A Investment forum. InvestmentBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » InvestmentBanter forum » Regional » Australia
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"Only 15 per cent of eligible households take up NBN wireless"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old July 10th 14, 11:17 PM posted to aus.politics,aus.comms,aus.invest
Dechucka
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 170
Default "Only 15 per cent of eligible households take up NBN wireless"


"Frank Slootweg" wrote in message
...
Dechucka wrote:

"Frank Slootweg" wrote in message
...
Dechucka wrote:
snip

True this is Usenet.

Figure that, a 'misunderstanding' on Usenet. Never happened before.
News at eleven! :-)

However it would be nice if you could actually
back up your statements

Sorry, but it's impossible to prove a negative. Logic 101.

I say there are no places which did not have any broadband before
and
where there is now (NBN) broadband. If you think there are such
places,
the burden of proof is on you.

Parts of Kiama and any connections to greenfield areas, next

Sigh! Try to keep up, try to read for comprehension and try to read
within context!

Note "which did not have ANY broadband before"! Exactly which parts of
Kiama did not have ANY broadband before? Answer: none.


really, cite please


Sigh! Again Logic 101! One *cannot* (as in: it is impossible) prove a
negative. The burden of proof is on the one - i.e. *you* - who says that
there is/was such a no-broadband area in "Parts of Kiama".


OK OK I see the problem, you don't understand the difference between
braoadband and high speed broadband which Kiama (parts of) now has access to



And please do yourself a favor and do not even try to find such a
place, because you will fall in yet another self-inflicted trap.

[More miscomprehension deleted.]


  #42  
Old July 12th 14, 06:02 PM posted to aus.politics,aus.comms,aus.invest
Frank Slootweg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 113
Default "Only 15 per cent of eligible households take up NBN wireless"

Dechucka wrote:

"Frank Slootweg" wrote in message
...
Dechucka wrote:

"Frank Slootweg" wrote in message
...
Dechucka wrote:
snip

True this is Usenet.

Figure that, a 'misunderstanding' on Usenet. Never happened before.
News at eleven! :-)

However it would be nice if you could actually
back up your statements

Sorry, but it's impossible to prove a negative. Logic 101.

I say there are no places which did not have any broadband before
and
where there is now (NBN) broadband. If you think there are such
places,
the burden of proof is on you.

Parts of Kiama and any connections to greenfield areas, next

Sigh! Try to keep up, try to read for comprehension and try to read
within context!

Note "which did not have ANY broadband before"! Exactly which parts of
Kiama did not have ANY broadband before? Answer: none.

really, cite please


Sigh! Again Logic 101! One *cannot* (as in: it is impossible) prove a
negative. The burden of proof is on the one - i.e. *you* - who says that
there is/was such a no-broadband area in "Parts of Kiama".


OK OK I see the problem, you don't understand the difference between
braoadband and high speed broadband which Kiama (parts of) now has access to


OK, OK, I see the problem, you can't handle being 'wrong', so you back
pedal and redefine your claim. Yet another Logic 101 failure.

EOD.

And please do yourself a favor and do not even try to find such a
place, because you will fall in yet another self-inflicted trap.

[More miscomprehension deleted.]

  #43  
Old July 12th 14, 06:10 PM posted to aus.politics,aus.comms,aus.invest
Frank Slootweg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 113
Default "Only 15 per cent of eligible households take up NBN wireless"

Dechucka wrote:

"Frank Slootweg" wrote in message
...
Dechucka wrote:
"Dechucka" wrote in message
. au...

"Frank Slootweg" wrote in message
...
Dechucka wrote:
snip

True this is Usenet.

Figure that, a 'misunderstanding' on Usenet. Never happened
before.
News at eleven! :-)

However it would be nice if you could actually
back up your statements

Sorry, but it's impossible to prove a negative. Logic 101.

I say there are no places which did not have any broadband before
and
where there is now (NBN) broadband. If you think there are such
places,
the burden of proof is on you.

Parts of Kiama and any connections to greenfield areas, next

Sigh! Try to keep up, try to read for comprehension and try to read
within context!

Note "which did not have ANY broadband before"! Exactly which parts
of
Kiama did not have ANY broadband before? Answer: none.

really, cite please


Never mind that we/I were/was talking in the context of the "digital
divide", which, as I said, is about 'country' - i.e. not Kiama - and
of
course excludes greenfield areas, because they were uninhabited
before,
i.e. *by definition* did not have broadband.

exactly but have it now in answer to your qquestion


Moral: Leave the straw men in the paddocks!

