This post is by Michael Wyres, is a fifteen-year veteran of the IT industry who has covered roles in the public and private sectors across network engineering, support and development. He currently works as a VoIP solutions developer for a private company in Melbourne. This article was first published on his blog, Musings of a Geek, and is re-published here with his permission.
opinion On my way home from the office yesterday, I caught an extraordinary speech from the House of Representatives from Member for Macquarie Louise Markus in regards to a motion to have National Broadband Network (NBN) enabling legislation read in the House for a second time.
Listening to her speech, I was repeatedly flabbergasted by just how inaccurate large swathes of her speech were. I kept asking myself, where did she get her ideas on what the NBN is, from? Where did she get such dumb ideas? So I thought I’d examine some of them one by one. These quotes are taken directly from her speech, as found in the House of Representatives Hansard, 28th February, 2011 (PDF):
“Now is not the time to commit to a $50 billion spend on a technology that is no better than other technologies being used across the world today – wireless, DSL, HFC cable and other systems that deliver fast broadband.”
FALSE: Exactly what performs “better” than optical fibre? I mean, is someone going to develop warp technology to bend space-time anytime soon, so that we can move things faster than the speed of light? Even Albert Einstein himself only postulated that this kind of thing MIGHT be possible – he never proved it beyond theoretical calculations.
I pre-emptively nominate the Member for Macquarie –- or for that matter, anyone in the Coalition –- for the Nobel Prize in Physics, and recognition as the brightest scientific mind in history if they can pull this one off! Hell, it would even enable Star Trek-style intergalactic space warp travel – so I wish them good luck with it! Let’s try another one:
“Ploughing $50 billion into the NBN –- most of which will be spent digging trenches and laying pipes –- at a time when reconstruction after natural diasters and a once-in-a-century mining boom compete for resources is a guaranteed way to ensure taxpayers do not receive value for money.”
FALSE: The deal between Telstra and NBN Co for access to EXISTING ducts and conduits — which most analysts agree is almost certain to meet with Telstra shareholder approval — will largely eliminate the need for the digging of trenches and the laying of pipes for street level work. These pipes and ducts have existed in the most part, for sixty years.
“What we do know now, after intense pressure from the opposition, is the reluctant admission by the Labor government that households will have to foot the bill to connect the cable from the road to the home.”
FALSE: Any homeowner who chooses not to have the “road to the home” cable installed at the time of the initial rollout in their street will have to pay for someone to come back and do it at a later time, but EVERY Australian premise in an area to be served by fibre will have the chance to have this done during the initial rollout at zero cost to themselves. Free. Zero. Zilch. This is the so-called opt-in/opt-out debate which clearly the Member for Macquarie does not understand, has chosen to ignore, or hasn’t even bothered to research.
“What we do know now, after the spotlight of public scrutiny was shone harshly by the Coalition on the Labor Party, is the plan to dig up our roads and freeways, city and suburban streets, footpaths and utilities trenches to lay the cable.”
FALSE: They’re digging up freeways? I would challenge the Member for Macquarie to show us any single road –- freeway or city/suburban road -– that is planned to be dug up. Where is the information supporting this statement? Even if it is required (there will probably be isolated examples of minor roads), will NBN Co not restore them?
As for footpaths? Some might be briefly closed for public safety while workers are active in areas, but “dug up”? Some might — or might not — get damaged during works, but as happens now, any contractor performing public works that damages other public infrastructure, must restore that infrastructure to its original condition.
“A resident of Bilpin, Kylie Docker, contacted me, seeking an answer to the question: ‘Who will pay the cost of connection from the road to the front door?’ Kylie lives on acreage and the family home is a long distance from the road.”
MISINFORMED: Nobody will be paying the cost of installing a cable connection from the “road to the front door” of Kylie Docker’s house. Anyone living on “acreage” that is “a long distance from the road” will not see their NBN connection served by fibre.
The town of Bilpin is situated in NSW’s Blue Mountains, approximately 90 kilometres from Sydney. A quick look at NBN Co’s published coverage information for New South Wales does not list Bilpin inside the fibre coverage area. It’s not even in the wireless coverage area, meaning it gets satellite coverage.
No “road to the front door” cabling for anyone in Bilpin, Ms Markus! Bilpin is getting satellite coverage. This information is freely and publicly available. I managed to look it up in less than thirty seconds – I’m sure the Member for Macquarie could have too.
“The NBN will initially be a stand-alone wholesale provider that provides layer-2 bitstream services to retail service providers who in turn provide services to end customers. It is not allowed or set up to do retail. How then is the NBN allowed to supply network services to gas, water and electricity utilities, transport operators and road authorities — even though the provision of such services to these entities is an existing and valuable business opportunity for Telstra, Optus and other carriers? Is this selective retail creep?”
MISINFORMED: This is just a complete facepalm. Telstra, Optus and other carriers will still provide such services to utility companies, just as they do now. Currently they wholesale from Telstra Wholesale – (as distinct from Telstra) – and sell to the utilities. In the NBN world, they’ll wholesale from NBN Co instead.
So what was the point of this statement? Nothing technically changes. Things will be cheaper, faster, and less open to market manipulation by the dominant, incumbent wholesaler, but you get that.
I respect the Federal Opposition’s right to oppose anything and everything they choose to in Parliament, but seriously, folks — maybe check out some of your facts first? Ms Markus, you’re now on record forever (in Hansard) as making some truly ridiculous and inaccurate statements. I sincerely hope that you’re proud of them!
Whether or not any of us is a supporter of the NBN, I think we as the Australian people would be much better served by some fair and reasonable debate based on facts, rather than the spewing out of inaccurate, and misinformed spin! Where do they get such dumb ideas?
Image credit: Jintae Kim, Creative Commons
This article has a facepalm of it’s own:
>Exactly what performs “better” than optical fibre?
> move things faster than the speed of light
> faster than wireless, DSL, HFC cable and other systems that deliver fast broadband.”
Right. Because optic cable uses light, which travels at the speed of light, where
as these other technologies use things like radio waves or electricity, which as
everyone knows, only travel at the…. oh
duh
I’m afraid this particular debate has already moved beyond the capabilities offered by my meagre knowledge of science …
While I agree with the general thrust of Mr Wyres’ comments, it’s true that the “speed of light” argument is pretty much irrelevant. The speed of the medium is not the same as the speed of transmission – after all, morse code travels at (a large fraction of) the speed of light and no-one would call that fast.
That doesn’t make Markus’ comments any less absurd though. The claim that current wireless, DSL and HFC networks are just as good as the FiO technology being rolled out by NBNco is demonstrably – and laughably – false. By raw speed alone not one of them even comes close. You have to wonder how this idea got into her head, which I suppose is the whole point of the article. :)
That was my intent entirely.
She didn’t even get Malcolm to proof read it before she read it out… :o)
Michael, thanks for writing this. She made a stack of other factual errors.
As to the bandwidth of fibre versus either wireless of copper-based (ADSL and HFC), the issue is not the speed, because all of these propagate at close to light speed.
But the much higher fibre optic frequencies (infrared-visible-ultraviolet) permit more simultaneous channels of data to be multiplexed into a single fibre strand than the low bands of wireless, and copper-based data is split up into chunks at different frequencies and the highest frequencies attenuate very quickly with distance.
The argument that wireless will get faster is true, but so will fibre. Due to the constraints of switching equipment, the current record is a sustained 69.1 Terabits per second over a single normal fibre strand 240 km long in Japan on 25 March 2010. The fibre had not reached its limit.
The record for wireless in the laboratory is in the order of gigabits per second. In the field this is shared with all those customers in range, and its reliability and bandwidth deteriorate with distance as different frequencies suffer electromagnetic interference and signal fading as the square of the distance.
After six years of work since John Howard’s 2004 vision for universal broadband, we knew by May 2010 with the NBN Implementation Report that the cheapest way to supply 12 Mbps to all premises in a large town is to lay fibre to them. It so happens that this means that all but a tiny 7% of Australians will have fibre that is capable from day one of ANY future speeds we ask of it.
So not only can wireless not deliver fibre speeds, but within the proposed fibre footprint it would also cost more to provision and operate.
Agree absolutely.
I wasn’t looking for this one to turn into a “fibre vs wireless vs copper” argument.
Radio waves only travel at the speed of light in a vacuum, so unless you’re planning to depressurise our atmosphere, light is still going to travel faster.
Also, checkout the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon%E2%80%93Hartley_theorem
Double face palm.
Of course fibre optic is faster. But you argued that it was because of the speed of the media. Exercise for basic physics: if radio waves, which are light waves with a particular frequency, travel slower in the absence of vacuum, then light, which are also light waves with a particular frequency, travel slower in the absence of a vacuum. For all I know, the response is frequency dependent. But what I do know is that the slower speed is completely irrelevant to the network conductivity.
If you’re going to criticise a politician for being stupid (thoroughly justified in this case), please try not to be stupid.
Of course it’s the media – I challenge anyone to force a beam of light down a copper wire. A beam of light also spreads over distance – it takes the fibre itself to focus it from endpoint to endpoint.
I didn’t necessarily infer that just because it is fibre, that it’s faster – (though I appreciate and acknowledge how my words could be read that way – I will be a little clearer next time).
I’m looking at this completely from the perspective of how a network is implemented in a fibre-optic environment as opposed to the other options – (copper, wireless) – in theoretical lab environments, you’re quite correct to say that radio waves will be very close to light speeds.
In practical terms – (remember, we’re building a network, not a theoretical physics lab) – light along glass/plastic fibre will beat either other option.
Response of the decade :)
Really sorry to do this, Michael because I actually agree with every part of your article. But please stop talking about that which you haven’t bothered to spend your own (30 seconds) of research.
Before I go ranting (any more than I have) I have to say this, Fibre optic networking is much faster than any other type I am aware of. And I am not saying the technology is slower. I am merely trying to educate you on your massive misconception.
First up. Radio waves in air travel nearenough-is-good-enough to vacuum speed of light.
Refractive index of air is approximately 1.0003. (speed of light is 99.970% vacuum)
Refractive index of water is 1.33 (75% of vacuum)
Refractive index of fibre-optic is approx 1.48 (67% of vacuum)
Refractive index of normal glass is 1.53. (65% of vacuum).
So your comment about vacuum’ing the atmosphere to make radio as fast as light? Even more wrong than the MP you are mocking in the article. (especially given the drastic ‘real-world’ speed of the light you are talking about compared with the radio waves you are comparing it to).
Not to mention that EM radiation travels the *same speed* no matter what wavelength it has. So never ever talk about light being faster than radio waves, or indeed that they are any different *physically*.
But of course, that article you linked explains that the light portion of the EMR scale has a significantly higher capacity to transmit information through *any* medium than the frequencies used in copper or over the air. (the key here is that bandwidth is determined in part by frequency, and visible or near-visible spectrum is orders of magnitude higher in frquency than what people are talking about transmitting down copper wires and over the air).
And interference? Contention? Congestion?
As I’ve already pointed out, I don’t disagree with this, I was just focussing on the building of a network, not specific scientific principles – I wasn’t clear enough with how I worded things.
The truth remains, that a communications network built with fibre as Layer 1 will outperform a network built using radio spectrum as Layer 1 – particularly under load.
Theoretical physics only give you one side of the coin – practicalities in building a network shift the goal posts.
Again – I’m not disagreeing – I just didn’t word things well – (ie: I’m not a physicist).
I wasn’t referring to the article, just your attempt at mocking someone else.
Also, the wiki article you posted re shannons law clearly indicates that the visible spectrum is much better than all current broadband technology spectra (is that a word?) currently used.
That is it clearly indicates it if you actually understand the article, which most people don’t – and I don’t count myself as someone that really understands it (in a practical sense), just someone that studied computer science – and this specifically as one small part of that study – at university 7 years ago but has never used it since, so I am rusty and prone to error!
> And interference? Contention? Congestion?
>
>As I’ve already pointed out, I don’t disagree with this, I was just focussing on the building of a network, >not specific scientific principles – I wasn’t clear enough with how I worded things.
