just do fibre to the node and if people want it to their home they can pay for it - even if it is subsidised in some way.

Because in the long run is it is cheaper by orders of magnitude to do it all in one go. Imagine there are twenty houses in one street and having technicians come out out twenty times to roll a single strand of fiber from the node to each house individually.

Building excess capacity into networks has been standard practice for decades because it is simply too costly to build network infrastructure incrementally.

And still, that's what it comes down to IMO - the cost. Is it value for money, even if it is for 'the future'? What if it cost $100Billion, is it value for money then? $200B? 1Trillion? At what value does it become a wasteful exercise? I argue probably about $10-20Billion.

The network engineers designing and building the NBN argue that "good value for money" is about $37 billion (remembering that they're the ones saying it isn't worth the cost of connecting the last 7% of users to fiber).

Dogmatix said:
Big A.D said:
To look at the even bigger picture, think of any of your favorite TV series that and been cancelled and consider whether it would have been cancelled if all if it's fans - all over the world - had been able to pay $5 directly to the people who actually made it.

What is stopping them now? Oh those greedy production companies? How about media saturation? How about, beyond the media that is spoonfed to us, we don't have a whole lot of time to try and expose ourselves to the wonders of the entire internet. Especially the less internet savvy people. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but it will be small fry anyway. If they start making money they'll be bought out and sold 'exclusively'.

The problem is the (current) distribution model. The production companies make what people pay them to make and at the moment they're paid by middlemen. That's why anonymous executives at a Murdoch owned media company get to kill off popular/imaginative/quality content at random.

When the people who experience the content can pay the creators directly, the "spoonfeeding" will start to die off and more innovative business models will take over.
 
Hey Big A.D., dogmatix, etc. Ordinarily I am in favour of privatisation, but I was wondering whether NBN Co should be treated as a special case?

My thinking is that (unless the laws are changed) the Govt will create an artificial monopoly that will have very low operating costs. Consequently, unlike electricity generators etc there won't be much potential to make significant productivity gains and, given the anti-compete clauses, won't be able to use its balance sheet to enter new areas. Hence it will simply be a highly regulated cash cow. In this artificial conditions would we (taxpayers and consumers) get any real gain by privatising NBN Co?

No doubt they'll just force encourage our superfunds to buy something we already own to enable some other random spend.

Thoughts appreciated.
 
We have the benefit of Telstra's history to guide our decisions in this respect :)

Although, Govt owned enterprises are notoriously inflexible and will have higher staff wage overheads, more red tape, etc.

But I dint think it should be owned by private interests, just managed privately perhaps.
 
If you want to make a submission to the Government enquiry into whether or not they will grant themselves authority to implement total surveillence of your online interactions, transactions and to profile you, then the Greens have a handy little form letter to help, with addresses and such to make the submission.

National Security Legislation Inquiry Submission
16 Aug 2012 | Scott Ludlam

How would you feel if your internet service provider (ISP) and phone company was forced to keep a record of every article you read online, every email you sent or received, all location data collected by your phone, every call you made, everything you bought online?

How would you feel if it was made an offense to refuse to hand over your computer passwords?

The Attorney General Nicola Roxon set up a Parliamentary Inquiry last month that could require ISPs to store all this information on you for at least two years and make it available to government to access.

We have very limited time to have our voices heard on this and tell the government that we are citizens, not suspects.

Submissions are due on Monday 20 August.

See the link: http://greensmps.org.au/content/national-security-legislation-inquiry-submission

Scott Ludlam also had a few interesting words in an email today ...
How would you feel if your internet service provider (ISP) kept a record of every article you read online, every email you sent or received, all location data collected by your phone, every call you made, everything you bought online?

How would you feel if it was made an offense to refuse to hand over your computer passwords?

The Attorney-General Nicola Roxon set up a Parliamentary Inquiry last month that could require ISPs to store all this information on you for at least two years and make it available to government to access.

The government's discussion paper doesn't provide any justification for these vastly increased surveillance powers.

We have very limited time to have our voices heard on this and tell the government that we are citizens, not suspects.

Submissions are due on Monday 20 August. Please find out more and send your submission today.

The Greens believe there are better ways to prevent identity theft, online crime and acts of political violence that don't turn all citizens into suspects, eroding the very freedoms that our security agencies were intended to protect.

If we don't stand up for our democratic rights to privacy, freedom of expression and the presumption of innocence, we will lose them.

As Julian Assange and his Wikileaks publishing organisation have discovered, governments around the world are demanding secrecy for themselves and total transparency for citizens. We believe this has the equation the wrong way round.

Send your submission today to tell Nicola Roxon know that Australians want their democratic rights protected, as enshrined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

Yours sincerely,
Scott Ludlam

P.S. Security agencies obtained nearly a quarter of a million requests for access to our telecommunications data in 2010-11. Enough is enough.
 
In case anyone is thinking about making a submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security regarding the proposal of Nicola Roxon to record all your electronic communications and transactions, here are the email details of the committee and a copy of my submission as a reference.

To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Inquiry into potential reforms of National Security Legislation

Dear Mr Secretary,

Firstly, I echo The Greens in their position that "[t]he public has not been given enough time to make submissions to the Committee's Inquiry into potential reforms of National Security Legislation. The complexity, and far-reaching consequences of the proposals in the 6-page Terms of Reference warranted much wider consultation with the Australian community.