Actually to continue you should really define what you mean by
rural/regional Australia


Maybe I should, *if* I had used those terms, but I didn't!

*You* said "rural". I didn't use the terms, because they were not
relevant/needed, and I avoided them to try to avoid exactly this kind of
non-discussion about them. See how much good *that* did!? :-(


This whole thing started with your comment "Yes, and that decreasing the
capital-city/country divide worked out *so* well, didn't it!? How much
above 0% is the country roll-out now?"


Yes, and your point is!? Hint: Exactly where did I write "rural"
or/and "regional Australia"? Hint2: These are two of those rethorical
thingies.

[Restore^2:]

[Resto]

(AFAIC,) EOD.

====
  #44  
Old July 12th 14, 09:55 PM posted to aus.politics,aus.comms,aus.invest
Dechucka
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 170
Default "Only 15 per cent of eligible households take up NBN wireless"


"Frank Slootweg" wrote in message
...
Dechucka wrote:

"Frank Slootweg" wrote in message
...
Dechucka wrote:
"Dechucka" wrote in message
. au...

"Frank Slootweg" wrote in message
...
Dechucka wrote:
snip

True this is Usenet.

Figure that, a 'misunderstanding' on Usenet. Never happened
before.
News at eleven! :-)

However it would be nice if you could actually
back up your statements

Sorry, but it's impossible to prove a negative. Logic 101.

I say there are no places which did not have any broadband
before
and
where there is now (NBN) broadband. If you think there are such
places,
the burden of proof is on you.

Parts of Kiama and any connections to greenfield areas, next

Sigh! Try to keep up, try to read for comprehension and try to
read
within context!

Note "which did not have ANY broadband before"! Exactly which
parts
of
Kiama did not have ANY broadband before? Answer: none.

really, cite please


Never mind that we/I were/was talking in the context of the
"digital
divide", which, as I said, is about 'country' - i.e. not Kiama -
and
of
course excludes greenfield areas, because they were uninhabited
before,
i.e. *by definition* did not have broadband.

exactly but have it now in answer to your qquestion


Moral: Leave the straw men in the paddocks!

Actually to continue you should really define what you mean by
rural/regional Australia

Maybe I should, *if* I had used those terms, but I didn't!

*You* said "rural". I didn't use the terms, because they were not
relevant/needed, and I avoided them to try to avoid exactly this kind
of
non-discussion about them. See how much good *that* did!? :-(


This whole thing started with your comment "Yes, and that decreasing the
capital-city/country divide worked out *so* well, didn't it!? How much
above 0% is the country roll-out now?"


Yes, and your point is!? Hint: Exactly where did I write "rural"
or/and "regional Australia"? Hint2: These are two of those rethorical
thingies.

[Restore^2:]


True you wrote "Yes, and that decreasing the capital-city/country divide
worked out *so* well, didn't it!? How much above 0% is the country roll-out
now?" and were shown to be wrong

  #45  
Old July 12th 14, 09:56 PM posted to aus.politics,aus.comms,aus.invest
Dechucka
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 170
Default "Only 15 per cent of eligible households take up NBN wireless"


"Frank Slootweg" wrote in message
...
Dechucka wrote:

"Frank Slootweg" wrote in message
...
Dechucka wrote:

"Frank Slootweg" wrote in message
...
Dechucka wrote:
snip

True this is Usenet.

Figure that, a 'misunderstanding' on Usenet. Never happened
before.
News at eleven! :-)

However it would be nice if you could actually
back up your statements

Sorry, but it's impossible to prove a negative. Logic 101.

I say there are no places which did not have any broadband
before
and
where there is now (NBN) broadband. If you think there are such
places,
the burden of proof is on you.

Parts of Kiama and any connections to greenfield areas, next

Sigh! Try to keep up, try to read for comprehension and try to read
within context!

Note "which did not have ANY broadband before"! Exactly which parts
of
Kiama did not have ANY broadband before? Answer: none.

really, cite please

Sigh! Again Logic 101! One *cannot* (as in: it is impossible) prove a
negative. The burden of proof is on the one - i.e. *you* - who says
that
there is/was such a no-broadband area in "Parts of Kiama".


OK OK I see the problem, you don't understand the difference between
braoadband and high speed broadband which Kiama (parts of) now has access
to


OK, OK, I see the problem, you can't handle being 'wrong', so you back
pedal and redefine your claim. Yet another Logic 101 failure.