>
>The truth remains, that a communications network built with fibre as Layer 1 will outperform a network >built using radio spectrum as Layer 1 – particularly under load.
Please don’t misunderstand me! I am in absolute 100% agreement with you, and the physics are in 100% agreement with you.
I would just like to bring your attention to the humorous similarity between yourself and the MP you quote in your article. That being, **in the comments of yours that I reference – not the article!** you are putting in writing factually incorrect statements, because you are not a physicist.
Just as the MP also said things that were factually incorrect, because they are not in the IT sector and also do not understand the actual words they are saying.
Basically,
Own up to saying lies. Instead of being so defensive, because at the end of the day, the *intention* of your words is correct (visible light ALWAYS beats radiowaves/copper etc). It just has absolutely nothing to do with the speed of light per-se.
Michael Wyres
Posted 02/03/2011 at 9:57 am | Permalink | Reply
Radio waves only travel at the speed of light in a vacuum, so unless you’re planning to depressurise our atmosphere, light is still going to travel faster.
I think we are locking horns, when neither of us intend for that! LOL
I am sure we both agree.
I am more than happy to stand corrected with regards to some aspects of the physics – I’m no physicist, astro or otherwise. I should have been more specific as to the context in which I was trying to speak, and identified that I was referring to computer networking in particular, rather than in more general terms.
I am sure we both still know that Louise Markus got it wrong in very complete and unhelpful way, which is why we are here discussing it, and sorting out the facts she has completely ignored, for ourselves.
Considering I have done physics at university and I glossed over some notes, what PeterA said is 100% correct
The advantage of fiber over (lets say copper) is that it has a much lower SNR (due to the refractive properties of the glass used for fiber) which is what allows fiber to send such large amounts of data over larger distances, and the ability for fiber to use a much larger amount of the spectrum for WDM
Furthermore in terms of propagation for delays in network systems, in terms of latency, the biggest factor is distance on international links and not the last mile.
It would help that you don’t argue about something that you do not understand, fiber being “better” then copper or wireless has nothing to do with how fast it travels through the glass (which actually refers to latency in any case)
Right, the speed of fibre is not so much the speed of propagation (propagation of radio waves in the atmosphere is actually faster because of the lower refractive index of air). But that also doesn’t change the argument that saying fibre is “is no better than” wireless/DSL/etc is completely factually incorrect.
Correct.
Physical propagation is in fact quicker over a length of copper than it is over the same length of fibre. The speed of fibre comes from the much lower propagation delay between network segments.
In distance terms – (and just to be clearer this time, I’m talking in terms of network packets – not just a stream of electrons on a copper wire or a stream of photons down a fibre, where there is a lot less going on on top of the raw electron/photon flow than on an actual network) – a single packet on a fibre network segment can travel MUCH further than it would on copper before it has to be repeated.
To cover the same physical distance, a copper based network might need to see the signal be repeated 20 or 30 times, whereas the fibre based network might not need to be repeated at all – all depending on the relative distances, of course – even a fibre “signal” needs to be repeated eventually.
The process of repeating the signal is where most of the delay comes from.
In a wireless sense, in a completely uncongested environment – (ie: one user on a single tower, zero interference) – the “speed” between the tower in a raw sense is faster than a fibre connection between the same two points, but if we were to build the entire NBN from wireless, finding one single user on one single tower with zero interference is going to be “five leaf clover” territory.
Not going to happen.
Now, under the NBN towns of roughly less than 1000 will get wireless, meaning to meet the 12/1Mbps target of the project, they are dimensioning the wireless component to be about 400 user premises per tower – (ie: about 2.5 people per premise).
If that’s the capacity of a tower, and you were to build enough to cover the entire 12 million premise NBN footprint, that’s 30,000 towers you have to build, connect up with fibre and then let every user compete for spectrum with 399 other users.
That’s a shed load of unsightly towers that nobody will want to live underneath for fear of radiation, that have to be connected together with fibre anyway.
And everyone gets 12/1Mbps on a good day.
Imagine the upgrade needed when we need 1Gbps for everyone in 10 to 15 years?
Look its nice that you are backtracking with a massive essay by diverting and going off a tangent, but what you said earlier was factually incorrect
However counting on you being factually consistent (or not write things off the top off your head when you don’t understand what you are talking about) is a big ask
He made a factual error, he admitted, and clarified. If you are human, you will do this all the time. And if you’re going to try and tell me you have never stated something in the past and had to further clarify what it is you mean, or retract all or part of your statement as being false, i.e. you have never made a mistake, then you need to get your ego in check.
Do you really want us to collate a list of all your inaccurate statements?
I didn’t see any admission that he is wrong, KnightKaos. He just diverted the conversation into another direction that made it appear in such a way
“I am more than happy to stand corrected”
Tool.
An admission would be
“Okay, thanks for providing the information, I realize I was incorrect”
I’ll get back to you when I’ve finished collating a list of all of your incorrect statements made on this site in regards to the NBN.
Sadly I fear it will take me a long time.
Must laugh at your extreme hypocrisy deteego.
Not so long ago (about 3 months?) you supplied absolute FUDged figures (basically out and out lies) to promote your anti-NBN campaign of misinformation and were found out…!
Then during this little heated moment, you then got into a slanging match to deflect your FUD, with about 6 posters, as you swore and inferred them uneducated because according to you, the “Senate/upper house was where the majority numbers forms government” OMG…!
You argued until you were blue in the face and wouldn’t let up until that horrible moment when you realised you were 100% WRONG and you then diverted and did your typical trick… desperately tried to blame everyone else but yourself.
To this very day you have never retracted, admitted wrong doing or even replied to these instances (which I kindly remind you about periodically…LOL and will continue to do so, especially when you throw such claims at others). At least MW said he would stand corrected and wasn’t blatantly lying…
So I throw right back at you (x10) your own hypocritical and ironic words…
“… counting on you being factually consistent (or not write things off the top off your head when you don’t understand what you are talking about) is a big ask”…!
Guys, We’re all impressed by the size of your physics cajones.
The layman just wants to be assured that their email, webpages and video will arrive on demand, quickly.
Well I lot of discussions here a just irrelevant tech tyre kicking, ‘look what I know’, which has a direct relationship with the tech tyre kicking sucker taxpayer funded NBN.
But of course it has an entirely inverse relationship as to whether enough punters will sign up for a NBN retail BB plan to help with the 70% uptake business plan requirement to justify its expensive existence.
HFC Cable suffers from resistance. WIreless suffers from wave and broadcasting interference. Neither technology can compete with fibre when it comes to throughput, now or in the forseeable future. Even 4G, which is a great upgrade from 3/3.5g technology, can not hold the base load of broadband needs for businesses and power users at maximum speeds.
+1
A friend of mine tells a great story of a network he was operating – (upwards of 17 years ago, because I first heard him relate this story in 1994) – that would fail on cold days.
This was an old 10-BASE2 coaxial network. Every cold day, a certain segment of the network would fail, with no apparent reason. No failed network cards, confirmed working and up-to-spec cable, all terminators checked and validated.
Yet every cold day, it would fail. Almost every single time. It took them months to pinpoint the problem.
The particular network segment was running along the wall behind an electrical element heater. When a cold day arrived, someone would turn the heater on. This would heat up the cable, and change its resistance. A standard 10-BASE2 network has a resistance of 50ohms – only very slight variations will render it useless.
The cable was re-routed.
lol — I love the finality of that statement: “The cable was re-routed.”
Its tone reminds me of something out of the Godfather. For example: “Luca Brasi sleeps with the fishes.”
Orphans were made of its children, kapiche?
I am standing to correct your spelling. ;)
“capisce”
@Baileysmooth
“HFC Cable suffers from resistance”
It suffered badly from buyer resistance as well, so it could have a direct relationship with the NBN rollout, but best not go there eh?
Just to set the record straight, the speed on light in a fibre optic cable is about 2/3rds the speed of radio propagation in air. Fibre is a better technology right now, but the “physics” people are dragging up on both sides of the argument are just a load of crap.
The real issue with the NBN is lack of progress. Over eight years they need to average 600 premises each working hour. 10M premises / 8 years / 52 weeks / 5 days / 8 hours = 600 per hour. The first two years of inputs haven’t produced even one hour’s worth of output yet! That has got to be a productivity record.
The NBN is a good idea, we just need to hold NBNCo accountable for progress.
You don’t just decide to build something, and start doing it the next day.
You have to design it, test it, build a pilot (Tasmania), take the lessons you learn from the pilot and refine the design, test it again, build final test sites (first release mainland sites), confirm that everything is right, build a final prototype (second release mainland sites), sign off the final design, then commence the main build.
Standard project management practice, particularly something for this size, and costing so much.
You’ll find they’ve passed a lot more than 600 premises – there’s only about that many with active services in the Tasmanian pilot, but that doesn’t mean they haven’t physically passed more than that. A lot more in fact.
They are very slightly underbudget and very slightly ahead of schedule. A discussion I had with Patrick Flanagan – (head of construction at NBN Co) – at an industry forum last month indicated that the Kiama Downs site is a bit behind where they want it, because they encountered more rock than expected.
The pending Telstra deal will remove much of the need for drilling/trenching work.
@Micheal Wyres
“You have to design it, test it, build a pilot (Tasmania), take the lessons you learn from the pilot and refine the design, test it again, build final test sites (first release mainland sites), confirm that everything is right, build a final prototype (second release mainland sites), sign off the final design, then commence the main build.”
Oh come on MW give us a break, you make it sound like FTTH is a brand new infrastructure technology that only the NBN CO has discovered and is paving the way in the true pioneer spirit with the first rollouts – complete rubbish!
FTTH has been rolled out in Australia for years, mainly by Telstra but there are others as you well know.
http://www.telstra.com.au/smartcommunity/findyourtelstrasmartcommunity.html
There were lessons learn from the NBN Tasmanian pilot, that is most residences who could get it didn’t sign up for it, but that’s not the ‘lessons’ you care to mention of course.
Actually the uptake figures are as expected by all parties involved, except the Coalition, who are being unreasonable. In fact, the uptake of 100Mbps services is higher than expected for Internode, which indicates that there is more demand for high speed services than expected.
But hey, you continue to believe the Australian’s line that trail uptake numbers are too low, ignoring the fact it is a trail and absolute numbers at such an early stage are not a very good indicator of demand. So the fact that not many people signed up for ADSL2+ when it was first rolled out means that ISPs shouldn’t have continued with the rollout? The fact that not many people got the 80’s brickphones when cellphones networks were rolled out means that there was absolutely no market for mobile phones to justify the network?
Seriously…you just can’t see it, can you?
The reason many people have not taken up NBN services in Tasmania is that many are UNABLE to do so, due to existing contracts with ISPs who have not yet joined the NBN.
The vast majority of people on a 2-year contract with a non-NBN ISP aren’t going to payout their contract just to move to a participating ISP – unless money is no object to them.
Get off this “low uptake in Tasmania” bandwagon – because it’s a load of bullshit.
You know all this IS the reason how?
Replying to a dead thread are we?
Pragmatic – who also posts variants of this silly statement under the moniker “Get on with it” – has obviously never managed a large project. A ten-year nationwide rollout doesn’t start by connecting premises, but by designing, provisioning and staffing the back end and testing and evaluating your rollout methods.
Anyway 90% of the almost 6,000 Armidale eligible homes are physically connected and the fibre will be lit any day. Likewise Willunga.
On page 15 of the NBN Corporate Plan 2011-2013, the indicative numbers by June 2013 are for 1,269,000 premises passed with fibre, and 511,000 operational on fibre, plus 59,000 premises operating on NBN fixed wireless or (first-release) satellite.
I lived in Armidale at one time. Why don’t I live there now?
*wails of non-NBN woes*
I wonder how long it will take to get to Renmark SA. We’re rural, but a 7000+ town directly on a national highway, so we score fibre.
As Julia Gillard said, “Bring it on.” ;)
Interesting insight into your thinking Michael, and by proxy I guess into the pro NBN camp.
