staringclown

NBN thread

72 posts in this topic

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.

The only limitation will be marketing as, even with a worst case senario contention rate 1:15 give 1Gps (and on fiber 1:100 would still be very comfortable). a GPON 2.5G would barelly max out if all 32 users (quite often less users will be connected by box) view 2 channels simultaneously In Blu-Ray quality (and no compression).and as price decrease GPON 10G will be preferred.quite quickly ISP will be able to offer much more than 1Gps.

Libs are tools one this stuff.

Edited by Deck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the political party that couldn't solve the competition problem by forcing functional separation still doesn't want to do it. There's a surprise.

I do find the headline interesting given that one of the people saying the cheap option might be safer said:

"Cranswick believed that the modularity and flexibility of the Opposition's policy may also mean that it will be the safer option in the short term. However, he expressed concerns that a new (and costly) bureaucracy may emerge to replace NBN Co."

That is hardly a ringing endorsement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

biggrin.gif

and

Coalition broadband safer than NBN: analysts

Kennedy also stated that currently there isn't a lot of demand for 100Mbps internet, citing low take-up of Telstra's cable service in Melbourne. However, Kennedy believed that this could change in the future, adding that it was early days yet.

Rotary phones. A single-line rotary phone. He'd better be using one.

The interwebs are fluff for gamers and porn addicts! Productivity? Bah! Productivity gains in Australia comes from bigger shovels!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further to the "not lots of people taking up the 100Mbps interwebs" argument...could be Telstra's marketing.

Do a few googles...try to find it. Good luck getting 1) info and 2) pricing.

Edited by Dose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

not to be overly pedantic (just pedantic enough--that's what i'm shooting for) but there is a big difference between computer age/non-computer age and "super fast broadband" and "fast broadband". i don't think anyone is proposing we reintroduce carbon copies (which I have used myself--on typewriters even).

there is necessity and there is luxury. we should try to meet all the various necessities before we start examining luxuries. and i think that there are still a lot of necessities being left by the wayside that ought to be taken care of before we start spending massive sums of money on a nbn. if its going to turn a profit eventually anyway, let a private industry do it under the same terms/regulations that the gov't planned to impose. unless, perhaps, gov't estimates are too optimistic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not to be overly pedantic (just pedantic enough--that's what i'm shooting for) but there is a big difference between computer age/non-computer age and "super fast broadband" and "fast broadband". i don't think anyone is proposing we reintroduce carbon copies (which I have used myself--on typewriters even).

there is necessity and there is luxury. we should try to meet all the various necessities before we start examining luxuries. and i think that there are still a lot of necessities being left by the wayside that ought to be taken care of before we start spending massive sums of money on a nbn. if its going to turn a profit eventually anyway, let a private industry do it under the same terms/regulations that the gov't planned to impose. unless, perhaps, gov't estimates are too optimistic?

I think Tor's point is the information infrastructure didn't turn a profit... then it did. People figured out how much cheaper it was to communicate through these things called "interwebs". Skype or Telstra. You pick.

IMO the ability to communicate is more important than the ability to ship coal or drive to work in 30 minutes. Show me a market that invested in communication infrastructure and suffered as a result...suffered because of poor healthcare, or poor education, or poor business / banking practice. My argument is about the need for speed in the information age... we're through the computer-age door now. Carbon copies were the way people communicated 15 years ago but those companies all used computers back then. The speed and accessibility of computer-processed information is what transformed business and transformed communication. -Do you thing that we're done in that regard? That all future gains in this area now produce diminishing returns?

I'm talking about how fast information can move. Australia is geographically and socially isolated. Communication infrastructure that keeps pace with the rest of the world should be seen as a priority.

IMO the NBN is as essential as water infrastructure. Yeah, sure, we're fine today, as long as nothing changes.

The king is dead. Long live the king!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tbh i think that a lot of what is being sent through the internet is flash rather than substance. why is a video conference better than a teleconference? is it *truly* necessary to see people's faces when reading over a document about how many pork bellies you will buy next spring? being able to send text information is important. even, in cases, being able to send sound and video is important. but all of those things can be done. text is easily managed even if you happen to be in the middle ofnowhere with only a copper wire and a 14.4k baud modem.

again, necessity vs. luxury. if certain industries *require* ultra-high speed access.... well, i suppose they can pay for it. the idea that JG put forth that, if we don't have super fast broadband we will be exporting jobs to japan and korea seems absurd to me. i'd be more worried about the jobs we are exporting to india and china if such things really were a concern.

what worries me is that there are only a handful of GPs in canberra that bulk bill. that it costs $150 to get a dentist to give you the time of day. that we don't have enough of the essential services needed to keep people healthy and well educated.

i'm no luddite & i loooooved my unlimited download fiber optic 48 mbps (or whatever it was) fibre optic connection i got in japan for ~$30/month. it was great. but in japan i could also pop into the doctor and dentist whenever i wanted and never be out of pocket more than $5-10. need an ambulance? call one--no worry about a $700 bill dropping on your doorstep.

there are essentials and there are essentials.

