Broadband too costly for some schools

24/07/2012 8:22:21 p.m.

PT wrote:

I would like to defend the Ministry of Education on this one. They are in the process of setting up a National Learning Network (NLN) that will not be cheap to run, when they get it up and going it will be best accessed with the fibre that is being installed. When this is ready, mid next year, they will be organising connections for everyone, until then they are putting the infrastructure in place so that schools will be ready. The capital expenditure for putting the infrastructure in place is the same whether done now or in a years time, and it will take time to do. In regards to Mel's comment that school's are having to pay for everything inside the school, this is simply not true. There is another programme of work called the Schools Network Upgrade Project (SNUP) that is going through all schools to upgrade their internal network. The MoE is funding 80% of the cost of these upgrades. UFBs complete implementation is not going to happen overnight but it will happen.

24/07/2012 6:19:08 p.m.

Christine wrote:

Why can't the internet providers give the schools discount package?? I mean $2000 a month is too expensive plus hidden cost, seriously?? Its bad enough that the schools are struggling to cut cost on teacher's salaries and other school essentials.. Come on Minister of Education.. Do you job to help the next generation of our country.. just saying

23/07/2012 4:41:08 p.m.

Funny_Guy wrote:

Why do we have to pay for access to the internet? I will never know. Maby its tele monolopy wanting to be even richer. I demand free access to data. The only cost should is buying more HDD's for storing all my downloads via a Bittorrent Client. DONT USE THE CLOUD FOR YOUR DATA.

21/07/2012 10:44:24 a.m.

Arron wrote:

My tax dollars well spent...

21/07/2012 8:47:20 a.m.

Mike wrote:

Question: How fast was the internet connection before the fibre?

How fast is it now?

Even on their existing $160 month plan, the speed increase is likely to be huge. So they find the ultra-fast too expensive - yet!

The data rates are coming down, as the ultra fast was much more restricted and much more expensive than it is now.

I do live in a town and have noticed the speeds increase. When I first got broadband dial-up was 32k bps and broadband started from 64k bps and quickly jumped to 200k bps. Over the copper wire with more fibre laid I now get as much as 20mbps. Its not ultra-fast yet (and ultra-fast not available in my area yet), but not too bad over the copper wire and general speed even during peak times around 10mbps. With local network speed of 1gbps, internet is still slow ...

The instalation of fibre to the schools gives them much faster internet compared to what they had even if they only continue to spend the $160/month on broadband. With the fibre the schools should now get perfromance at the top end of their (non ultra-fast)plan, while before the fibre it would have been a fraction of that.

20/07/2012 9:37:53 p.m.

Mel wrote:

Yeah, another ill thought through policy by this govt... giveth with one hand and taketh with another. Not only is the fact that there is no provider willing to provide the service through the new super fibre at a price schools can afford, but there are other hidden costs too. The govt pays for the fibre to get to the gate of the school... and then the school has to pay for that to reach the servers and the classrooms and offices... but the govt hasn't provided the schools with the budget to do this. Despite schools having to plan their property and furniture budgets up to fives years in advance, they are being told by MOE officials to dump those plans and use the money instead (the whole five years worth) to pay for fibre installation.... and the kicker is that often you are only told days before it will be installed that it is being done!! Great idea, but a big FAIL on the execution!!