The Coalition has promised more than $6 billion to improve internet broadband services for Australians if it is elected to government.

Finance spokesman Andrew Robb and communications spokesman Tony Smith have unveiled the plan in Canberra today as an alternative to Labor's National Broadband Network.

The major policy announcement was left to Mr Smith and Mr Robb as Opposition Leader Tony Abbott campaigned in Sydney today.

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.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/10/2978634.htm

----------------------

The head of the National Broadband Network (NBN) has rejected suggestions he timed a major announcement about faster downloads speeds to have maximum impact on the federal election.

The Government this morning confirmed the network will be able provide downloads at up to 1 gigabit a second - which is 10 times faster than originally planned.

The top speed is also nearly 100 times faster than the minimum speed promised under the Coalition's alternative broadband scheme.

But NBN co-chief executive Michael Quigley says there is nothing suspicious about the timing of the announcement.

"We in fact made this decision to go to 1 gigabits... after some considerable study we decided, 'What do we do? We sit on it because there's an election on?'," he said.

"Or do we do what we normally do, which is to announce it to the industry. I decided the right thing to do was to announce it to the industry."

Mr Quigley says the total cost of the project will not exceed the $43 billion upper limit estimated by the Government.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/12/2981301.htm

------------------

Gus: meanwhile anyone who has benefited from the flat 900 dollars tax break, would be duplicitous to vote for Tony...

 

No doubt about that Gus .....

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says he's "no Bill Gates" and he proved it again last night in a "town hall" session at Rooty Hill RSL, causing some online ridicule.

The man who wants to be Australia's next prime minister had no idea there was a debate raging about creating an R18+ rating for video games and told the audience "for me broadband basically is about being able to send an email, receive an email".

Abbott's car analogy for broadband was turned on its head by one audience member to much laughter, but this was left out of the official transcript released by the Liberal Party.

Abbott justified his lack of knowledge on broadband yesterday, saying "just because you don't know exactly how every last detail of the motor car works doesn't mean that you can't drive it effectively".

Cyber sphere's verdict: Abbott.com clueless

Like a bulldog, I am very interested in the future of my offsprings, how they would handle Chenobyl or the depleted uranium in Kosovo and Falluja.

What is the nuclear reator policy of the Howard clone Abbott and, how will that be handled by Cardinal Pell?

I quote from countepunch...

From Hiroshima to Fallujah Nuclear News, Nuclear Fears and the Role of Science

By BARBARA ROSE JOHNSTON

I received last week copies of two very different publications reporting on outcomes from the scientific assessment of life in the warzone. Specifically, these studies considered the health experience of resident populations living in areas contaminated by nuclear weapons fallout, and more recently, by the low-level radiation that accompanies modern warfare.

The first is a set of eight papers published in the August 2010 issue of the journal Health Physics and reflects conclusions from US-government sponsored science about radiation and cancer risks ("Radiation doses and cancer risks in the Marshall Islands associated with exposure to radioactive fallout from Bikini and Enewetak nuclear weapons tests: summary" by Steven L Simon, André Bouville, Charles E Land, and Harold L Beck).

The second is a study conducted by an international and independent team of scientists published in the journal International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health is about the health effects of war on the local population of Fallujah, Iraq. ("Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth Sex-Ratio in Fallujah, Iraq 2005-2009" by Chris Busby, Malak Hamdan, and Entesar Ariabi http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/7/7/2828/).

Appropriate reading, as much of the news in the past few days has focused on the ceremonies surrounding the 65th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the human suffering associated with nuclear war.

Nuclear worries and concerns have been a major feature in world news for years, but especially so in this first decade of a new century.

A review of today's global headlines finds reports of fear and accusations over the development of a nuclear weapon in Iran, and fears of nuclear war on the Korean peninsula and in Kashmir, the Himalayan territory that lies between Pakistan and India. Fidel Castro's first address in four years to the Cuban Parliament warns of an imminent nuclear war if the US follows through on its threat of retaliation against Iran for not abiding nuclear-arms sanctions.  (And Iran is a nation whose citizens are prepared to give their lives to their right to live as they decide)

The health effects of radiation exposure are also a featured subject in the day's headlines, with widespread coverage of the experiences of Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors. [Been there and seen that] And, largely in US and UK papers, sporadic reporting on scientific studies that soothe consumer fears over low-level over radiation exposure via airport security scans, cell phone batteries, communications towers, and nuclear power generation.

In Pennsylvania, the State is providing free potassium iodide tablets for residents living near nuclear power plants in an effort to soothe citizen fears over the dangers of low-level radiation. 