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.

We need lots of other infrastructure, not just transport and water.

The real bottom line is that the government is spending taxpayers' money and therefore the very least they should do is either a cost-benefit analysis or a review finding that there is nothing else more important on the "to-do" list.

$43 billion is a lot of money. Then again, given the amount of waste in the home insulation scheme and the school halls scheme so far, can we be certain the NBN will not run over budget by a factor of, say, another $43 billion?

$86 billion buys a heck of a lot of wind power...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what worries me is that there are only a handful of GPs in canberra that bulk bill.

<snip>

there are essentials and there are essentials.

With all respect:

My GP missed a symptom.

Next thing I knew I was cleaning the floor then in an ambulance then in the Alfred.

In 15 minutes the Emerg doc ordered and processed a CT scan, referred scan to a specialist (upstairs), who forwarded to the Dept. Head (offsite) who returned a diagnosis and recommended treatment. $10,000 drug given on a tight window and I'm fine today. Paying taxes. Working. Living.

-Had that process taken an hour I'd be dead. - Massive Pulmonary Embolism. Two, in fact.

I was a big fan of communication speed before but today I'm a bigger fan. Much bigger! thumbsup.gif

The example of my old business was just an example. Communication speed works in all sorts of ways.

I could give a f*ck about BHP getting rocks to China faster. Or more highway lanes. Or more Hospital beds. Beds are for deads.

I support faster communication. For education, recreation and healthcare. -In 20 years that Dept. Head might be working in New York... Pass the bandwidth!

For everyone else...less paperwork.

Go the NBN. notworthy.gif

<edit: coal to rocks>

Edited by Dose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need lots of other infrastructure, not just transport and water.

The real bottom line is that the government is spending taxpayers' money and therefore the very least they should do is either a cost-benefit analysis or a review finding that there is nothing else more important on the "to-do" list.

$43 billion is a lot of money. Then again, given the amount of waste in the home insulation scheme and the school halls scheme so far, can we be certain the NBN will not run over budget by a factor of, say, another $43 billion?

$86 billion buys a heck of a lot of wind power...

I should have added an etc. to that. Transport and water were just a couple of obvious things that came to mind first, rather than being the only 2 things worth spending money on.

That's the problem with the stimulus spending, the money was shovelled out the door in order to stop a recession, which it did, but the way it was spent was far from optimal. Given their surprisingly lacklustre showing in the polls, maybe they should have been more thoughtfull in their spending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Australia does not want (fast) internet: Turnbull

Australia doesn’t want 100Mbps Internet, says Turnbull High-profile Liberal MP Malcolm Turnbull has slammed Labor’s National Broadband Network Policy in impassioned comments to a Sydney audience, describing it as “a gigantic torching of taxpayers’ money” and claiming most of Australia doesn’t want 100Mbps fibre internet. “The reality is, there simply isn’t demand at the household and every small business level for Internet at that speed, at a price which would make it even remotely financially viable,” the former Opposition Leader told a forum he convened in Sydney to discuss Labor’s mandatory Internet filter policy.

“You’ll spend $40 billion plus dollars, and you’ll get an asset that’s worth $10 billion,” he said.

Describing the NBN as “a colossal white elephant”, Turnbull said he was fundamentally a “free enterprise” person, believing the market would provide most services that consumers wanted, and the Government should provide subsidies to aid the market where it could not provide needed services and make a return.

Turnbull said the market for universal 100Mbps fibre Internet was not there – but there was explosive demand for wireless broadband – at which point he held up his Apple iPad device, on which he had been Twittering during the forum proceedings. “This requires a very different sort of architecture,” Turnbull said of wireless broadband.

Turnbull said it was the Opposition’s view that in terms of broadband, government policy should focus on areas – such as in rural Australia – where commercial services were never going to be able to provide broadband at an affordable price.

He mentioned the former Howard Government’s OPEL project as one which had the potential to improve services in this way, noting the Rudd Labor Government had “canned” the OPEL deal with Optus and Elders.

“I think that was a great pity,” he said.

Liberal MP, Paul Fletcher, formerly an Optus executive in charge of regulatory affairs before his ascension to the Par,liament, agreed with Turnbull. He argued the NBN policy was “dreamt up on the back of a beer coaster” by former Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, and Communications Minister Stephen Conroy, in a plane flight.

“It’s an attractive high-level vision,” he said, but when you “dig into the practicalities, what is proposed has some problems”.

