staringclown

NBN thread

72 posts in this topic

First of all the government claim of gigabits per second is rubbish. There is little or no contention on those lines. However the coalition plan will limit your speed to pretty much what you have now. So the question is do we need an NBN?

Points for:

It can be extended to produce greater speeds with changes in the devices at each end of the pipe.

It's fibre optic to the home dude think about the movie/gaming (and on a serious note real time conferencing and work productivity gains).

Uploads at equal speed to downloads. Interactive. Cool.

Crikey have an excellent summary. All that is required to achieve expert status within a relatively short read.

link part 1

link part 2

Points against:

It's expensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's expensive.

OK, to put the point against into perspective cause it si as you say really the only one, i.e. its expensive.

43bn, compared to 8bn I think are the two schemes Lab and Lib? so 35bn difference.

This could buy us, 35 50GLPa desalintation plants. We would never ever (well for a loooong time) say Australia is "running out of water"! Or buy us 20 desal plants with 15 wind farms to run them.

Or this 35bn could instead buy us around about 20 westlink M7's (like in Syd) all around the country, or 15 Eastlinks (like the one in Melbourne) (for scale I am picking a road, clearly we do not want duplications of these particular roads but I can think of some places they would be handy!

This 35bn could buy Australia 25 major ports, which could open up as yet untapped mineral exports in SA and WA.

This 35bn in stead, near $1600.00 for every man woman and child in teh country is going to get us super high speed broadband. In my house I will soon have 5 people. Do you think I think it is worth $8,000 to me or my family? No way. I say they are mad for spending this coin on it, essentially for me so I can watch TV stream over the internet! Give me a 109 inch plasma screen instead please if you want to burn the cash! If you run a business that needs cracking internet speeds then put it in a city where most of them are anyway.

At work we already have decent enough internet and we are in the burbs, at home I have reasonable internet (I expect Telstra has a good contention ratio, just to show you I read the article) and I am well and truly in the burbs. In our CBD's we already have cracking internet? Do we have better things to do with 35bn, from my vested interest point of view, I say yes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, to put the point against into perspective cause it si as you say really the only one, i.e. its expensive.

43bn, compared to 8bn I think are the two schemes Lab and Lib? so 35bn difference.

This could buy us, 35 50GLPa desalintation plants. We would never ever (well for a loooong time) say Australia is "running out of water"! Or buy us 20 desal plants with 15 wind farms to run them.

Or this 35bn could instead buy us around about 20 westlink M7's (like in Syd) all around the country, or 15 Eastlinks (like the one in Melbourne) (for scale I am picking a road, clearly we do not want duplications of these particular roads but I can think of some places they would be handy!

This 35bn could buy Australia 25 major ports, which could open up as yet untapped mineral exports in SA and WA.

This 35bn in stead, near $1600.00 for every man woman and child in teh country is going to get us super high speed broadband. In my house I will soon have 5 people. Do you think I think it is worth $8,000 to me or my family? No way. I say they are mad for spending this coin on it, essentially for me so I can watch TV stream over the internet! Give me a 109 inch plasma screen instead please if you want to burn the cash! If you run a business that needs cracking internet speeds then put it in a city where most of them are anyway.

At work we already have decent enough internet and we are in the burbs, at home I have reasonable internet (I expect Telstra has a good contention ratio, just to show you I read the article) and I am well and truly in the burbs. In our CBD's we already have cracking internet? Do we have better things to do with 35bn, from my vested interest point of view, I say yes...

Yes. Tom you are an engineer. And it's a lucky thing that we don't ask engineers to run the country. Because engineers never really capture the vision. They just scream "the engine can no take it" all the time. Until they're called upon to build something - only then do they they begin to rub their chins and consider maybe. Isambard Kingdom Brunel may have have lived longer if he'd had the support of visionary engineers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When IBM invented the PC, they projected only a few sales to large companies.

When the internet first arrived, it was only seen as a kind of 'amusement' for geeks.

Businesses are now demanding very fast internet speed for future B2C and B2B purposes. Video teleconferencing, internet TV and videos need fast, reliable speeds.