In Russia, radiation health concerns are in the news as hundreds of wildfires burn Chernobyl-contaminated lands and threaten new disasters at nuclear power, research and weapons facilities. [Remember that Australia is a parched and fire defenseless nation]

Reading through the headlines and the nuclear news you find a continuum in the nuclear narrative. Nuclear war is horrific, to be feared, to be avoided. And, yet, the various and sundry assaults from low-level exposures to radiation are specific to the individual, do not cause genetic and thus inter-generational harm, and with modest interventions from the State, are manageable. 

COMMENT:  We know that the Labor government is against building Nuclear Power Stations just as we know that the Howard “New Order” even went to the trouble of allowing wealthy mates to form a registered company for that purpose?

We also know that the UK and US used depleted Uranium shells in Falluja with horrendous consequences.  They also used them in Kosovo.

Why, when the opposition of the citizens of those countries were so easily defeated by many other less dangerous methods?  Because the proliferation of Nuclear Reactors throughout the world is increasing to a point where, using the waste as weapons is the only “advertised” method of disposal.

At a time when the world is supposedly afraid of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of say the radical Pakistanis and the Indians?  Oops, both of them were made Nuclear Powers by primarily the US. Well how about a Abbott Australia?  Would Cardinal Pell advise him to do that or would he wait and free him of his sins?

When Obama says that we should all “pull our heads in” with respect to nuclear weapons I suggest that the mere building of Nuclear Reactors is the basic need for those weapons?  Look at the independent people of Iran – the Military/Corporate UK/US/Zionists rightly, according to them, have forbidden them the right to nuclear power even though they signed the treaty and “Israel” hasn’t.  Fair dinkum.  Talk about hypocrisy.

IF the alliance is true about nuclear energy, a method should be found to stop the nuclear reactors from producing enriched uranium.  And I don’t mean bomb the blazers out of them.

We had a reasonable example of Howard’s nuclear waste intentions prior to his “intervention” in Aboriginal affairs.  He removed their rights to oppose his not so well hidden objective to dump his allies’ nuclear waste in their territory.  I kid you not.

So I ask, bearing in mind that the Labor party have not changed their safety first views on the subject – does Abbott and Howard’s remnants still want nuclear power, without weapons, in Australia? And where will the waste go?

Why have the unclean and dangerous Nuclear Power and its inevitable killer waste, when with a little bit of “duty of care” we could avoid the calamity portrayed in “On the Beach” and yes Gus and John, I had a bit part in the movie filmed in Frankston Victoria, and the rotten so and so’s cut out my part and the beautiful model I was dancing with. What a life.

May all of the religions in our nation vote to keep nuclear reactors and its product of nuclear waste out of our nation. We can do it. NE OUBLIE.

 

 

From the SMH letters...

The benefit of a one-gigabit a second connection eludes me, although I am a significant internet user (''NBN to announce huge increase in speed'', August 12). My present cable broadband speed is about two megabits a second. Upload speed is slower - about 220 kilobits a second.

Would I like it a bit faster? The uploads, yes. The rest doesn't worry me. It is the servers that find the information I want that are a bigger constraint. A doubling in speed would occasionally be nice, but 500 times faster? I fail to see the benefit for me, or for most other users, especially at a taxpayer cost of more than $4000 for each fast broadband connection to every dwelling and business in Australia.

No wonder Labor is trying to avoid making a business case and relying instead on a mixture of hyperbole, denigration of doubters and condescension.

Until someone can explain how the cost can be justified in benefits, I regard this as a mixture of ego trip and leap of faith. Not a way to run a government.

Graham Lewis Lindfield

 

--------------------

Gus: Thomases!!!!...

Graham Lewis appears to be a Liberal voter who is left stranded by the idea that Labor could do something better than the Libshits...

Graham, internet speed will bring you some fascinating things like much faster uploads as you mention. If you use FTP (file transfer protocol — "independent of internet providers") like I do, especially files that can be upwards to one gigabyte, you would see some major time savings. Further more, with high speed internet one will be able to access high definition movies and information channels. Also the high speed network will allow far more people to access the network AT THE SAME TIME, without a drop in the serving speed... On the old copper network, if more people are on the net in your vicinity, the access speed slows down, down, down. Even on the present cable network, only a certain amount of subscribers are allowed per "cable".

As you mention the servers might be the problems, but in two to three years time, the "optical" computer connection — now only available to "cable exchanges" will be available at competitive pricing for PC and for most major middle range servers. "Optical speed" in PC is coming. We need to be prepared.