Several of the proposals this inquiry could mandate greatly expanded surveillance powers in this country. The case has not been adequately made by the government as to why these powers are needed."

But I particularly am concerned that the case for these surveillance powers assumes that all Australians are suspects, not citizens. At what point in our history did the investigation and prosecuting of crimes become transformed into pre-emptive, all-spectrum surveillance of the citizenry?

The proposals before the Committee amount to an arbitrary and unrelenting intrusion into the privacy of all individuals and as the right to privacy is a fundamental requirement for providing for a person's freedom, these proposals are a removal of freedom from the people of Australia. Further still, the removal of freedom from an individual is nothing less than the imprisonment of that individual as a suspect and is how the proposals before the Committee must be viewed. These proposals amount to the confinement of each member of society within a virtual prison bounded by the surveillance systems the committee is considering and may endorse.

The right of individuals against arbitrary intrusions of their freedom from malevolent governing powers was first enshrined in the Magna Carta and include that only through due process of law shall the freedom of each citizen be constrained and that government shall be accountable to the people. These proposals before the Committee seek to make the people accountable to the government through intruding upon their privacy and placing each person under surveillance. The Committee is considering nothing less than repealing the beneficial provisions of Magna Carta, the ideals and values this document represents and its importance as a constitutional foundation to the Commonwealth of Australia.

There is nothing more private than the personal communications, interactions and transactions an individual undertakes throughout the course of his or her life and while such temporally transient occurrences may not historically be considered of as property, once the temporal transience is removed and these occurrences are rendered enduring by recording they must be considered the very Private Property of the individuals and participants active in their creation, if privacy and freedom is to be preserved. Yet the proposals before the Committee call for appropriating the property of these recordings of private communications and transactions to the Government and its agencies. These are simply and morally the private property of the people falling under the surveillance technologies suggested to be imposed and the arbitrary appropriation of such by the Government into its own databases contravenes any standards of due process.

Where causeless restraint is not observed by Government in relation to the citizenry there is instead tyranny. Therefore, I implore the Committee to reassert its moral responsibility for protecting individual property rights in the efforts of the Government to maintain a public commons that supports the livelihood of the citizenry while preserving our freedom, be that in the virtual space of the Internet or in the physical world.


Sincerely,


Gino
 
bordsilver said:
Hey Big A.D., dogmatix, etc. Ordinarily I am in favour of privatisation, but I was wondering whether NBN Co should be treated as a special case?

My thinking is that (unless the laws are changed) the Govt will create an artificial monopoly that will have very low operating costs. Consequently, unlike electricity generators etc there won't be much potential to make significant productivity gains and, given the anti-compete clauses, won't be able to use its balance sheet to enter new areas. Hence it will simply be a highly regulated cash cow. In this artificial conditions would we (taxpayers and consumers) get any real gain by privatising NBN Co?

No doubt they'll just force encourage our superfunds to buy something we already own to enable some other random spend.

Thoughts appreciated.

I'm in favour of privatisation where its appropriate too.

For example, the government probably isn't the best structure for running a "phone company" and I don't want some bureaucrat deciding for me that I can either have a Blackberry phone or nothing so in that respect selling off the retail division of Telstra would have been fine. Of course what actually happened is that they sold off the whole lot in one go and dumped a vertically integrate monopoly slap bang into the middle of the private sector and threw everything out of balance.

Fast forward to now and NBNCo has had to buy back the rights to run their fiber through Telstra's ducts and pits.

If NBNCo were to be privatised later, we the taxpayers wouldn't get much benefit. We'd get a huge one-off cash windfall, but the NBNCo is going to be run at a very small profit (about 7%) for the shareholders (currently the government is the only shareholder) and that very small profit wouldn't be large enough for a commercial operator that is duty-bound to make the maximum return possible for it's (private) shareholders. To avoid a private operator just coming in and jacking up prices across the board, the only way to privatise NBNCo would be to regulate the heck out of it and we'd be likely to see the same sort of Sol Trujillo-era fights that Telstra had with the government over what the private operator is allowed to do and how much money it is "permitted" to make.

The only reason someone would be stupid enough to privatise it is if:

(a) They needed (or just wanted) to "cash in" and get a huge windfall from the proceeds of the sale, or

(b) Their political philosophy requires that government assets be sold, regardless of the circumstances.

Perhaps if the government wanted to access some of their equity in the NBN they could issue bonds backed by NBNCo revenue (say, pay out 5% of the 7% return and still pick up 2% in cash), but generally, no, there wouldn't be much benefit to anyone is selling it off. It would be a dud buy for any private operator that could actually afford to buy it, it wouldn't be particularly great for the government and it wouldn't create any benefits for resellers or consumers that couldn't be achieved under the current government-owned enterprise model that exists now.
 
The NBN was always necessary , Labour’s FTTP was a no brainer but the Libs stuffed it up bigtime and now are back pedaling to stop us from having a third world system. The FTTN was always going to leave users left behind the rest of the world.

Some posters crying it is not needed and should not be forced on the public.
If that attitude was maintained we would still be driving from melbourne to Sydney on gravel roads.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top