IMO, there is really no option if AUstralia is to keep up with the rest of the world. Fair enough to look for the best means of providing that fast access, but it will need to be provided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you ever want industries besides mining, agriculture and tourism as well as settlements besides the capital cities you need an NBN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Tom you are an engineer. And it's a lucky thing that we don't ask engineers to run the country. Because engineers never really capture the vision. They just scream "the engine can no take it" all the time. Until they're called upon to build something - only then do they they begin to rub their chins and consider maybe. Isambard Kingdom Brunel may have have lived longer if he'd had the support of visionary engineers.

Lucky here in Australia lawyers run our country. They are the true visionaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm an engineer and I'm for the NBN. I think it will be required for future productivity. I also think that the coalition plan is rather regressive.

The biggest productivity boost will likely to rural areas, enhancing telecommuting and services and helping rural communities to grow. The NBN could very well be a huge white elephant, but it could also very well be a huge productivity enabler that is a huge provider of servies.

The coalition's plan suffers from their misplaced fundamental belief that the market can always provide the services that will be required, so they just offer grants and enticements to encourage the market. Not always successful as the market will gravitate towards what gives them the biggest return for the lowest investment, and that is not always what is in the best interest of the country at large. The role of the government is to step in in those instances, but conservatives will not. One of the reasons for the huge lack of infrastructure funding in Australia.

Plus, one of the things I hate about Australia is that we are not a progressive country. We're all too happy to let the world go to sh*t around us because either someone else appears to be doing the same thing so why should we be different, or the status quo appeared to work fine for, say, 20 years so why should we need to change? Irrespective of what the damage the status quo may have already done. The credit fueled boom cycle is just one example.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it could be a lot worse, it could be another round of 20bn of cash handouts. We don't even have a white elephant to show for that public expenditure...

Anyway, it might be inspiration for me to buy a new PC for home so I can reap the reward of a super high speed connection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NBN gives us functional separation between infrastructure and retail.

The UK and NZ have both done this over the past few years.

Australia would have done it but Telstra fought tooth and nail in the courts.

Options left:

Build our own infrastructure

Hope that telstra has changed it's mind

I thought Paris trialled gigabit to the home a couple years back and could do it, I wasn't aware anyone thought gigabit to the home was called into question via optic fibre.

We are debating whether to stick with ADSL2 type speeds and expect the market to provide better when we need it or to spend double the cash handout getting us a pretty nifty bit of kit which has been the benchmark for ages.

One thing that intrigues me Tom, I think you are in favour of stimulus packages which deliver infrastructure but you don't like this one (correct me if I am wrong) Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lucky here in Australia lawyers run our country. They are the true visionaries.

Yeah sorry tom. I may have been a little bit drunky when I wrote that. :blush:

I do think that there are as yet unthought of benefits both to business and society in general from the increased speed. My home internet is not bad ADSL2+ and I get speeds of 6.5/0.7 Mb/s. Work however is shocking. Practically dial up. I work try to work from home as much as I can because I can get a lot more stuff done. I need the work internet to be faster as it is my "shovel".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The biggest productivity boost will likely to rural areas, enhancing telecommuting and services and helping rural communities to grow.

Rural areas will be the last to get any speed increase. They only rolled out broadband here in the last 3 years, and there's lots of towns of similar size to this one that are still on dialup. Remote areas will NEVER get broadband - the best some of them can get now is Telstra NextG or worse, satellite.

That said, I don't have a problem with larger towns getting serious internet oomph and killing the smaller towns, but the problem with that is house prices are extraordinarily high and if you are trying to move from a small town to a bigger town you won't be able to sell your old house AND you get no assistance whatsoever to buy a new one, so the best you'll be able to do is rent and rents aren't exactly low either. I'm a good example - my old house has no adsl, is for sale for $75,000, I'm not having much luck selling it, but a house in Adelaide is $300k or so, and even a house in a larger town will be over $100k. No FHOG, and on a low income a bank won't look at you if you have an existing home loan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rural areas will be the last to get any speed increase. They only rolled out broadband here in the last 3 years, and there's lots of towns of similar size to this one that are still on dialup. Remote areas will NEVER get broadband - the best some of them can get now is Telstra NextG or worse, satellite.