If one does not think ahead at this level, one will be left behind. Wireless transmission is far less effective as cabling, although it could be use, in case of cable failure. Wireless transmission though is very sensitive to solar activity. Should we let Abbott and his miser internet solution for "email and mugbook" prevail, Australia will be left behind very soon by the up and coming technologies of transmission.

Graham, kick Abbott in the budgies.

(I feel very upset with the Murdoch image of my country, tilting on the cusp of a black abyss and being ruled by an ever more dishonest media mogul - and yet - Gus and John - you keep making me laugh - I hope that was intended?)

The Evil power of a foreign owned media empire is more evident now than ever before - so much so that I have commented in the flag ship of the monopolistic The Australian!  I fervently resent that name being used when it is always against the national interests of our people and is so devoid of basic Australian instincts like “a fair go”.

Despite the media frenzy to avoid the possibility of a Labor Government of the people, some independent sources (like Your Democracy and Crickey and Getup) are desperately trying to make us aware of the Corporation’s “rubbish bin of bias and misinformation”.

I have always hoped that our citizens, slowly becoming more educated by periodical Labor governments, will now re-estimate their feelings regarding our nation by taking a “pinch of salt” with whatever the “only for profit media” is trying (illegally?) to convince us it is their right to rule.

IMHO, I believe that the current “front bench” of the 50/50 divided Liberal and National Parties was only hastily patched by “dart board selection” when Murdoch came out clearly in favor of any government but Labor.  Too much for the people? That must make them “Reds under the beds” – if so, they are at least NOT sleeping with dogs.

The backflips of the Abbott mob continues with their uncosted and bandaid policies while shouting down any disagreement, by any means allowable by Murdoch, and doing a Captain Smirk Costello version of laughing at opponents with typical methods of Howard’s diversions.  Did anyone see the unbelievable performance of "Lord Haw Haw Costello" when he was shown to have eliminated Abbott as a person who understands economics?  And being shown for what he really is upset him so much.  Poor pussy.

If only?  If only our citizens from all classes were fair dinkum about a better and more egalitarian Australia, and the basic need to share our natural wealth, then they only have to think reason and be logical at the massive improvement in the everyday lives of working families since the 2007 election that lost Howard his Corporation’s government and also his own seat. Howard immediately went to America, was applauded and he sang, "God bless America".  Fair dinkum.

It would be a major tragedy of Australia’s modern history to allow unjustified fear to return us to the Howard “New Order” and would just give more power to the already too powerful Foreign Corporations and their Liberal/Nationalist Conservative parliamentary representatives.

At the moment, even the once trusted ABC is avoiding balanced truth in its current move towards conservatism which is in contrast with their obligations under the Charter which WE pay for.  The ultra-sarcastic Heather Hewitt is the most blatant besides the old Conservative favorite Fran Kelly.  Struth.

With all of Abbott’s childish games while we are being stuffed by foreign interests, he still won’t face Julia Gillard on anything – especially economy.

He makes his "scipted speech" and then hands over to someone in his mob who has some understanding of the subject he has been instructed to declare.  But then, he always finishes up with playing games with children? Fair dinkum. Is that an indication of his bid for their parents' votes?  Well Might we say - that laughing at the Labor Party is the best way of ignoring their questions.

The choice is a government of the people by the people and for the people or a bunch of university students who collectively could not govern a third world country.

Wake up Australia.  May all Gods bless our country and protect us from the propaganda of the Corporation’s unchallenged media.  NE OUBLIE.

 

 

As I have so often stated, never since the illegal DISSMISSAL of the Whitlam Labor government in 1975 has any media mogul organized such a dishonest and disgraceful campaign against the Prime Minister of Australia as has the MURDOCHRACY in this 2010 election.

The guise of News Ltd. and News Corp is probably a Packer type tax dodge but, just today I learned that Murdoch not only held the governing shares in both the Melbourne based "Storm" but also the "Broncos" in Brisbane.  Plus five other ANL clubs against the laws which provide for only one.  But then Howard allowed that didn't he?

He also has Sky TV and, in my humble opinion, wants Abbott to win the election so that the NBN would fall to privatization and mainly into his hands and make an eventual enormous profit.  Not for Australians of course, but for the Murdoch empire of total control of our people's information and services.

In this demonstration, he clearly knows that Abbott and his rabble are not competent to govern an arm wrestle but, IF he can get away with that it would encourage him to insist on IOU's which we all know must be given for his support.  Same in Britain and in America.

Also, as I have often mentioned, would Julia bring back the Keating rules against "cross media ownership"? This was a limitation on his grab for total news power in our country.

Now down to the nitty gritty of this post.