Yes picking a minor advocate to challenging the NBN2.0 your bound to find some errors in their argument.
Congratulations on picking a soft target.
You got a couple things right, you missed the point another and where wrong on a couple more.
But showed a complete lack of understanding of the essence of the challenge to NBN2.0.
You have completely reinforced my view that you have zero understanding of what is actually at stake with this extravagant profligate Keynesian corruption.
Welcome to your opinion, of course… :)
But if the Coalition’s goal is to “debunk” the NBN, they’d be a lot more convincing with a united front, talking facts. Don’t they talk amongst themselves between sittings?
They do talk, but they don’t have Labor’s coherence and unified message right now. In addition, in reality, in parliament many random things do come out of politician’s mouths simply because they have to stand up and talk for long periods of time at a stretch … not all of it makes sense.
You’d expect them to know this debate inside out by now, however.
I would have thought they’d at least have a standard document of points that can be referred to when writing speeches or statements.
Clearly too much to ask for the alternative government to be prepared and organised.
Maybe you should write the coalition a list of talking points on fibre and wireless – so they start by getting the facts straight. At least the debate would be on an accurate platform.
Yes, because a Federal MP, with parliamentary privilege and the resources of the Coalition behind her is “a soft target”. I can tell you, I’ve gone up against a few, and they bite sometimes.
“You have completely reinforced my view that you have zero understanding of what is actually at stake with this extravagant profligate Keynesian corruption.”
And you, Reality Check, have completely reinforced my view that you either didn’t read Michael’s article or have essentially the same understanding as the Member for Macquarie about the NBN. I agree with the argument that the Government shouldn’t be laying down tens of billions of dollars on infrastructure the private sector would build itself with the right regulatory settings. However, Michael’s argument was primarily on technical and factual grounds — he wasn’t arguing economics.
He was just pointing out factual errors.
@ Renai,
Yes, but he got a few factually wrong himself.
Shall we refer to all of your factual errors in preceding thread on this subject?
I really… don’t get it. Some of the opposition makes sense although I am concerned about how the coalition intends to address them when they get into power, but this… just /facepalm.
I like how you’ve reduced a federal politician to a “minor advocate”. As if this is just some random person on the street stating their opinion.
Call me old-fashioned but I’d like to see politicians held to a higher standard. If you’re going to argue you could at least make sure the basis of your argument is factually correct. Get an expert in if you don’t understand the technical details. Failure to do so brings your credibility into question.
Ultimately – that’s the crux of the article – if you’re going to stand up on the public record – (on Hansard) – as an elected official, to speak on a particular subject matter – well, you need know what you’re speaking about – else it is perfectly legitimate for the people who elected those officials to call them out on their position.
True Dat
All I can say is …. don’t believe what you read in the paper. The Australian in particular is highly biased, inaccurate and wholly misleading its readership. The NBN is largely on target, under budget and pretty much executing according to plan. If you think that it shouldn’t go ahead then sorry to tell you, that boat sailed a long time ago. You should have said something two years ago when the government asked and received advice from the industry.
The NBN is the plan, its the goal, it will be delivered unless some largely stupid politicians and seriously short sighted electorates gut the project. You have to build roads to travel, the Internet is no different. The cost to the taxpayer will be $0 with some careful oversight while it’s being rolled out. I think everyone is very conscious there are market forces that will require necessary adjustments to the NBN rollout and Mr Quigley has show he is very much aware of this.
‘The Australian in particular is highly biased’. If you do a bit of researching you’ll notice that majority of the writers have strong links to the liberal party. X-MP’s, speech writers etc…
The Australian is becoming eerily similar to Fox News in the US…it’s a truly scary trend.
It’s been a sad trend as well. The Oz used to be a decent national newspaper. No longer. :(
Bilpin could theoretically also have fibre, sparing it the expense of rooftop wireless masts or satellite dishes (though some in Bilpin probably already use some satellite services).
The 2006 Census gives it 845 residents and nearby Kurrajong Heights 889. The latter has several radio masts that could host some kind of consolidator, and fibre be run from Kurrajong Heights to Bilpin with suitable drops to roadside properties along the route. You would probably pass about 1,000 premises altogether, potentially justifying the cost of a fibre concentrator compared to multiple wireless towers. Anyway it will be decided by the locals in the end.
NBNCo has in fact stated that it intends to carry out such analyses at the local level and give local authorities, groups or business the option of paying the extra cost for fibre, if indeed fibre costs more in a given locality (sometimes it will turn out to be cheaper).
Finally I would mention that only 3 out of 79 aerial fibre optic links in the Townsville first release site were broken by category 5 cyclone Yasi. Above-ground breaks are quicker to re-splice than underground, according to Mike Quigley.
I was surprised by this, but it seems that following the Telstra copper profile of ducts vs aerial lines does not necessarily make the fibre network less robust, or impair service restoration.
This is absolutely spot on.
I have heard specifically from Quigley’s own mouth that anyone – (eg: a town, a collective of adjacent farmers, etc) – outside of the 93% fibre footprint are more than welcome to talk to NBN Co about rolling out fibre.
He said that while no definite model has been settled upon for such a situation, their current thinking would be for NBN Co to fund that “extra” rollout as if it were part of the 93rd percentile, and the outside group – (town, a collective of adjacent farmers, etc) – would fund the gap amount.
However, the first 93% is their number one priority.
Makes complete sense.
Good article, can’t believe some of the idiots we have in parliament.
Let’s turn to the other nonsense about digging up roads. I live in the dual Optus/Telstra HFC area. Optus cables were strung on poles, the Telstra HFC went underground. No footpaths, much less roads were dug up and the work was done quickly by both companies’ contractors and with a minimum of fuss and inconvenience to residents.
This experience is on the record and the Honourable Member should check her facts before opening her mouth in future. Perhaps she deserves some emails challenging her false in formation http://www.louisemarkus.com.au/Contact.aspx. She is unlikely to be a Delimiter regular.
It would be nice if we could convince her to read Delimiter regularly — I know Senator Scott Ludlam and the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull do :)
It’s scary how our so-called leaders are so scientifically and technically illiterate, congratulations on taking a serve at another scum-bag politician.
However it is also scary how scientifically illiterate most so-called “IT Professionals” are:
Most of the technical face-palms in this article have already been covered, so I’ll just comment on the claim about resistance changes in cables.
The claim that resistance changes (caused by a nearby heater) could cause an outage is just so ludicrous as to be embarrassing. If a modest amount of heat caused a cable fault, it was certainly caused by an intermittent short or open circuit, not by normal resistance changes. It’s much more likely that some idiot had put a nail through the cable.
Regarding ADSL: The limit to range is not caused by resistance, but by the simple fact that telephone wires were never designed to handle broad-band. The pairs have poor separation from other wires, poor balance and spacing, high capacitance, poor insulation and no shielding. Not to mention all the stray jumpers and junk accumulated over the years which result in high loss, high cross talk and interference from outside. You can easily compensate for resistance, it is much harder to fix a poor signal-to-noise ratio.
Stop and think for a bit: Why have we progressed from CAT3 to CAT6 ? Is it just series resistance?
A metal cable over a significant distance will act as a low pass filter no matter how much you “compensate” by better shielding and thicker grade cabling. When talking about distances of over 100m (which we are) it begins to become very significant. Higher quality cabling will extend the distance you can use the technology over, but that doesn’t change the fact that the limit is significant over the distances we are referring to, whereas the characteristics of fibre over similar distances are negligible.
As for if a heater can have that sort of an affect over a cable, well, I can’t confirm the validity of the story, nor if the heater was actually the cause, but the fact remains that copper cables are a lot less resilient to outside interference than fibre cabling. The exact causes might be questionable, but the fact that a cable has had to be rerouted because it was run through a hostile environment is not unprecedented, and although rerouting may have to be done with fibre as well, I am positive the instances of such requirements will be significantly less than with copper.
All that you say may be true. But you’ve never had the pleasure of managing a 10Base2 network. They’re infamous for this sort of behavior. Almost certainly there was a join involved. One of the drawbacks of 10Base2 was that almost any amateur with a crimping machine could build one. There are reasonably strict rules for how they should be put together (length of run, length of T, no Y junctions, space between connectors) but they would often work when the rules were ignored. You could forget the terminator and sometimes they would work. So I believe the story. And don’t get me started on thick-wire ethernet….
Heh…lots roll out with some vampire taps…
There is one piece of truth in this politicians claims however:
Originally people were led to believe that most copper phone lines would be replaced with fibre. Now we find that only those in big towns will get fibre. If you live on the outskirts (e.g. beyond ADSL) you probably won’t get fibre. And if you have paid to run your existing phone-line to the street you also won’t get fibre unless you again pay to have a new cable run. A lot of country people are going to be very unhappy when they realise they have been cheated.
“Originally people were led to believe that most copper phone lines would be replaced with fibre.”
Originally people were led to believe 93% would be covered by fibre, AFAIK this number hasn’t changed and 93% is most… perhaps you have been reading erroneous information or misread the number, maybe you thought it was 39%?
That’s actually not completely correct.
The original so-called “NBN 2.0” plan called for fibre coverage for 90% of the population. This was later increased to 93% when the financial model was applied to the final dimensioning of the network. They actually found it would be CHEAPER per percentile than originally thought, and were therefore able to increase the coverage.
Now, note that I said 93% of the POPULATION, not 93% of the LAND MASS. Here is the coverage map:
http://nbnco.com.au/wps/wcm/connect/56e2a900439fdcd48adbfec5166da634/Coverage+-+Australia.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
93% of Australia’s population lives inside the red areas.
No specific person or location was EVER promised fibre. Everyone was promised a minimum of 12Mbps/1Mbps, delivered by either fibre, wireless or satellite.
You are correct in saying that some very fringe areas of some localities may drop of the edge of the 93% fibre funding point, but as I said, nobody was ever promised fibre.
Where Ms Markus related that in her speech has got me beat!
She apparently said “…….that households will have to foot the bill to connect the cable from the road to the home.”
My point is that there are many people who had to pay for their phone cable because their house was more than a certain distance from the curb. I had to organise my own trench and cable, but unfortunately it didn’t occur to me or my contractor to lay conduit. So now when the fibre comes down my street I’ll have to get the driveway dug up again if I want fibre. And if I choose not to, I’ll lose my phone completely when the copper is eventually disconnected.
Or are you saying that the old “distance to the curb” rule will be suspended for fibre?
Ugh. The point is this.
The example the Honorable Member gave in her speech was of one of her constituents in the tiny little town of Bilpin. Bilpin is NOT receiving fibre. It is NOT even receiving wireless.
Bilpin is currently listed as within the satellite footprint. Her example constituent will simply NOT NEED to pay for a fibre from the road to her house because there’ll be no fibre at the road for her to connect to when she gets there, since Bilpin is getting satellite.
If you yourself are in a situation where you’re also miles from the road, you’re also not likely to be in a fibre-serviced area either, so you won’t have to pay for it either.
People inside a fibre-serviced area can get the fibre drop installed for nothing when their street is cabled up at the street level.
I’m about 10KM from the town center, my street has electricity, curbing and street lighting, but most of us had to put in our own phone cabling.
You don’t seem to understand that even in suburbia there are many who had to pay for their own cabling.
I’d love to believe you, but I expect that we will have to pay once again.
I’m sure you’re right also. Don’t get me wrong – I’m not trying to pigeon hole you as being in one situation or another. You need to look up whether or not your town is slated to get fibre or not, and get in contact with NBN Co.
They may or may not have a definitive answer for you, but everyone I’ve dealt with on a technical (or other) level at NBN Co has had answers, or been ready to hunt one down.
As a country person, I went and read the NBN information, so I would know exactly what was going on. You need to do that: sadly, you can’t trust the mainstream media or pollies to give you the right info.
If you read the NBN information, you find out (if you didn’t already know it) that 90% of the Australian population lives in cities. (Unfortunately, our governments decided to abandon decentralization.) This leaves rural and regional people with very little political influence, as witnessed by the gutting of our infrastructure during the Howard years, and an almost insane disregard by government of what it takes to feed this nation.