That said, I don't have a problem with larger towns getting serious internet oomph and killing the smaller towns, but the problem with that is house prices are extraordinarily high and if you are trying to move from a small town to a bigger town you won't be able to sell your old house AND you get no assistance whatsoever to buy a new one, so the best you'll be able to do is rent and rents aren't exactly low either. I'm a good example - my old house has no adsl, is for sale for $75,000, I'm not having much luck selling it, but a house in Adelaide is $300k or so, and even a house in a larger town will be over $100k. No FHOG, and on a low income a bank won't look at you if you have an existing home loan.

The NBN is expected to reach 93% of the population, whilst Abbot's is 97%. I know who you will be voting for!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that intrigues me Tom, I think you are in favour of stimulus packages which deliver infrastructure but you don't like this one (correct me if I am wrong) Why?

I guess tor in construction we do not need thumping internet speeds and so this bit of infrastructure does not add up for me. We complain about how long it takes to drive to work. Lack of public transport. Storm water still flows into our harbours untreated. There just seems to be other things we could do with the money, albeit things I can build unlike an NBN network... :blush:

Guess it is hard when you have a vested interest to put things into perspective. I suppose also as a technological numpty I cannot see where the benifit is, maybe it is there the market thought so in the late 90s but it was found to be wrong then? Already I seem to be able to do anything I want to do, but clearly you guys are in the space that knows what else can be done with thumpingly fast internet speeds so I will have to defer to you IT peoples greater knowledge in the area.

I guess in short, I cannot see the benefit in this over many other things. I can see the benefit, but not at the cost. I freely admit this does not mean it is not there however, as I would not know what to do with 100Mbps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess tor in construction we do not need thumping internet speeds and so this bit of infrastructure does not add up for me. We complain about how long it takes to drive to work. Lack of public transport. Storm water still flows into our harbours untreated. There just seems to be other things we could do with the money, albeit things I can build unlike an NBN network... :blush:

I am not saying there aren't other thigns we could do, I think most of them have their own plans and projects underway though.

...the market thought so in the late 90s but it was found to be wrong then?

Actually one of the few good things about the whole IT boom was that a bunch of international cable got laid. Most of the developments since then have leveraged off that. It is the only reason I think the IT boom was good, we got a small percentage of speculative money funnelled into infrastructure. The market was wrong about what you can use that infrastructure for is all.

Already I seem to be able to do anything I want to do, but clearly you guys are in the space that knows what else can be done with thumpingly fast internet speeds so I will have to defer to you IT peoples greater knowledge in the area.

I guess in short, I cannot see the benefit in this over many other things. I can see the benefit, but not at the cost. I freely admit this does not mean it is not there however, as I would not know what to do with 100Mbps.

As I say, a fair point, there is other stuff that could be done. Most of that would also be debated incessantly.

At the moment we have a pretty lame infrastructure if we want to further reduce transactional costs of doing business (which is one argument for what the net is really about). There are a lot of things where the transfer of data is prohibitive simply due to cost vs time ratios. I doubt that the things we are thinking it will be used for are what will end up being the cool things but I think there will be some cool things. Collaborative medical diagnosis is one that I know will be in there as I do some work for guys already doing that and they are salivating at decent bandwidth.

And don't worry, you will use your 100Mbps easily enough when the time comes. Then we will want gig and that will probably be a firmware upgrade.

Once you get bandwidth saturation and ubiquitous wireless power some really interesting stuff starts to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know what actually happens to the network if/when it is ever built?

Do they just hand it over to private industry and stand back while companies make a killing off of a network built with public funds? will it be run like a government-owned utility, "wholesaling" bandwidth to providers?

I took a quick look at the labor website but it is remarkably thin on details for a plan that costs 43b. "faster internet"... ok.

Another alarm bell is the fact that they feel compelled to piss money away on commercial advertising to support the NBN. If it was the greatest thing since sliced bread, wouldn't it be able to stand on its own 2 feet? That they have to conduct advertising campaigns doesn't bode well...

I agree with tom a bit too. Sure fast internet is great (till Conroy bans all porn and bittorrent downloads, at which point 98% of the population won't have any use for the internet) but at what price?