I want it to be emblazoned  in the law of this country that no one, foreign or otherwise, is entitled to use the name of the nation who hosts their existence.  I mean "The Australian".

I cannot think of any other country in the world, democratic or just devoid of nationalistic pride who would allow the misuse of its personal identity for business.  The United Kingdom - the United States - the Canada - the Iraq - the Venezuela ad infinitum.

I do not make any excuses for my love of my Nation and I hope - (since Murdoch has clearly shown his contempt for weak Australians of little courage) - that all Australians will rise up and demand whatever government of the day may be. The title of AUSTRALIAN is what I am, as is my Wife, my children, grandchildren and great grandchildren and - I can assure the people of Australia that we support our nation and not the imposters who disgracefully use our name.  They certainly do not speak for us as is implied by the Murdoch monopoly.

No country should allow its name to be used for political purposes by anyone. While I consider that we, and many others are not really democracies, and some have little pride in their nation, I nevertheless believe that they would not allow their nation’s name to be used in the sense that the users are claiming to speak on behalf of the Australian people.

So, I intend to ask the people of GETUP to originate a petition to the effect that no business, local or foreign, is entitled to use the AUSTRALIAN name as a title for whatever enterprise they intend whether in our country or without.  It must indeed be controlled completely by the incumbent Australian government of the people.

Surely it is self evident that for any business or other enterprise, to use the sovereign name of our nation with the intended or perhaps accidental implication that THEY speak for Australia.  Fair dinkum.

I don’t know how to begin this undeniable challenge to the legality of the Murdoch misnamed media, but I want it to happen before I pass on. With whatever faults various peoples may say they have, this could NEVER EVER happen in America.

As the elderly US Senator Byrd said: “I weep for my country”.  NE OUBLIE.

 

 

I repeat one of my posts from January 2007.

Justin - are you listening?

Submitted by Ernest William ... on January 29, 2007 - 7:56pm.

Before this subject is lost, I wish that I had the wit to draft a new sub-heading to keep Nuclear Proliferation alive.

Surely the destruction of the Planet by the voracious Corporations, whether by war - Global warming - Nuclear proliferation, or whatever the Military/Corporate requires for their false, debt ridden economies may demand.

I am old fashioned enough to believe - no that is not true - rather I  expect the Politician elected by the majority of my electorate, to represent each and every one of us.

I am of the opinion that the elected politician is obliged, by the very fact of the millions of taxpayer dollars the incumbents have used to get a majority in parliament - to have a legal and moral obligation to the entire electorate.

On the Nuclear issue - I Emailed the Eden-Monaro Liberal, Mr. Gary Nairn, on 4 September 2006, at 3.37 pm.

Sir,

I am concerned about Nuclear proliferation and consider the debate on whether we should have Nuclear Reactors with enriched Uranium, is a major step backward.

Could you please confirm or deny that Silex Systems Ltd: received an exclusive Licence and Development Agreement in November 1996, for the application of SILEX Technology to uranium enrichment which was signed with the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) the largest supplier of enrichment services in the world.  This means that enrichment of Uranium has been practicised [sic] at Lucas Heights?

Yours sincerely.

E.W. Graham. J.P..

NO ANSWER TO DATE.

And - 14 November 2006 9.04 AM.

Sir,

The previous Liberal Minister for Defence, Mr. Hills, organised an extremely comprehensive type of war games with the U.S. to be held in the Shoalwater Bay area of Queensland.

Nuclear powered U.S. warships will enter the Bay and launch Fighter/Bomber aircraft to drop live bombs on the mainland.

Landing crafts will "invade" the beaches and a "Defence" force (probably Australian) will attempt to defend.

That is how I understand it from my visits to Rockhampton.

The U.S. and the U.K. have been careless in their use of weapons made and constructed from Depleted Uranium, which they used in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Kuwait and Iraq.

The long term radiation effect of these weapons will kill people in those countries for many years to come.

Has your Government obtained from the U.S. a guarantee that they will not use ANY Depleted Uranium on Australian Soil?

Hoping to hear from you soon.

Yours fraternally,

E.W. Graham. J.P.

NO ANSWER TO DATE.  Over to you Jay.

COMMENT:  With the fightening possibility of the Howard clone Abbott getting control of our Federal Government, the people who vote for his candidates will be responsible for the introduction of Howard's Nuclear plans and the never ending murder of our future generations.  Just for profit and not for climate change.  To have reactors without the associated weapons would make us a defenceless target.  Already the Liberals are cramping up the supply of uranium to India, refused by the Labor government because they are not signatories to the Non Proliferation Treaty.  NE OUBLIE.