However, the NBN is a commitment to get decent broadband to every Australian resident. We, as a country, can’t afford to run fibre to every person in more isolated areas, but the NBN info guarantees that people outside the planned fibre range will receive either wireless or satellite. This will be of higher quality than anything you’re able to access now.
Moreover, if you get together with your neighbours, businesses or council, you can also work out if it would be cheaper to work with NBNCo to bring fibre to your location. This will cost you a fair bit (although NBNCo will pay the bulk of it), but in the long run could work out to be a better decision.
Ultimately, you get better broadband, wherever you are, and you have a choice. Don’t let the pollies or mainstream media con you into thinking you’re being dumped on over this issue. For once, rural and regional people are getting a fair go, under the NBN.
“Now we find that only those in big towns will get fibre. If you live on the outskirts (e.g. beyond ADSL) you probably won’t get fibre.”
This is fairly incorrect. Actually, when you look at NBN Co’s maps, even people in many small towns will get fibre. I can understand your pain — I grew up in small towns — but seriously, it’s not like they are only laying it in the big or medium cities.
Why do all these rants about the NBN always come up with it cost this much? But never say we could do this or this to improve out nation?
Cant use roads, hospitals, education… they have only had 50 years? or so to do it?
But this retarded rant from this mp about somthing she knows nothing about (or gives a shit about) is only up there becuase her party told her to ( To give her more power in som respect i would imagine)…
And ppl having crys about some of the things the auther of this article… Like the errors on his part (very Small) even compare to some biatch MP with An audiance of stupid idiots that follow her and vote WTF its not even close or even matters…. What matters is someone with power is making idiots see her uninformed idiotic view of somthing which is SOOOOOO (Light years) out of her understanding which sucks and only helps make us so much dumber…
“Why do all these rants about the NBN always come up with it cost this much? But never say we could do this or this to improve out nation?”
Because there is no technical argument against the NBN. They are using the best technology available. So the only real argument against the NBN becomes one of economics.
“Because there is no technical argument against the NBN.
Well there is plenty of it, you and others prefer to ignore it.
” hey are using the best technology available.”
Hey – so was HFC cable at the time! – it doesn’t mean people want it, 3G and 4G wireless are using the ‘best technology available’ as well and customers want it, except the taxpayer is not bankrolling it – pity that, nice little ROI there.
The Government funded white elephant NBN can pretend they are interested in ROI knowing full well that by 2018-2020 some other sucker Communications Minister will have to wear the flack.
Of course successive Communications Ministers post Conroy can just say it wasn’t my decision and bingo the standard political spin exit strategy starts all over again.
“So the only real argument against the NBN becomes one of economics.”
You mean there are plenty of ‘real’ arguments against the NBN including economics.
3G and 4G the best technology? HFC the best technology? FTTN the best technology? FTTH the best technology?
UNDER WHAT METRIC?!
Both sides are guilty of this, including me on occasion I’m sure, but you can’t just say “X is better Y” without giving a metric. 3G and 4G is better than fixed line technology because it is more flexible. FTTH is better than 3G and 4G, HFC, FTTN, ADSL2+, etc, because of better latency and information throughput.
Where’s the Productivity Commission report into the NBN? The simple fact is that the Labor party does not want this because it will take away all the fake gloss covering up this white elephant.
Everything that the NBN proclaims, can already be done with current technologies, & every serious technology hacker knows this. The only ones that want NBN are the clueless script kiddies, or the ones that have a financial interest in the contracts of the roll-out.
Everything that the NBN proclaims, can already be done with current technologies, & every serious technology hacker knows this.
That’s because FTTH PON is a current technology. So of course everything the NBN proclaims to be able to do can be done with a current technology, because it is.
Nice try. Current technologies includes whats already available. Tell me, what can I do on fibre that I can’t already do on DSL? (& please spare us the download 1080p films & HD video conferencing nonsense.)
> Tell me, what can I do on fibre that I can’t already do on DSL? & please spare us the download 1080p films
There has been exponential increase in the use and demand for broadband in the last decade, and this increase shows no sign of decreasing in the near future.
Your disdain for films and video brings us close to the truth. For years our radio spectrum has been burdened with TV broadcasting which is an appalling waste of a precious resource as well as a hopeless delivery medium. In the long term, TV and Video will move across to fibre, leaving the mobile spectrum available for what it does best.
Of course the TV moguls can see this coming and are in panic mode. No more artificial limit on channel numbers. Goodbye to the pathetic broadcast model for delivering TV and Video. Hello Video-on-demand.
So at this crucial time the moguls are doing everything they can to nobble the NBN.
Including hiring an army of parasites to send ridiculous emails to the media.
Comrade,
What infrastructure developer in their right mind would build a road to suit the present levels of traffic when modelling has been done forecasting a doubling in traffic every year or so into the foreseeable future? You do have a possible argument that FTTH could possibly be delayed for many users around Australia, but this is ignoring some crucial facts. Firstly, there are many Australians living within the 93% NBN coverage area that currently are unable to receive decent quality broadband. This number greatly increases if you also include those who can only get decent services through Telstra. Secondly by the time that the NBN is completed, the need for higher speeds and data rates will be even greater. Should we wait until the need is urgent before commencing down the long path of providing fiber to the homes of Australians? Finally, if the politicians did decide to wait, how much cheaper would the project be in 10 years time? Will the cost of fibre, which has been around for several decades, be and cheaper? Will the cost of labour be less then?
To those that say that a better technology may be available by that time, well… which side of the fence is really gambling with the future of this nation? Although speeds are increasing for wireless technologies, so to are the minimum speeds and quotas required. Wireless will simply never match fiber optic for data transmission rates and any future upgrades to the fiber network will be relatively simple compared to the complete change of antennas, aerials and receiving equipment that is required for every decent advancement in wireless speed.
Which means you don’t understand the problem at all. Everything, and I mean everything, I currently do on my HFC cable connection, can be done on a dial-up connection. The only difference is on that dial up connection it will be done really, really slowly, to the point that a lot of technologies, in particular real time voice and video chat, gaming, and various other things we do will not function as desired.
In fact the difference is so significant that I would not consider using a dial-up connection at all even through I can get a connection for 20% of what I currently pay.
Now, this presents a problem, how do we ensure that users that actually require high bandwidth can actually get it, and users that require minimal bandwidth, can get it too? There are two solutions, those who require high bandwidth pay to get a thick pipe installed, and those that don’t, get a thin pipe installed. Or everyone gets a reasonable pipe installed that can take different amounts depending on what the user wants (the NBN in a nutshell).
Except of course, if you do this on a case by case basis, the first model i.e. ad-hoc, you start to ignore the fact that delivering a basic connection such as ADSL2+ or dial-up is trivial compared to installing a fibre spur for those who need it or are willing to pay for it. It is so trivial in fact that there is a hundred fold difference in cost. So, you need to consider this with any solution.
The NBN might be overkill and spend way to much money, and to be honest, that is something off topic for this article, this article is about spreading misinformation to support your agenda which is what the Liberals have been doing, what I want, and what Michael has always said he wants, is an honest debate about the problem. And to do that, we can’t, as you just did Comrade, completely ignore what the problem is.
And before you say “why should the many subsidise the few to deliver an expensive service, they should pay for it themselves!” think about what it is the government does on a regular basis. The many pay for the few people that live down that backwater alley to have it paved. The many pay for the few that actually need medical care. This isn’t any different in that respect, the difference is that a lot of people still consider it to be a non-existential service, and also a few people have a vested interest in the current model.
The first step to fixing the problem is defining it, and it seems to me a few people aren’t even there in this debate. I have heard plenty of well through out, (cheaper) alternatives, some here on Delimiter, and to get there these people did not need to resort to misinformation. Why then are the Liberals? Which is what I think Michael is trying to say with this article.
Congrats Michael mate, you have spent more time and effort trying to justify your writing and points you have tried to express than any author at The Australian ever has, well in regards to the NBN anyway. They rarely open their stories for comments and I am sure they filter them to ensure they are mostly anti NBN comments.
When it comes to the weird words spoken by our politicians, I would of thought that if the Libs were interested in real debate, instead of the negative fear campaign they have so predictably produced, they would have party sessions with experts explaining the factual basics to them. there is a major difference between technical errors and flat out lies to feed the fear campaign.
A workable plan to offer suitable broadband services to Australians would also be useful in any proper public debate about the NBN. Of course not having a fully formed broadband policy does mean the Libs plans won’t be held to the same scrutiny and standard as what they are currently demanding of Labor.
Last but not least and every bit as important as all those physicist level type errors that others pointed out in your article, I think I spotted an ” i ” that was left undotted.
I’m going to feed my pigeon steroids.
If you load your pigeon up with a couple of SSDs and have it fly 3kms down the track, you’ll get more bandwidth than any of the proposed technologies without having to dig up the roads.
Look forward to Ms Markus tabling that one!
But the latency… imagine trying to game or watch a phone call over Avian Transport Protocol.
Why am I picturing a ping response with bird poop on it?
You’re being seduced by the popularity of your delimiter by-lines and are now unconsciously thinking of link bait titles.
lol
I love this quote from Wikipedia on this matter:
“Also, during the last 20 years, the information density of storage media and thus the bandwidth of an Avian Carrier has increased 3 times faster than the bandwidth of the internet.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_over_Avian_Carriers
IP over AC is only truly efficient for large downloads.
If you want to download a 4GB DVD ISO, then you’re going to need a pterodactyl just to bear the weight.
Pfft!
Also, a packet on a fibre network is not susceptible to stopping to eat a stegosaurus egg en-route.
my only concern with the NBN rollout is with the 50 billion dollars. labors history with implementing programs and schemes scares the hell out of me in regards to projected costings blow-outs. 50 thousand million dollars is a lot of money. our country will be paying this debt off for at least a couple of generations. sure there is no disputing the capability of fibre-optics. but who’s to say that the whole fixed point internet connection wont be side-stepped in 10 years time. already we have more portable internet devices than desktops in australia. with how fast technology is moving, it is hard to make a long-term financial commitment based on the most advanced technology of today , when we have no idea what technologies will be available and what australians needs will be in even the next 5 years.
Wall of text aside.
my only concern with the NBN rollout is with the 50 billion dollars.
I support the NBN and that isn’t my only concern about the policy. :) It’s a common concern, are we spending to much to fix the problem?
…projected costings blow-outs.
No one ever projects cost blow-outs. They happen because of something unexpected. Remember, the NBN is currently ahead of schedule and under budget.
our country will be paying this debt off for at least a couple of generations.
No they won’t. That is Liberal spin. Our economy has a turn over of a about one trillion dollars annually. 0.5% of our economy. Worse case, we’ll be paying it off for one generation.
but who’s to say that the whole fixed point internet connection wont be side-stepped in 10 years time
Physics and exploitation of demand.
already we have more portable internet devices than desktops in australia.
So? The NBN doesn’t just serve desktops, it, via technology like WiFi, services those portable devices too.
with how fast technology is moving, it is hard to make a long-term financial commitment based on the most advanced technology of today.
Not in the broadband sector, that sector moves relatively slow. Because of the high costs of roll-out.
when we have no idea what technologies will be available…even the next 5 years.
Yes, we do know that actually.
Thinking about how much it is going to cost to re-build Christchurch puts the cost of the NBN into a more realistic focus.
“Swiss Re today announced that, based on current information, it provisionally estimates its claims cost from the earthquake in New Zealand on 22 February 2011 to be approximately USD 800 million, net of retrocession and before tax. The total insured claims for the insurance sector for the earthquake in New Zealand are estimated to be between USD 6 billion to USD 12 billion. ”
http://www.swissre.com/media/news_releases/Swiss_Re_provides_provisional_estimate_of_its_claims_cost_from_Christchurch_New_Zealand_earthquake_.html
For starters the NBN is not an insurance/reinsurance job.