I'd rather see more done to improve health care quality, accessibility and cost. I'd rather see a national dental insurance plan so that people can get regular checkups and fillings and so on without breaking the bank. I'd rather see more money put into improving the quality of the public education system. Getting more teachers, better teachers, and paying them well would do a lot more for the quality of education than speedy internet access. I can see it now--a row of kids sitting in front of PCs doing pretend work on the computer while the teacher kicks back... Get them reading books, doing maths and doing science--they can goof off on the net on their own time.

investing in technology infrastructure is certainly important, but is it truly 43b important?

Now if they are going to turn a profit from it (not just in terms of increased tax revenues from all the internet providers they make rich) it's a different story...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know what actually happens to the network if/when it is ever built?

The plan is to run it as a government owned utility. The idea being they sell bandwidth at the same rates to anyone that wants to set up an ISP or whatever. Sort of like the way telcos that own pipes sell their unused bandwidth to the smaller ISP's / telcos.

Government ought to be able to make cash out of it but the return is probably a ways off in terms of investment return.

The big advantage I see is that with the entry barrier lowered we get actual competition in the market place. Pretty much the same goals as the functional separation in NZ and UK had.

(This is just from what I have heard while working on it and so potentially way off the mark)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know what actually happens to the network if/when it is ever built?

Do they just hand it over to private industry and stand back while companies make a killing off of a network built with public funds? will it be run like a government-owned utility, "wholesaling" bandwidth to providers?

I took a quick look at the labor website but it is remarkably thin on details for a plan that costs 43b. "faster internet"... ok.

Another alarm bell is the fact that they feel compelled to piss money away on commercial advertising to support the NBN. If it was the greatest thing since sliced bread, wouldn't it be able to stand on its own 2 feet? That they have to conduct advertising campaigns doesn't bode well...

I agree with tom a bit too. Sure fast internet is great (till Conroy bans all porn and bittorrent downloads, at which point 98% of the population won't have any use for the internet) but at what price?

I'd rather see more done to improve health care quality, accessibility and cost. I'd rather see a national dental insurance plan so that people can get regular checkups and fillings and so on without breaking the bank. I'd rather see more money put into improving the quality of the public education system. Getting more teachers, better teachers, and paying them well would do a lot more for the quality of education than speedy internet access. I can see it now--a row of kids sitting in front of PCs doing pretend work on the computer while the teacher kicks back... Get them reading books, doing maths and doing science--they can goof off on the net on their own time.

investing in technology infrastructure is certainly important, but is it truly 43b important?

Now if they are going to turn a profit from it (not just in terms of increased tax revenues from all the internet providers they make rich) it's a different story...

For major infrastructure projects, it takes the financial resources of a government to do it. I hope they're outsourcing the actual work for fixed price contracts as government's are very inefficient at it. The cost will be returned with profits in due course. They'll probably end up floating the NBN at some stage, similar to Telstra, GIO, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Privatisation within 5 years according to this policy brochure.

a New company

Unlike other companies in the telecommunications sector, the new company will only be allowed to offer wholesale services. This means it will not offer retail services to consumers and businesses. As a result, the company will not favour one retailer over another; it will treat all of its customers equally. Competition amongst retailers will thrive and consumers will benefit from greater choice, more attractive services and, importantly, lower prices.

The Government will encourage private investment in the company from the time that building of the network starts. We will sell the company within five years of the network being built. Until full privatisation, the Government will be the majority shareholder in the company.

We will introduce legislation to ensure that the new network company always operates as the Government intends. The legislation will give the ACCC a strong, independent oversight role in ensuring the access terms offered by the company are fair, and that the company treats of all of its customers equally. As well, the legislation will make sure that at no stage can a customer of the network control the new network company.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with tom a bit too. Sure fast internet is great (till Conroy bans all porn and bittorrent downloads, at which point 98% of the population won't have any use for the internet) but at what price?

I have a 9yo who has just discovered the internet. She can burn a gig in a day on online games. Its quite impressive, considering she's whitelisted to a mere handful of websites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually one of the few good things about the whole IT boom was that a bunch of international cable got laid. Most of the developments since then have leveraged off that. It is the only reason I think the IT boom was good, we got a small percentage of speculative money funnelled into infrastructure. The market was wrong about what you can use that infrastructure for is all.

When I started my job I used various pads of quadruplicate and quintuplicate carbon paper that cost ~$40/100 sheets. I would go through hundreds of these pads a year. They were all ordered 6-12 mos in advance and then stocked in a room somewhere in an office somewhere and posted to me when I sent a form requesting ... more forms. -If I got caught short I could call long distance for ~$2/min and they would be couriered to me.