Nice one Frank in a thread on the NBN you were talking about ADSL broadband,
you're right you got me

  #46  
Old July 12th 14, 10:53 PM posted to aus.politics,aus.comms,aus.invest
Frank Slootweg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 113
Default "Only 15 per cent of eligible households take up NBN wireless"

Dechucka wrote:

"Frank Slootweg" wrote in message
...
Dechucka wrote:

"Frank Slootweg" wrote in message
...
Dechucka wrote:
"Dechucka" wrote in message
. au...

"Frank Slootweg" wrote in message
...
Dechucka wrote:
snip

True this is Usenet.

Figure that, a 'misunderstanding' on Usenet. Never happened
before.
News at eleven! :-)

However it would be nice if you could actually
back up your statements

Sorry, but it's impossible to prove a negative. Logic 101.

I say there are no places which did not have any broadband
before
and
where there is now (NBN) broadband. If you think there are such
places,
the burden of proof is on you.

Parts of Kiama and any connections to greenfield areas, next

Sigh! Try to keep up, try to read for comprehension and try to
read
within context!

Note "which did not have ANY broadband before"! Exactly which
parts
of
Kiama did not have ANY broadband before? Answer: none.

really, cite please


Never mind that we/I were/was talking in the context of the
"digital
divide", which, as I said, is about 'country' - i.e. not Kiama -
and
of
course excludes greenfield areas, because they were uninhabited
before,
i.e. *by definition* did not have broadband.

exactly but have it now in answer to your qquestion


Moral: Leave the straw men in the paddocks!

Actually to continue you should really define what you mean by
rural/regional Australia

Maybe I should, *if* I had used those terms, but I didn't!

*You* said "rural". I didn't use the terms, because they were not
relevant/needed, and I avoided them to try to avoid exactly this kind
of
non-discussion about them. See how much good *that* did!? :-(

This whole thing started with your comment "Yes, and that decreasing the
capital-city/country divide worked out *so* well, didn't it!? How much
above 0% is the country roll-out now?"


Yes, and your point is!? Hint: Exactly where did I write "rural"
or/and "regional Australia"? Hint2: These are two of those rethorical
thingies.

[Restore^2:]


True you wrote "Yes, and that decreasing the capital-city/country divide
worked out *so* well, didn't it!? How much above 0% is the country roll-out
now?" and were shown to be wrong


Give it up! You keep dodging like there is no tomorrow. And earth to
Dechucka: One can not be 'wrong', when one is just asking a question.

*E*O*D*
  #47  
Old July 12th 14, 11:28 PM posted to aus.politics,aus.comms,aus.invest
Dechucka
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 170
Default "Only 15 per cent of eligible households take up NBN wireless"


"Frank Slootweg" wrote in message
...
Dechucka wrote:

"Frank Slootweg" wrote in message
...
Dechucka wrote:

"Frank Slootweg" wrote in message
...
Dechucka wrote:
"Dechucka" wrote in message
. au...

"Frank Slootweg" wrote in message
...
Dechucka wrote:
snip

True this is Usenet.

Figure that, a 'misunderstanding' on Usenet. Never happened
before.
News at eleven! :-)

However it would be nice if you could actually
back up your statements

Sorry, but it's impossible to prove a negative. Logic 101.

I say there are no places which did not have any broadband
before
and
where there is now (NBN) broadband. If you think there are
such
places,
the burden of proof is on you.

Parts of Kiama and any connections to greenfield areas, next

Sigh! Try to keep up, try to read for comprehension and try to
read
within context!

Note "which did not have ANY broadband before"! Exactly which
parts
of
Kiama did not have ANY broadband before? Answer: none.

really, cite please


Never mind that we/I were/was talking in the context of the
"digital
divide", which, as I said, is about 'country' - i.e. not Kiama -
and
of
course excludes greenfield areas, because they were uninhabited
before,
i.e. *by definition* did not have broadband.

exactly but have it now in answer to your qquestion


Moral: Leave the straw men in the paddocks!

Actually to continue you should really define what you mean by
rural/regional Australia

Maybe I should, *if* I had used those terms, but I didn't!

*You* said "rural". I didn't use the terms, because they were not
relevant/needed, and I avoided them to try to avoid exactly this
kind
of
non-discussion about them. See how much good *that* did!? :-(

This whole thing started with your comment "Yes, and that decreasing
the
capital-city/country divide worked out *so* well, didn't it!? How much
above 0% is the country roll-out now?"

Yes, and your point is!? Hint: Exactly where did I write "rural"
or/and "regional Australia"? Hint2: These are two of those rethorical
thingies.