I did not say it was an insurance job. And on your own figures, insurance does not seem to be playing a big part in Christchurch either. Despite what Senator Xenophon says in relation to the Australian states, insurance is only ever going to be a small source of funds in such cases.
My point was an even smaller, less well-endowed country has to find most of the significant cost of re-construction (ABC today as saying $16B) quickly and with its second largest city out of operation and continuing to shake.
They seem less stressed about the magnitude of the task than we are in relation to the NBN.
Ummmm but you see the New Zealand government has alrady a diaster fund. Earthquakes are commonplace – “the shakey isles”
Anyway mate those are not my figures. If you click the link I put there, is sends you off to Swiss Resinsurance who covers the all AMPs MLC et.al. worldwide, as does Lloyds of London.
Of course at this early stage they would not have fully assessed the extant of the damage, as some places it is too dangerous to enter.
“my only concern with the NBN rollout is with the 50 billion dollars.”
Same — I approve of the NBN on technical grounds, but I’m not sure such massive government intervention in any industry is the right idea.
There is a significant justification for building the NBN that is frequently overlooked, probably deliberately. The copper CAN (Customer Access Network) is stuffed, something that many might be aware of. Another less well known problem is that it has been loaded up with pair gain systems. A PGS is one where multiplexing equipment is used to pile many voice services onto one copper pair. You can’t have PGS and DSL, therefore if people in urban areas want DSL someone has to install a lot more copper.
It will cost about the same to install copper as fibre. Why would you do this?
Also Telstra can’t be expected to fund a copper expansion. They are a private company just like any other. Their shareholders (Disclaimer – that includes me) will not approve millions of capital being spent for the benefit of their competitors.
“Also Telstra can’t be expected to fund a copper expansion.”
Actually Telstra proposed it several times in the form of FTTN rollouts etc. However, they have always been reluctant to allow an expansion to be used by rivals — you’re right in that sense.
Exactly what performs “better” than optical fibre?
Sad that half the discussion on this page is just rehashing basic physics, but even in the newspapers and on other pages people keep bringing up the old “nothing travels faster than light” argument, despite the wave propagation in fiber being substantially slower than wireless propagation in air, and despite the propagation velocity being largely irrelevant anyhow.
But this pointless schooling in elementary physics misreads the original phrase Louise Markus used, “… a technology that is no better than other technologies…” and of course, the definition of “better” is very much a subjective thing, especially when it comes to communication technologies. People above are mentioning that fiber has better SNR, which is half-right. We already have perfectly good 1G Ethernet running on copper at baseband and the SNR is perfectly good — over short distance. Fiber is “better” over a long distance leg, but copper is better for short distances which is why if you look through a data center you see almost universal copper cabling (yes I know, there are a handful using fiber but it never takes off because copper is cheaper, easier to terminate, easier to work with, better standardised, better for patch panels, etc).
How much mobility do you get out of a fiber? Well zero actually, you get nothing. How much mobility do you get out of wireless? Not perfect, but pretty good compared with fiber. So wireless is vastly “better” for mobility reasons. That’s all subjective depending on usage and preference of the user.
There’s one more definition of “better” which is important for a great many Australians and that translates to “cheaper”. Since the copper is already in the ground, and since it runs on far more solidly established technology, making small incremental improvements to and existing network is guaranteed to be a lower cost solution as compared with a massive rollout of new technology.
So we need a system to evaluate preferences in a environment where subjective differences of opinion are guaranteed to exist — and we already have the system to do the job! It’s called a marketplace. Better still, we already have answers from the marketplace: people are willing to spend about $40 per month for a basic ADSL line, they are willing to spend about $150 per month for an iPhone on a lock-in plan and a small number of people (mostly businesses) are happy to buy a high speed high reliability fiber link at somewhere between $500 and $1000 per month (yes you have been able to buy fiber links for years before NBN came along, and that price has been steadily falling).
EVERY Australian premise in an area to be served by fibre will have the chance to have this done during the initial rollout at zero cost to themselves.
No, the money comes from tax, and ultimately all tax comes out of the household budget somewhere along the line. Sure, you can tax those greedy business guys but they just pass the costs down to their customers or sack a few employees to improve productivity (or go offshore entirely). They are greedy business guys because they are good at this game, understand?
EVERY Australian household will be paying for this rollout, even the people who neither need it nor want it… You will not be getting a free lunch here. The only way for NBN to make a profit (and thus save the taxpayer) is for all those $40 per month ADSL users to be upsold to something in the ballpark of $70 per month or perhaps $80 per month. Many people will have no particular reason to upgrade so they will be forced to by the new monopoly when the copper gets ripped out. Forcing people to buy a product they don’t want is effectively equivalent to tax, but by all means call it a different name should that make you all feel better about it.
Given that cheap fiber connections right now start at $500 per month, to even get that down to $100 per month at the retail level requires some significant economies of scale — and an NBN style monopoly will indeed achieve economies of scale. However, it will also achieve dis-economies of scale, as tends to happen with a monopoly that has no competition, the rot sets in within a decade or two. I’m old enough to remember the bad old Telecom days and what you had to put up with just to get a phone put on. Ask your parents how those guys worked.
All things considered, Louise Markus seems to have a much better grasp of the topic than the author of this article.
Tel. You make some good and interesting points, however I would like to point out a few things:
The fact that Copper has an acceptable SNR over short (100m) and has better market presence in data centres is irrelevant because we are talking about delivering fixed services over significant (many kilometres) distances.
The fact that wireless is better at mobility is irrelevant because the coalition intends only to deliver fixed services over significant distances.
The fact that an incremental upgrade is cheaper has also, if you have followed the whole debate, not only been questioned (the estimate to install a fibre to the node network, when we include private funding, is over $20b), but also been questioned wither such an approach is in Australia’s best interests. We could debate this particular point all day, so let me just point it this way: Labor are in power at the moment.
The fact that the market is the best deliverance of the optimal technology for a particular user is true, however, what do you do when you have a market that is incapable of doing that to an acceptable level?
Also, I would never pay $150 a month for a 2 year mobile contract. And very few consumers will. Speaking of which has your generalisation dealt with customers who puchase both? Cheap fibre for businesses, are you kidding me, have you seen the PIPE network footprint? Do you know how many businesses who could possibly benefit from fibre technology miss out? Do you know how much these said companies would have to pay to get a fibre spur to there office should they need it? Because I can assure you, $500-$1000/m is a very lowball figure for these services. As low as or less than $100 a month at the retail level? Where? I find very few places that allow this kinda pricing, and they all happen to be Greenfields estates or, wait for it… NBN trail sites.
All things considered, I think you completely missed the point of Michael’s article here. It’s a “can we get some honest debate here based upon facts?” because quite seriously, how is discussing mobile wireless relevant here when the the Liberal’s policy is also about fixed services? How is discussing how copper is great over short distances relevant here when we are talking about longer distances?
The data rate you can get through a copper pair varies inversely with distance, and currently available VDSL2 plans around the world generally offer 30M to 50M download, and 5M to 10M upload over distances of approx 1 kilometer (and that’s uncontended). As the distance gets longer it falls back to ASDL2 and lower speeds. For people within 1 kilometer of an exchange they can upgrade immediately with no new infrastructure. For people connected to an exchange on copper pairs longer than 1k, you merely select one of the big pits (the ones with the iron lids generally several square meters area on top) and upgrade that to a fiber-connected DSLAM rack (which does not need to be particularly large).
Telstra already proposed this as the Fiber to the Node solution, and it is a far cheaper solution. Don’t you think that the 10 billion dollars being thrown at Telstra would be far better spent building a few of these “nodes” rather than buying back copper just to rip it out again? Put this in perspective, a skilled Australian worker might earn $100k before tax, so over ten years they earn a million before tax. We are talking about the productive output of ten thousand high skill workers, working for ten years… and that’s just the money going to Telstra to buy back the copper.
There’s no need to install fiber to the node in one giant rollout, you can upgrade a bit here and there as you get the money, and as you get customers interested in paying for upgraded services. Every day the price of DSLAMs drops, the size gets smaller, and the performance improves.
the coalition intends only to deliver fixed services over significant distances.
The coalition largely wants a competitive private market in communications doing the real work, and just some minor government nudging here and there. They aren’t trying to single handedly fix the world, and there isn’t a whole lot of evidence that the comms world is broken in Australia.
As for $150 per month on an iPhone plan, I believe that is what plenty of people paid when they were first released in Australia. Current plans vary from $20 per month up to $130 per month but having monthly mobile bills in excess of $100 is not unusual (talk to some teenage girls, or business travelers). See 2 year plans here:
http://mobile-phones.smh.com.au/MobilePhones/Phones/Apple/Apple-iPhone-4-16GB
For pricing on business fiber, go to Exetel website, check the AAPT and Optus options. No mention of NBN trial or anything like that, and it covers all capital cities NOW.
http://www.exetel.com.au/corporate-fibre.php
It’s not going to be available if you live in some microscopic town out in the bush, but then again NBN won’t give you fiber out there either, and not too many significant sized businesses in those places either.
Now you mention people buying both mobile and fixed line services, and although I hadn’t considered it, the free market is already ahead there too with existing telcos offering bundled deals. Diversity in the market encourages tailoring the product to the customer’s requirements, a monopoly just offers one size fits all and too bad if you don’t like it. Just like the Liberal Senators, I don’t have to think of everything because if you just let the process actually work for you then other people make a buck thinking of a good idea and we all end up better off. Central control really has been tried before and failed.
… what do you do when you have a market that is incapable of doing that to an acceptable level?
Who gets to define “acceptable” here? The guy who can only afford the cheapest service and soon discovers he is forced to have no service because he can’t afford the new monopoly pricing structure? The granny who is completely uninterested in Internet and she only has a single fixed-line phone, any only pays about $15 per month on pensioner rates, makes about two calls a day and those are local calls… does she get to define what’s “acceptable” because I doubt it will be acceptable to her to now be paying for a whole stack of stuff she can’t use out of income she doesn’t have.
By the way, this problem is going to hit right at the core of Labor voters, the howls will start when all those at the bottom rung will suddenly realise they are not getting free lunch, and the price of entry level communication in Australia jumps up. The next thing they will cry “government should pay for it” and so the ALP will dip into taxpayers money to cover their voting base and boom out blows the deficit, then followed by inevitable inflation and upward pressure on home loan interest rates. Then the howls start again as the free lunch brigade find the money getting clawed out of them by some other mechanism.
You don’t need to lecture me on what FTTN is, and why it is cheaper. However it is still within the limitations of copper. As you said, at about 1 km from the DSLAM you get about 30Mbps/1Mbps. However, you weren’t saying that, your example was using copper in datacenters, which I pointed out is only because high bandwidth can be delivered over short distances.
So, where is your upgrade path from VDSL2 FTTN? How much will this upgrade path cost you? Is it worth using this setup and do the costs of using it offset the cost of going straight to FTTH? This particular set of questions is something I want to see debated.
There’s no need to install fiber to the node in one giant rollout, you can upgrade a bit here and there as you get the money, and as you get customers interested in paying for upgraded services. Every day the price of DSLAMs drops, the size gets smaller, and the performance improves.
There is no need to install fibre to the home in one giant rollout, you can upgrade a bit here and there as you get the money, and as you get customers interested in paying for the upgraded services. Every day the price of GPONs drops, the size gets smaller, and the performance improves.
The coalition largely wants a competitive private market in communications doing the real work, and just some minor government nudging here and there. They aren’t trying to single handedly fix the world, and there isn’t a whole lot of evidence that the comms world is broken in Australia.
Which is fine, I actually support conservatism. However, conservatism requires you to be proactive, not reactive, to market problems. And when people in the cities can barely get adequate speeds because of historical cost saving measures like pair gains and RIMs, then I’d call that broken. Need I remind you it was the Coalition who first proposed a large market invention by the building of a Broadband Network in the form of BroadbandConnect, later known as OPEL networks? It has been 5 years since that original proposal, and technology and the market has moved on.
…but having monthly mobile bills in excess of $100 is not unusual (talk to some teenage girls, or business travelers).