Most of the forms were incorrect in some way due to changes in the business over time. As a result there were large blank spaces provided so hand-written descriptions could be included. Some forms were mostly hand-written. Hand-writing errors were common...7's or 1's...5 or S...9 or 7 etc... Questions would be resolved through posted triplicate memo's attached to the returned quintuplicate form in question. Turnaround time for resolution...4 weeks (one week to get pulled out, one week to get returned to you in your weekly mailing, one week to correct/return with that week's paperwork and one week for the correction to be noted).

After completing a day's work I would then officially record it on these pads (~45mins / day) and post the paperwork to an Admin at the ol' HQ. It would take 3-4 days to GET to the Admin. The work was then sorted and moved to appropriate piles on appropriate desks with one pile of my now signed off copies posted back to me 2 weeks' later. I set aside one hour per week to file these copies of my work so if queried I could access a reliable record of the transaction. Every two weeks we would recap the numbers on a 2hr conference call costing roughly a small car. At the end of the month various area manegers would fly in for two days of meetings to review the collated numbers on overhead projectors. It would take roughly three weeks to get the prior month's result within an acceptable margin of error. Year-end took months.

The business did a bit of an internal study and determined that credit requests for less than $75 would be automatically approved (no paperwork) as the paperwork took more than $75 to process. I am not making this up.

Anyone who thinks faster internet speeds through bigger pipes are a lux option should be forced to trial their conviction by using ONLY a one-line rotary-dial phone to do their job for, I don't know...12 months? rolleyes.gif

<edit: Common spelling errors: Correction time ~2mins>

Edited by Dose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I started my job...

Now tell us what year that was. People forget how quickly it all changed. I took over a workshop in around 98 and had very similar issues. We had a staff member dedicated to correlating repair work with parts with warranty payments.

A 15 minute (say a keyboard replacement) repair was paid by Toshiba as 1 hrs work because of the overhead. And it actually took an hour as well.

A customer calling up asking what was repaired on their notebook without their job number had no chance of getting an answer.

A repeated fault report was taken on trust because there was no way to find the previous job in anything remotely sensible.

I wrote a little db to track parts and jobs and so on and suddenly all these things became easy. Then Toshiba implemented an ftp site for uploading the warranty claims. When the lady who was managing all that stuff quit we just didn't replace her.

That was only 12 years ago. Now it seems inconceivable anyone would use pen and paper.

<edit: Common spelling errors: Correction time ~2mins>

Hilarious :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now tell us what year that was. People forget how quickly it all changed.

1995. Some companies I am familiar with continued with paper-based sales reporting until ~2003-2005. The reason? High capital costs (computers!) and perceived high data / telephone bills.

My first "laptop": Zenith SuperSport. Powered by 12 D-Cell batteries, if I remember correctly.

IMG_1151.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all the government claim of gigabits per second is rubbish.

Why is it rubbish ?? it will be quite easy to achieve as they are installing 1 GPON 2.5G and 10G (in CBD I guess) per 32 users .

I cannot wait to get Foxtel on NBN, many more channels and in full HD (the 'HD" foxtel sold me is laughable, not enough bandwidth on their satellites I guess ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going back to Tom's comment, I don't think it should be an either-or question, we need both the NBN and improved road, rail & water infrastructure. If it allows more things to be done remotely, it may even reduce the need for transport infrastructure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it rubbish ?? it will be quite easy to achieve as they are installing 1 GPON 2.5G and 10G (in CBD I guess) per 32 users .

I cannot wait to get Foxtel on NBN, many more channels and in full HD (the 'HD" foxtel sold me is laughable, not enough bandwidth on their satellites I guess ).

So you share that 2.5 Gb with 32 others (I assume that they will be using time division multiplexing). 2.488 gigabits per second / 32 = 77.75Mbps. Assuming all 32 users are on at once and maxing it out. This may not be that uncommon when it starts to get used for _everything_. You might be lucky and live in a street full of luddites. :) 10 G for 32 users would probably get you the gigabit speed a fair portion of the time. Where did you get the info deck? I wouldn't mind having a read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now