“Yes, it would be wonderful if the surgeons at St Vincent’s just down the road here could supervise brain surgery remotely in Alice Springs,” said Turnbull. “But sitting in your apartment in Bondi, you are not going to want to be supervising brain surgery in Alice Springs, in all probability, and so in a sense, it’s just totally over-engineered.”

Dickhead. He would know about the practical applications beyond his iPhone. Bondi iPhone surfing... It is a side-effect. Frigging Dickhead! Communication speed builds nations. Ask his children or his bankers or his doctors.

<edit:font ~ 1min>

Edited by Dose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ask his children or his bankers or his doctors.

He seems to think that his doctor (and aparently one in Alice Springs???) and his banker already have fibre broadband.

He only thinks his children do not need it.

Edit: Actually upon re reading it appears he thinks NBN should be rolled out in some part but that what the Lab wants to do is over engineered?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...if certain industries *require* ultra-high speed access.... well, i suppose they can pay for it...

The thing is that the speed is not really the issue. The issue is that for the past 10 years or so the government of the time has been in court fighting Telstra to open up the infrastructure to competition.

Same thing happened in the UK and NZ. The governments there simply said, fine screw you structural / functional separation; no monopoly no more. Telstra on the other hand fought tooth and nail in courts while laying off engineers and killing any competition it could.

To break the monopoly the australian government has finally decided they will provide a separate infrastructure which will treat all retailers the same. If they are going to do that they may as well do it so we don't have to do it again in a few years.

Expecting companies that need high speed comms to pay for it is a tad harsh as to get it you need a clear path the whole way. Pretty specialised equipment and so the price is fierce. Some companies do in fact do this for their Sydney Melbourne links and so on but the cost is way out there for most companies.

The fact that some companies do make the payments anyway shows that it is worth it on their balance sheets.

I would like my backups to be offsite and continuous. I can't afford that bandwidth. If my house burns down I will lose days of data. I know a lot of small companies don't even have offsite backups. I read a Gartner (or someone) report way back which said that of the companies that lost their production database system with no backups more than half (from memory it was 90% or something) never opened their doors again.

Yes there are a million and one things that we should do. Choosing one will never be agreed on by everyone and so it is either do none and avoid that argument or choose one and go for it. Most of the other topics being discussed have plans working their way through. NBN came to the fore because it is a big project when stimulus was decided to be good, we are way behind in the area and we had an impasse from the monopoly going forward.

I'm just glad I didn't buy telstra shares back when I was watching them. I did by telecom NZ shares a few days after structural seperation was announced. Mostly because I think in the long term it is a great thing for the company and the country. Since then they have tanked but I got them pre tax so am still only a couple of bucks behind and I have faith in the infrastructure company being able to see the traffic to the new products and buy in early.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is that the speed is not really the issue. The issue is that for the past 10 years or so the government of the time has been in court fighting Telstra to open up the infrastructure to competition.

Same thing happened in the UK and NZ. The governments there simply said, fine screw you structural / functional separation; no monopoly no more. Telstra on the other hand fought tooth and nail in courts while laying off engineers and killing any competition it could.

To break the monopoly the australian government has finally decided they will provide a separate infrastructure which will treat all retailers the same. If they are going to do that they may as well do it so we don't have to do it again in a few years.

True, true!

-An example of private business not delivering social infrastructure effectively?

We're lucky Testra isn't in the business of building roads, schools or hospitals!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm... Do we need the NBN?

Firstly cost.

It is a lot of money. A lot of money that others on here have expounded could be used in any myriad of other ways to supply needs.

Costello's crew seems to think that they can provide a similar system for much less cost. Exactly what level of technology that is, and that they would still be using the old copper system could offset their savings in the long term.

Secondly need.

Today, most businesses that I encounter use some form of information technology. Some use a lot, some only a limited amount, but all use it. Increasing data speeds would seem to me an opportunity to speed up supply and services to the community.

Many on here have mentioned the health sector.

For me, there are a number of philosophical arguments here as well.

This is primarily being sold to domestic homes, by claiming internet access and speeds.

Lets be honest it is really to benefit business and commercial interest. There will be a flow-on to households but that has to be a secondary effect.

If internet can be placed in more homes, then it increases e-commerce.

Will there ever be a day when shopping malls no longer exist, because people simply shop at home?

Could I envisage a day where in each community there is simply one huge warehouse, where everything is dispensed on-line?

Do we really want our kids spending more time in front of the internet, or getting their education by looking up Wikipeadia?

I don't know, what this all means, or where it all ends.

But its probably time for the next phase, and that is to supply enough cable that every part of Australia can be accessed equally.

What this might mean to outposts in isolated parts of Australia, I can't really say.