I think I might point you to the new Infinite Plans from Vodafone as an example as to why it is actually becoming increasingly rarer for there to be mobile bills in excess of $100/m. Your data and statistics is surprisingly out of date.
As for your pricing on Exetel, I might indicate that the footprints of those buildings, as I originally pointed out to you, are rather limited. As I said, $500-$1000/m is a lowball figure, as indicated by the pricing you gave me. Lowball meaning they START at $500-$1000/m. Which they do.
And the NBN is not offering a one sized fixed all solution for everyone is it? It is offering a selection of solutions for various usage requirements. It isn’t like everyone is paying $100/m for 100Mbps/40Mbps and if they don’t need that fast, or need faster, well tough. They have a diverse selection of options. Just like most consumers do with various ADSL2+ providers, HFC cable, and if they’re really lucky a FTTH option. It’s also not like it’s preventing competition. It won’t prevent people innovating in wireless, it won’t prevent companies from competing with it directly in fixed line solutions. It is as much as a monoploy as Telstra is, only it’s better than Telstra because it isn’t vertically integrated.
Who gets to define “acceptable” here? The guy who can only afford the cheapest service and soon discovers he is forced to have no service because he can’t afford the new monopoly pricing structure? The granny who is completely uninterested in Internet and she only has a single fixed-line phone, any only pays about $15 per month on pensioner rates, makes about two calls a day and those are local calls… does she get to define what’s “acceptable” because I doubt it will be acceptable to her to now be paying for a whole stack of stuff she can’t use out of income she doesn’t have.
I have seen absolutely no reputable evidence that the two examples you have provided here will be worse off under the NBN.
By the way, this problem is going to hit right at the core of Labor voters, the howls will start when all those at the bottom rung will suddenly realise they are not getting free lunch, and the price of entry level communication in Australia jumps up. The next thing they will cry “government should pay for it” and so the ALP will dip into taxpayers money to cover their voting base and boom out blows the deficit, then followed by inevitable inflation and upward pressure on home loan interest rates. Then the howls start again as the free lunch brigade find the money getting clawed out of them by some other mechanism.
Since I have seen no evidence that the bottom rung access is being affected by the NBN, this concern is null. Please, provide me some evidence that they will be worse off. The only example I can find and is constantly repeated is the cheap TPG Unlimited ADSL2+ plans, pricing which is offset by PIPE networks, and PIPE networks isn’t going anywhere, so there is no reason why TPG can’t continue to offset under the NBN now is there?
Well actually it is quite difficult to do piecemeal FTTH rollouts because of the way the contended medium works on the GPON you need to do at least a whole street, but to get reasonable economies of scale you probably need to do it in suburb-sized chunks (get all the equipment and teams together, management overhead, etc). Given that the ducts from the small pits into the houses are only about 5mm diameter, you are probably going to need to pull out copper pairs as you pull through fiber in order to re-use those ducts. OK this no doubt depends on the area, but when Telstra rolled out coaxial TV cables they needed to replace the normal CAT-3 with extra-thin non-twisted CAT-3 into people’s houses. Optus just ripped out the CAT-3 and threw it away when they did their coaxial rollout and they got blasted for it when people wanted to go back to regular phone lines.
With FTTN you can first build a “node” and not need to touch anyone’s service at all. Then you can take any single service you like and jump it across to the DSLAM in the “node” with an outage of about 20 seconds (the time for some guy to punch the copper into a different slot, plus the time for the modem to resync). Naturally a DSLAM with only one service on it would probably be wasting money but let’s suppose out of perhaps 1000 copper pairs going through a “node”, only 100 users actually pay for the upgrade to VDSL (and those 100 are paying premium rates) you can pay for your new infrastructure quickly. That’s the huge advantage you get from leveraging existing infrastructure in a transparent manner.
So you want an upgrade path from there? Well the first rule of technology is don’t buy more than you need when you need it, because it’s going to go obsolete no matter what you do. Remember when they tried to sell computers that were “future proof”, with plenty of unused expansion slots all over the place? Then in a couple of years time you go to expand the thing and well, you can’t buy that type of memory any more, and no one uses PCI slots, we’ve all moved to different standards all over the place so you might as well just buy a whole new computer anyhow.
Sure, the concept of fiber is going to be around for a long time, but tell that to the people who invested in multimode fiber just to discover that now everyone uses singlemode fiber. Then there’s all sorts of standards for the termination and couplings, those are sure to change. We still haven’t got the battery situation figured out, battery technology has been evolving rapidly so whatever backup batteries get rolled out today will be an obsolete technology in five years when they need replacing.
Now you ask me how I know that prices for basic comms services are going to go up with NBN… it’s a pretty simple concept that in order to pump investment into an industry someone has to pay for it. Let’s consider that the NBN was just a small business that got a loan from a bank at 7% interest rate and went out to do Armidale with FTTH. For argument’s sake give it a round figure of 1 million dollars of investment required to cover Armidale, and suppose they somehow also got full fixed-line monopoly rights and also got 100% takeup and kicked Telstra’s copper out completely. Now NBN only sell one product which is wholesale access to last-mile connections. They need to pay the bank $70k per year in interest but they also have some overheads so let’s round that up to $100k revenue per year required absolute minimum.
Where’s that $100k going to come from? Well it has to come out of the access fees for those fixed lines, so the people of Armidale are going to have to pay for it. That’s if the NBN is going to operate as a business. On the other hand, if the NBN is going to operate as a charity, then someone (i.e. the government, i.e. your tax dollars) must donate money into that NBN charity in order to keep it operational.
Now at the moment Conroy insists that the NBN will not operate as a charity, and it will pay back the original government investment with a 7% interest rate on top. Well for the tax money to get paid back, the NBN will need to be bringing in revenue of at least 10% of the investment money (when you consider overheads and some of the principle paid back on the loan). Given that the “whole Australia” investment is in the ballpark of 40 billion (including the money going to Telstra), then 10% of that is $4 billion dollars per year. Well there only are about 10 million households in all of Australia which would be an extra $400 per year if takeup is 100% shared evenly amongst all users (or about $32 per month). If takeup is only 50% then we are talking $64 extra per month evenly shared amongst the users. Maybe you have this idea that the payments won’t be evenly shared amongst the users — you think you might make the high end users pay for it and let the low end users ride free. Well the high end users are the ones with the largest number of alternative options (and if they are a business they have the option of moving the whole business to somewhere else, like they take their whole server farm and virtualize it somewhere in Texas).
That’s all presuming ideal conditions, no wastage, and minimal ongoing maintenance costs… but you know that once NBN takes up a monopoly position it will push prices as high as it can, because that’s what monopolies do. No competition means a guarantee of inefficiency and high prices. Then of course, the NBN employees will form a union and no one can touch any fibers unless they are in the union, and they will keep a nice little club to themselves to push their wages up. All very predictable.
Now it may be that some amazing new efficiency improvements will be triggered by the NBN, or perhaps a new must-have killer app will come along. However, given that FTTH has been available overseas for quite a while, and also given that expensive fiber has been available in Australia for those who want it, and given that universities and other places have had fast internet for a decade or more… why can’t we see those killer apps and efficiency improvements starting to pop up already? What is NBN going to facilitate that can’t be done at least experimentally now?
Even if those killer apps do come along, they won’t come out of nowhere in a week or two, there will be years of development, debugging, gradual interest amongst users, etc. FTTN will easily tide us over as these things come along and then we will be able to come up with a genuine business case for FTTH or superfast wireless, or mesh radio or whatever happens to be out there at the time… and the technology will be targeted at the applications that use it, rather than trying to target imaginary applications when we really don’t know what they even require, because they don’t even exist yet.
I smell burning plastic grass.
The idea that a FTTN network will be “cheaper” and “better solution” is a fallacy. Anyone who thinks that the original FTTN plan – (a mathematical model developed by a bunch bean-counters at Telstra) – will compete with a FTTH plan over the medium to long term doesn’t understand how similar a FTTN and FTTH solution would be.
Short term – sure – it will be cheaper, but you actually lock us into an expensive upgrade cycle, and will never deliver a consistency of service, and a uniformity of service user to user. Speeds will still vary depending on how far you are from the node – just as distance from the exchange creates massive variance now.
If you actually think that relocating someone’s line from their current exchange to a new node based DSLAM is going to take “20 seconds”, you’re kidding yourself. Your local node might be in a completely different direction than your previous exchange. There’s a lot more to it than just the physical copper. The entire virtual circuit for the DSL connectivity and the PSTN connectivity (if they have PSTN service) has to be rerouted for starters.
Moving away from the copper has many technical and cost advantages.
(BIG SLAB COPIED/MODIFIED FROM ANOTHER THREAD)
The Coalition wanted to spend $6b to get everyone up to 12Mbps. Great. Fantastic. You can do that – but what happens a few years down the track when everyone needs 50Mbps? You have to spend more money again to acheive that. A few years later, you need to throw more money at it again to get even faster.
The NBN is measured as a 30 year project – how many upgrade cycles does a FTTN proposal lock us into for the next 30 years. It will be no cheaper – it will be more expensive, and not provide service equality, and leaves Telstra in charge to continue raping and pillaging the wholesale market.
Average broadband speed in Australia is currently about 2.5Mbps (ABS figures), so the base NBN speeds will improve access. The NBN lifts MINIMUM speed to 12Mbps, and therefore average speed well beyond that. The FTTN proposal lifts people to a MAXIMUM guaranteed 12Mbps – some will get more, but that’s a side effect more than it is a target.
NBN also gives higher reliability, lower latency, and almost limitless expansion possibilities for the future. For example, the current state of the art for GPON technology – (what is being built) – allows for 40Gbps with current fibre signalling technology.
There are already laboratory tests giving 400Gbps in a GPON installation with the exact same fibre, through improved signalling technologies.
The reason for the “big spend” is that deploying this kind of infrastructure will eliminate much future spending on upgrades down the track.
By building the NBN as proposed, we eliminate the network as a limiting factor – (like it is now) – and allow the market to spend time, money and effort developing applications on top of the network for the good of everyone.
At the moment, all the investment is wasted patching up a rotting, failing, undermaintained, 60-year-old network that is bursting at the seams, and artificially controlled by Telstra, driven by its legal responsibility to do the best for its shareholders – which is incompatible with consumer outcomes.
This sounds like that old argument 60 years ago about not needing to spend money building the copper network because we had the postal service and telegraph.
The copper network cost more per head of population than the NBN is planned to cost now. It’s ahead of schedule, and under budget.
Many think it’s a colossal waste – and they are entitled to that opinion. However, in my opinion – (and this is shared by many) – actually NOT doing could cost Australia a whole lot more.
Consider, by the year 2020 the ABS predicts that Australia will suffer from $20b in lost GDP simply through traffic congestion. People sitting in cars not being productive. Goods sitting on trucks not moving to where they are needed.
If the NBN encourages even 10% of the population off the road to become remote knowledge workers – (and don’t start with “people can do that now” – they can’t do that efficiently and effectively with 2Mbps of upload) – you see a potential increase of $2b a year in GDP, straight away.
10% less traffic on the roads means the 90% that’s left have 10% less traffic to deal with, so there’s an increase in productivity there too. 10% less traffic on the road means less wear and tear on the roads, saving on road funding. 10% less cars on the road means 10% road accidents, meaning a lowering of the pressure on ambulance services, hospital services, and rehabilitation services and corresponding savings on funding, and increases in efficiency in those sectors. Waiting lists will be reduced because less people will be taking up hospital beds after road accidents.
10% less accidents means less pressure on insurance premiums, and less need to build new roads and freeways.
10% less vehicles on the road reduces carbon emissions from motor vehicles by 10%. How much would that cost to do by itself? This would be a free hit, for crying out load!
There are now more cars crossing the combined capacity of the Sydney Harbour Bridge and the Sydney Harbour Tunnel, than were crossing the Sydney Harbour Bridge ALONE in 1992 when the tunnel first opened. So now, even more cars are being fed into the same place than there was originally – and this was supposed to REDUCE congestion. Yup, there was $0.5b well spent.