[Restore^2:]


True you wrote "Yes, and that decreasing the capital-city/country divide
worked out *so* well, didn't it!? How much above 0% is the country
roll-out
now?" and were shown to be wrong


Give it up! You keep dodging like there is no tomorrow. And earth to
Dechucka: One can not be 'wrong', when one is just asking a question.


You were wrong because you were shown where the rollout was occuring outside
capital cities you then tried to argue you didn't mean that 'outside capital
cities' but some other thing. Come on Frank the roll out has not been
managed well but it is occurring and will keep us competitive

  #48  
Old August 1st 16, 11:02 AM posted to aus.politics,aus.comms,aus.invest
F Murtz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default "Only 15 per cent of eligible households take up NBN wireless"

Abusive Liar Party wrote:
On 1/07/2014 4:42 PM, Don McKenzie wrote:
On 01-Jul-14 3:23 PM, Dechucka wrote:

Those who want need it can use it those that don't can stick with what
they have. It's called CHOICE


I'm afraid it isn't.
You don't get a choice.

I have a letter from NBN Co stating that my existing service will be
permanently switched of on 14 August 2015, and it is up to me to make
alternative arrangements for my home phone and Internet.

Cheers Don...


Most people will go exclusively mobile and ignore the NBN.








Highly unlikely, there is going to be both fixed cell wireless and FTTN
here shortly and I know which I will be opting for.
  #49  
Old August 1st 16, 11:03 AM posted to aus.politics,aus.comms,aus.invest
F Murtz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default "Only 15 per cent of eligible households take up NBN wireless"

Abusive Liar Party wrote:
On 2/07/2014 12:23 AM, Gordon Levi wrote:
Abusive Liar Party wrote:

On 1/07/2014 4:42 PM, Don McKenzie wrote:
On 01-Jul-14 3:23 PM, Dechucka wrote:

Those who want need it can use it those that don't can stick with what
they have. It's called CHOICE

I'm afraid it isn't.
You don't get a choice.

I have a letter from NBN Co stating that my existing service will be
permanently switched of on 14 August 2015, and it is up to me to make
alternative arrangements for my home phone and Internet.

Cheers Don...



Most people will go exclusively mobile and ignore the NBN.


So why is the government persisting with it? They could just close it
down if that's what the majority want.


The majority want the hype that Labor promised. If you told them that it
would cost them $10,000 per home, they would not want it.

At 15% take-up it will cost $60,000 per home. Still want it?


As long as you are paying for it yes.






  #50  
Old August 1st 16, 11:13 AM posted to aus.politics,aus.comms,aus.invest
Petzl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 583
Default "Only 15 per cent of eligible households take up NBN wireless"

On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 20:02:05 +1000, F Murtz
wrote:

Abusive Liar Party wrote:
On 1/07/2014 4:42 PM, Don McKenzie wrote:
On 01-Jul-14 3:23 PM, Dechucka wrote:

Those who want need it can use it those that don't can stick with what
they have. It's called CHOICE

I'm afraid it isn't.
You don't get a choice.

I have a letter from NBN Co stating that my existing service will be
permanently switched of on 14 August 2015, and it is up to me to make
alternative arrangements for my home phone and Internet.

Cheers Don...


Most people will go exclusively mobile and ignore the NBN.


Highly unlikely, there is going to be both fixed cell wireless and FTTN
here shortly and I know which I will be opting for.


The NBN could make need for mobile obsolete.
I have the Telstra $99 a month plan free calls to Australia land lines
and mobile. The modem they give also allows Telstra customers to use
"Testra Air" which transmits from every Telstra NBN modem.
--
Petzl
Vote oligarchies Coalition, Labor, "Greens"
*LAST*, Federal State and Council!
Or you are voting for Islam and Sharia.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Households will be $3,800 richer by 2020 thanks to speedy broadband Abusive Liar and Popup Australia 0 September 4th 13 12:12 AM
Crime doesn't pay: "Nielsen poll puts Labor's primary vote below30 per cent" ALP = Arrogrant Liars & Pretenders Australia 0 June 17th 13 01:58 AM
"MORE than 60 per cent of Canberrans regularly have sleepless nights" ALP Fomenting Debt Australia 1 December 1st 12 08:22 PM
Laughable "market" drops 40, it's "oversold," fraudulently "rallies 200, never "overbought" [email protected] Stocks & shares 0 March 21st 07 12:42 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 InvestmentBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.