So my final summation, would be that this is probably a major investment in the future.

Like all attempts to predict the crystal ball, they may have it right, they may have it wrong.

I think I remember there were similar arguments regarding the Snowy Hydro Scheme and the Ord River Scheme.

Now we could hardly imagine our life without them.

As someone who began my association with computers in 1980 with a Commodore 64, (64 stood for 64kb of ram), and a monochrome green screen, I can say we have advanced rapidly from those days. We have gone from hole cards to keyboards on PLC's, and Network 90's taking up whole rooms, to PC's now controlling entire factories.

My only concern is whether cable is the way of the future, or whether wireless technology is our future?:huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</h3>

<h3>Why we urgently need critical thinking on the NBN

Christopher Joye christophe_m1865712.gif The $43 billion National Broadband Network (NBN) is one of the biggest individual financial investments Australian taxpayers will ever make. When it was originally announced, taxpayers were only going to stump up with $4.7 billion of the total price tag. Following a study by McKinsey and KPMG that number skyrocketed to $26 billion because they found that during the early years private investors would not accept the NBN's risk profile.

If one works on the basis that the NBN will end up being wholly funded by taxpayers, which is likely given that its expected returns are (a) so low and (B) uncertain (read risky), it will increase Australia's national debt by roughly 30 per cent (assuming it stays on budget, which commentators believe is unlikely), and will cost every household in the country more than $5,000 before they even start paying for the NBN service. The interest repayments on that debt alone would be $2.4 billion per annum assuming that long-term interest rates do not rise.

On a per capita basis, the total cost of the NBN is between six and eighty times more expensive than what Singapore, South Korea and New Zealand are spending on their own lauded NBN solutions. And Australia has similar or higher levels of urbanisation. As the award-winning technology journalist Grahame Lynch recently concluded, the NBN "is the most expensive government intervention of its kind in the world".

I think fibre to the home is a good idea but are we going to be paying Porsche prices for Corollas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</h3>

I think fibre to the home is a good idea but are we going to be paying Porsche prices for Corollas?

I think we're paying porsche prices for porsches. The ability of the private sector to provide a decent competitive market for telecommunications has been hampered by Telstra's monopoly of the network. (as tor has pointed out earlier in the thread) We definitely can't afford duplication of the backbones of the network for multiple providers so government has to step in to provide the infrastructure. Structurally separate Telstra into wholesale and retail. One of those "public good" situations IMO. The life of the investment is potentially quite long and the infrastructure can be upgraded if necessary. Chris Joye was hoping the money would be available to further prop up the housing market. The tassie leg came in at 10% under budget. Ironically I saw a broadband feed of Tony Abbott giving a speech on saturday morning. The feed kept dropping and deforming Abbotts head - at least I think it was the feed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think fibre to the home is a good idea but are we going to be paying Porsche prices for Corollas?

We might be paying porsche prices for porsches we don't need is the general argument I believe.

I don't think anyone is comparing fibre to a corolla. The liberals wireless plan might fall into that category (although more reasonably theirs is pretty cheap, it just doesn't seem to really achieve a lot).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

The Labour Government's NBN is going to be the best thing ever for this country, make no doubt about it. I have mentioned this somewhere before as in the early 90's I asked the same question about Fibre Optic, funny the same answer Costs! and Telstra. Now I am actually seeing it come to life and if it is stopped you can kiss goodbye to future industries and see more of our work go off shore!

If we get this up and running, damn the costs so what!

Australia will be in the best position world wide! thumbup.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We might be paying porsche prices for porsches we don't need is the general argument I believe.

I don't think anyone is comparing fibre to a corolla. The liberals wireless plan might fall into that category (although more reasonably theirs is pretty cheap, it just doesn't seem to really achieve a lot).

I think a more apt comparison is that the NBN will be like paying Rolls Royce prices, only to get a Porsche when what we really needed was a Camry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.abc.net.a.../26/3077927.htm

But Communications Minister Stephen Conroy says Mr Stevens was not suggesting there was a need for a further study of the NBN businesscase."

Goldman Sachs were involved in producing the business case. We hadKPMG, McKinsey's, the ACCC, Senate committees - I've lost count of [howmany] and now we've got parliamentary oversight," he said.

F*ck me, we can't escape the vampire squid! :censored:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone else see the 7.30 shows interview with Quigley? He looked a bit worried. Can't get it built for the estimated price. No surprise. Business sees government as suckers. Business is right. TLS rising. ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont see why we need tax payers to pay for it when it will just get sold off to private industry eventually, wtf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont see why we need tax payers to pay for it when it will just get sold off to private industry eventually, wtf

We used to own the PMG. T1 was awesome if you were in. Bide your time SG.

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