In Melbourne, we’re just about to finish spending over $1b adding an extra lane to our most significant freeway system – the Monash/Westgate corridor. Great – we’re encouraging more cars onto the road, and more people off public transport options. What a complete waste. We’re feeding even more cars in a shorter amount of time into the same space in the CBD.
Imagine the difference if people started being able to work from home, or in activity centres in the suburbs. We wouldn’t need to be spending these billions on wasted road infrastructure.
All this if the NBN makes it viable for businesses to send just 10% of people to work from home. Imagine if it hit 20%?
Add the numbers up and see how quickly the above improvements to the economy “pay” for the price tag of the NBN. And that’s before the NBN makes a single cent itself.
Yes, the NBN is a lot of money.
But there is a difference between spending money and making an INVESTMENT. The governments of this country – (and indeed the whole world) – spend money for stupid projects that create bigger problems.
I’d much prefer Australia to lead the world than do what we always do – and that’s stick our head in the sand and say “it’s too hard”, “it’s too expensive”.
How about we say to the rest of the world “too bad” – we did this, and we’re gonna win?
People need some foresight for the future. Politically speaking, I’m quite a right leaning, traditionally Liberal voting person – but quite frankly, the “carefully carefully, quietly quietly” rhetoric of the current conservative politicians in this country makes me sick.
It’s like they want Australia to be followers, rather than leaders.
With risk comes great reward. There is risk in building the NBN – there is risk in not building the NBN.
If we build it, we MIGHT have nothing to show for it – but if we don’t build it we will DEFINITELY have nothing to show for it.
Have some guts people. It’s what made Australia great in the first place.
Nice work indeed, Michael…
+1 epic post
Well said Michael. I want to add a few extra points as well:
Well actually it is quite difficult to do piecemeal FTTH rollouts because of the way the contended medium works on the GPON you need to do at least a whole street, but to get reasonable economies of scale you probably need to do it in suburb-sized chunks (get all the equipment and teams together, management overhead, etc).
And you will likely do FTTN in suburb-sized chunks as well to both minimise disruption and to get a better economy of scale.
So you want an upgrade path from there? Well the first rule of technology is don’t buy more than you need when you need it, because it’s going to go obsolete no matter what you do. Remember when they tried to sell computers that were “future proof”, with plenty of unused expansion slots all over the place? Then in a couple of years time you go to expand the thing and well, you can’t buy that type of memory any more, and no one uses PCI slots, we’ve all moved to different standards all over the place so you might as well just buy a whole new computer anyhow.
Sure, the concept of fiber is going to be around for a long time, but tell that to the people who invested in multimode fiber just to discover that now everyone uses singlemode fiber. Then there’s all sorts of standards for the termination and couplings, those are sure to change. We still haven’t got the battery situation figured out, battery technology has been evolving rapidly so whatever backup batteries get rolled out today will be an obsolete technology in five years when they need replacing.
Okay, I understand what you are saying here but first of all you don’t invest in already out of date technology just to save costs, which is what rolling out the FTTN will do. You try and invest in the most up to date technology in order to prolong your upgrade cycle. The upgrade cycle of a FTTN network will be about 5 years after completion, whereas the upgrade cycle for a FTTH network will be about 15 years after completion.
Second of all, technologies only become obsolete when there is no longer a market for them, or the market becomes so small that it is insignificant. People stop manufacturing RAM for old computers when the majority of people have stopped using the old standard. When we have a market of 10 million homes I think it will be in vendors best interests to continue to invest in the technology the NBN utilises, just like there is continued investment in Broadband technologies over copper pairs despite the obvious limitations of that technology. If we actually followed your logic to it’s conclusion, telecommunications vendors would have long ago stopped supplying DSLAM based technology because fibre is a far better technology.
And finally, as for your arguments as to why the price of basic access will go up, I have to ask, have you read the Business plan?
And you will likely do FTTN in suburb-sized chunks as well to both minimise disruption and to get a better economy of scale.
Well you might, but there would be more profit in pre-building a basic “node” in a factory, getting a general purpose crew to drop them into existing infrastructure at a slow and steady rate as customer demand pushes for it (no shortage of people who know how to punch copper) and a very limited number of guys who go and commission them. You just seem to blankly refuse to accept that upwards compatibility with existing infrastructure saves costs, but I guess you also claim that the i386 architecture died years ago.
… you don’t invest in already out of date technology just to save costs …
No, you invest in the sweet spot that gives the best bang for buck, which at the moment is ADSL2 for low-end users and VHDSL for high end users. That is unless you have a genuine application that requires bleeding edge technology and then you just grit your teeth an bleed for a good cause.
Second of all, technologies only become obsolete when there is no longer a market for them, or the market becomes so small that it is insignificant.
Nothing Australia does can maintain a tech market on its own. As DSL modems improve, they remain back-compatible with older protocols and the cat-3 coupling is set in stone forever. Sure, eventually they will be obsolete, but for every year you don’t invest you [1] save the interest payments on the loan and [2] give yourself a larger selection of things that you can buy next year.
If we actually followed your logic to it’s conclusion, telecommunications vendors would have long ago stopped supplying DSLAM based technology because fibre is a far better technology.
I have no idea how you come to this conclusion. Various types of DSL are the last-mile workhorse in most of the developed world right now. Can you explain your logical chain of reasoning here?
And finally, as for your arguments as to why the price of basic access will go up, I have to ask, have you read the Business plan?
Well it’s a daunting 160 pages so if you perhaps consider a more specific point where my figures depart from the NBN plan then I’d have something other than hand-waving to respond to. That said if you check page 110 Figure 9.2 (in fine print) FY2020 shows 12365k houses passed, 7845k paying connections and 4914 million revenue. 4914M / 12365k = $397.41 per year (at 100% uptake) and up above I said $400 per year so hey I don’t provide 5 sig-fig accuracy on my estimates. Frankly do you seriously think that the NBN plan was really calculated to 5 significant figures?
They presume 7845 / 12365 = 63% take-up which doesn’t seem impossible, and they presume they will get growth in total customers by 2020 (including a generous slice of business customers)… not impossible but perhaps a bit hopeful. When you consider what these customers are paying on average, you get 4914M / 7845k = $626.39 or $52.20 per month. Up above I had a stab at “$64 extra per month” which isn’t to far off. What’s the current Telstra copper access fee? Oh about $16 per month (locked by ACCC).
Check Figure 8.18 on page 105 and you can firstly see they completely ignore the cheap ADSL plans (e.g. a number of naked-DSL options at $50 per month and under, these generally include VoIP thrown in, with decently cheap call rates) and they claim that retailer will be able to deliver basic accounts at $56 per month (presumably also with a phone thrown in). They don’t explain how to calculate this, but it sound’s a bit on the wishful thinking side. I guess we will see in the coming 12 month period how it really works (if the genuine figures make it to the public).
What else is there? No consideration given to cost of payphones (p27) and no consideration of the cost of connecting the granny who only wants a cheap voice line and nothing else.
They claim ongoing operating costs of $2924M by 2020 (for 7845k customers or $372.72 per year per customer)… but that brings their nett earnings down to $2 billion per year (paying interest at 7% that only covers a loan of $28 billion) so they aren’t even considering the payment to Telstra in this business plan (eeks — $11 billion out of taxpayers pockets suddenly becomes “on budget” in the near future).
OK, i’ve changed my mind… it’s worse than I said before.
Well you might, but there would be more profit in pre-building a basic “node” in a factory, getting a general purpose crew to drop them into existing infrastructure at a slow and steady rate as customer demand pushes for it (no shortage of people who know how to punch copper) and a very limited number of guys who go and commission them.
Except of course when customer demand is erratic and the technology in question services a rather large geographic area such a rollout method is inefficient. How do you chose who gets the upgrade first? How do you ensure the areas you are rolling out to will have significant uptake numbers to ensure that it will pay for the capital expenditure? The simple fact is, you don’t, so you end up rolling it en-mass anyway, or worse in an erratic fashion (which will result in customers being denied service simply because of geographic location, which is precisely the issue that has prompting government intervention in the first place).
You just seem to blankly refuse to accept that upwards compatibility with existing infrastructure saves costs, but I guess you also claim that the i386 architecture died years ago.
Have you listened to a work I have been saying? Of course it saves costs. Of course it is cheaper. But that’s the only argument I can find in favour of FTTN. And to me, that is not good enough. Especially considering the cost disparity we are talking about is not as significant as those who wish to push FTTN networks would like us to think. Sure the government only spends $6b on such a project, but at the same time private enterprise will be investing $15b+ in this upgrade.
No, you invest in the sweet spot that gives the best bang for buck, which at the moment is ADSL2 for low-end users and VHDSL for high end users. That is unless you have a genuine application that requires bleeding edge technology and then you just grit your teeth an bleed for a good cause.
And if you had been listening to what I have been saying I’m of the opinion that what you just referred to is not the sweet spot we are looking for. That isn’t to say the NBN is but I have yet to see you actually explore the limitations of the technologies as I have been for the past few months and try to work out where that sweet spot actually is. You have actually been too busy attacking my arguments in support of the NBN to even consider, for a moment, that the reason I am fighting against your opinion so forcefully is because I am trying to get you to consider alternative options.
Nothing Australia does can maintain a tech market on its own.
Well isn’t it good we have other projects, like Verzion FiOS (17 million homes alone), that use similar technology?
I have no idea how you come to this conclusion. Various types of DSL are the last-mile workhorse in most of the developed world right now. Can you explain your logical chain of reasoning here?
There wasn’t one. It was actually trying to debunk your argument that the FTTH technologies utilised by the NBN will be superseded in the future. Clearly, although their are obvious limitations to DSL technology that cannot be overcome, namely the speed degradation over distance, companies are still investing in it because their is a huge market for it. Tens of millions of homes in various countries using GPON based technology mean that companies will continue to invest in GPON improvements as well, because there is also a huge market for it.
And as for your arguments on NBN pricing, I must respond with: /facepalm
Old grannies can’t get a cheap connection, ignoring the fact that the current cheaper rate is a government subsidy.
The average cost of average being about $52.20, as compared to $16. Hmm did you include any of the other expenses in that costing, like voice services? How about the fact that that is an absolute average?
Seriously?
An excellent idea Captain, with just two minor problems.
Firstly the bottleneck on the whole “Work from Home” concept hasn’t been bandwidth for years, the limit is whether our business leaders are willing to accept the paradigm. Secondly, taking a few cars off the road does not reduce congestion, because congestion always floats up to the level where driving is about the same cost/benefit for commuters as public transport. So when people on the train see that driving is much quicker, some of them switch over to driving until the congestion is on the limit of what they can cope with.
ADSL-1 is plenty for a VoIP phone and a remote desktop, try it yourself by all means.
How about we say to the rest of the world “too bad” – we did this, and we’re gonna win?
How about you wanna do pissing match, you do it with the cash in your own pocket not mine? Sounds reasonable?
I didn’t realise this was a pissing match – I actually thought that this was a serious discussion to be honest.
ADSL is not sufficient for universal VoIP. I work specifically in the VoIP arena, and I can assure you ADSL just does not cut it. I’ve seen people make similar statements to that which you just made, and swear time and time again that its enough, and they get proven wrong every single time. It’s not about bandwidth – it’s about latency. Latency is completely unpredictable in an ADSL network, because no single link in the chain has predictable characteristics.
You either know that and are just fobbing it off, or you don’t know what you’re talking about.
There is also a lot more to telecommuting, and remote activity centres than just “remote desktop”. I’ve spent 16 years working professionally in this industry – longer if you count non-paid experience in the industry, and I’ve not heard such 1999 thinking since, well, 1999.
There’s an old saying that goes – “if you always do what you always did, you’ll always get what you always got”.
We have to change.
I work specifically in the VoIP arena, and I can assure you ADSL just does not cut it. I’ve seen people make similar statements to that which you just made, and swear time and time again that its enough, and they get proven wrong every single time.
Well that’s strange because mine at home is running just fine, has done for years.
Engin announced to the ASX they had:
* 31000 paying subscribers as at 30 April 2006
* 58000 subscribers June 2007
* 63000 subscribers June 2008
MyNetFone reported:
* 26000 subscribers April 2007
* 88000 total services in operation Jan 2011
I could go through others but there are heaps of them, what do you think these people are using if not copper pairs to carry these VoIP services? Sure, some of them might run fiber, but I sincerely doubt the majority do.
What would you recommend to your customers for VoIP anyhow if not a copper pair? Are you telling them to just sit and wait for NBN?
Latency is completely unpredictable in an ADSL network, because no single link in the chain has predictable characteristics.
I dunno what you have been doing for the past 15 years, but everywhere I have seen the ADSL link is just one hop (from the premises to the DSLAM) and it’s a very predictable hop, no contention from any other customers, bandwidth hardly changes, etc. What do you mean by “ADSL network” ? Do you mean you have multiple hops of ADSL in your designs ?
As for the rest of the chain, every ADSL system I’ve seen runs ATM cells right from the modem through to the DSLAM and out onto the broader ATM network (usually fiber) into the PPP concentrator and if your ATM networks have high jitter then please, you have a serious problem right there, don’t bug me about it. Suffice to say, that ATM networks can exhibit extremely predictable low-jitter because most of the telephone calls in the world run over ATM most of the time.
Once it hits the PPP concentrator, talk to your ISP about what they are doing after that… it’s nothing to do with copper pairs, nothing to do with NBN for that matter. Most VoIP providers will offer you their own Naked-DSL solution that runs right into their VoIP gateway, for that matter just about every ISP offers VoIP as well. You are seriously telling me they are ALL broken, and only you the awesome dude with 15 years experience can fix things (with a bit of help from the NBN) ?
If I even slightly believed you, I’d be extremely impressed.
Keep on digging Captain!
If the market was working as you seem to think it is, something like the NBN would have been built years ago.
Motivated by the need to make many short distance STD calls (the ones who prices are artificially high), people may be nominal VOIP users, but that is not to say the user experience is as good as it should be
Strangely enough not everything scales well.
The road outside my house is the perfect size for my car and is never congested. Therefore if everyone in Australia used the same piece of road we’d have no more congestion issues.
I have friends who loved the speed of their Optus Cable connections, so told everyone in their street about it. Soon everyone signed up and all of their connections dropped to a fraction of the speed.
The secret to good VOIP throughput on ADSL is to not tell your neighbors that it is good. A couple of hundred thousand used spread over a city of millions doesn’t degrade the speed.
Latency is completely unpredictable in an ADSL network, because no single link in the chain has predictable characteristics.
My god, why the hell do you make uneducated statements. Latency is just as reliable over ADSL as it is over Fiber link (for the last mile).
The reason why VOIP has issues with latency is due to the issues with QoS on the packet based network. Use something like ISDN which has a circuit switching system, and you can get guaranteed low latency (as well as bandwidth) links over copper, in fact many businesses use ISDN for this reason (its still used around the world in broadcasting stations and whatnot because of these features).
The issues people have with latencies on ADSL are due to congested RIM’s (or even congestion on the ISP’s side).
I think with 15 years of experience in the Industry with a specialisation in VoIP solutions Michael is far more qualified on the subject of the causes of latency than you are.
I should start shouting so you can hear me from the bottom of the whole you’re digging yourself into.
VoIP “works” over any kind of network. You’ll get a call through. As for the quality of that call, that’s plenty different, and once again you’ve demonstrated your misunderstanding of what is actually involved.
There is so much more to it than just QoS tagging – which only (largely, but not conclusively) guarantees that packets arrive in a certain order. It doesn’t speed up packets; it doesn’t make them smaller. It certainly does not guarantee that they will get through.
QoS cannot affect the size and latency characteristics of any communications link over which packets are sent.
Bandwidth, QoS, latency, load on servers, throughput of your CPE, and factors within your own network all go towards how voice quality is measured in terms of MOS.
Wondering why the NBN NTUs have the voice ports INSIDE them? That’s to eliminate the customers badly configured network from interfering with the quality of the call. One factor towards bad call quality eliminated.
Latency over a fibre network towards the SIP servers of your RSP, that’s called minimising the latency.
Highest priority given to voice traffic over the ENTIRE network – (not just bits the RSP can control), that’s delivering the best chance that packets will arrive in time over every other packet on the network.
Bandwidth – dedicated – (ie: not contended with ANYTHING ELSE your NTU is pumping through it while you download your pr0n at 1Gbps) – channel of 150Kbps/150Kbps is more than enough for a G.711/uLaw encoded voice call (about 64Kbps). That’s enough for two concurrent calls.
Now it’s just up to the RSPs to get their SIP servers scaled properly.
That’s how you deliver voice quality using VoIP. The “simpleton” view that ADSL1/ADSL2 networks can do all that because everyone gets at least 64Kbps in each direction shows how little you actually know about it.
At the moment, VoIP is niche product for people looking for cheap telephony. Under the NBN, VoIP becomes the dominant delivery method, and it will not scale over ADSL of any flavour.
It’ll work under existing infrastructure – but you’ll be the first person to complain about shit call quality, I have no doubt.
*spins the propeller on your hat*
I was commenting on your fact that you said ADSL networks are worse off latency wise then FTTP networks, which is complete bullshit
Want to see a FTTP network where customers have issues with massive latency issues, try TransACT. Its network design, everything down to the routers used, and not just last mile that determines issues with latency
“…latency is just as reliable…”
Latency is NOT a measure of reliability. Nice try.
ADSL networks in Australia make no provision at the network level to actively reduce latency on a traffic-class-by-traffic-class basis. We are talking VoIP (realtime) versus “internet” (best effort).
There is no provision to natively do this in an ADSL network.
The NBN has been designed from the get-go with this in mind.
*spins your propeller again*
Of course it’s network design! Do you know what you have a lot with in FTTH networks? Bandwidth.
Do you know what you can do with this resource? Allocate it into dedicated conduits. Which is what they are planning to do with the NBN, because they have way more bandwidth than the user will likely need for quite a while.
Try doing that with ADSL2+… oh wait, none of the existing hardware consumers use supports this, nor do our DSLAMs. Hmm. I know, we’ll use QoS! Oh wait, that’s not that reliable is it? *scratches head*
FTTH allows you to do things that would be otherwise difficult or in some cases impossible to do with existing technology, like giving everyone a dedicated 150/150 pipe for VoIP.
Right, so tell your friend, Micheal, to be more accurate in his statements, instead of just speading FUD, that the issue is with the current network design and not ADSL.
Latency has nothing to do with last mile medium being used, both fiber and ADSL (and HFC) have just as reliable latency as eachother
There he goes with “reliable latency” again.
*facepalm*
You are that originally argued that due to ADSL (and just ADSL) that the electrons in the copper somehow cause the ADSL to have more latency issues then photons in fiber
Latency is completely unpredictable in an ADSL network, because no single link in the chain has predictable characteristics.
So either retract that statement, because ADSL last mile is just as “predictable” as fiber last mile, As we are talking about the edge of the network, not the core.
Mr D Eteego – (what does the “D” stand for?)
You’ll remember – since you keep bringing it up – that I was happy to stand corrected.
As equally as I am not a physicist, you are not a network engineer. I also doubt that you’re an economist, or worked in any environment where financial decisions about technical matters are made.
Until you have…you’re going to continue to look foolish twisting and contorting every word that is against your position on the NBN in a feeble attempt to gain any “credibility” for your position.
Present some actual facts instead of making shit up, and we’ll be more likely to listen.
Michael you are either developing your own style of inspired comic genius, or you are just making stuff up in a painful attempt to bluff you way out of this one. Either way you show only the vaguest idea of how these technologies work while this deteego knows what he’s on about. You might take the opportunity to listen to someone for a change.
http://www.abttelecom.com/files/WHITE%20PAPERS%20_Optimizing_DSL_ATM_Networks_for_VoiceQuality04.pdf
The article provides a nice diagram, genuine jitter measurements and a discussion on running multiple PVC’s over a single DSL link (i.e. separation of bulk data from VoIP) which was all very well understood back in 2004.
Wondering why the NBN NTUs have the voice ports INSIDE them?
Pay attention, because ADSL modems have been shipping with integrated ATA’s for years now. You might have heard of iiNet “Bob” perhaps?
There is so much more to it than just QoS tagging which only (largely, but not conclusively) guarantees that packets arrive in a certain order.
Must be a dreadful problem with all those packets getting themselves out of order while they bump and jostle along a copper wire.
Funny thing is, if you order a Telstra E1 or frame relay (you know, synchronous serial) they deliver it over twisted pair copper. Those clever Telstra guys must have solved that problem where all the bits turn up out of order at the other end.
Tel,
ADSL might be fine for some salesmen etc. working from home but many professions require access to programs and systems which are more intensive than your simple voice and email example. Further more, companies have security concerns over accessing sensitive documents and programs over the internet and the speed of using these systems in a secure manner with existing technologies means that working from home is not a realistic choice for many.
From a budgetary view, working from home can also be cost prohibitive for companies which require major upgrades including but not limited to fibre connections to meet the speed requirements of several people accessing systems from home at the same time.
Like most things with the NBN, the basics already exist but the extra speed delivered will turn what is technically possible into reality for both the business and residential markets.
With remote desktop, programs are not being sent over the wire, only the screen display and mouse/keyboard events go over the wire. Most remote desktop products include encryption. There are a wide range of private business ADSL products available (i.e. they run on private IP addressing, and route direct to head office, not through the open Internet). NBN is only offering layer-2 services so none of that stuff will change under NBN anyhow.
From a budgetary view, working from home can also be cost prohibitive for companies which require major upgrades including but not limited to fibre connections to meet the speed requirements of several people accessing systems from home at the same time.
That’s the first legitimate point that I’ve seen, yes at the head office end the bandwidth does need to be substantially larger, however typically the desktop updates are somewhat random so the more employees you have on remote desktop, the more the peaks will average out. Also, the headoffice probably needs a big link for other reasons and if you have the money then plenty of “fat pipe” options are available right now. Let’s suppose the business decides to spend $3000 per month on an Internet connection — sounds like a lot right? Actually, that money pays the rent on about 60 square meters of office real estate in Sydney, or room for 10 employees if you give them 6 square meters each for desk, chair, walkways, etc (which is already uncomfortably tight). That’s just paying the rent… there’s still electricity, cleaning, and heaps of other stuff.
Once they have the big pipe into head office, they can probably shift their expensive ISDN onramp over to a VoIP trunk which will pay for at least some of the difference.
All of this is besides the point anyhow, until business management start to take a genuine interest in the concept and think hard about the management of remote employees. That’s a cultural shift… takes time and neither wires nor fibers are gonna change that.
If we build it, we MIGHT have nothing to show for it – but if we don’t build it we will DEFINITELY have nothing to show for it.
And the last two decades of private enterprise driven communications development is equivalent to “nothing to show for it” huh? That doesn’t even pass the laugh test. Sorry, but with comments like that you can be written off as nothing more than emotive propaganda.
Take an objective look at the improvements we have seen in Australia since Optus first brought some competition to the market, and open your eyes a bit.
Mine are WIDE open. I don’t know which telecommunications industry you’re looking at – certainly not that in Australia.
I’m also talking about the future – not the past to which you refer, and appear to live in.
Half the population (if that many) may live in the wonderful world where you do Tel. Competition is rampant, there are multiple DSLAM’s in your area and TPG, IInet, Internode, Optus and Telstra all battle for your dollar. Prices are low and you have your choice of the crop. For us lesser Australians living either outside of or on the outer suburbs of the major cities, the magical world you live in is only possible with assistance from the government. Some of us have access to ADSL2 through Telstra, some have access to ADSL1 only and others still are relegated to dial up. Those without either are receiving government funding with subsidised satellite. Since the sale of telecom, the Government has had to fight tooth and nail for every inch of ground with Telstra, who obviously believe that allowing access to their infrastructure and promoting a free and open market is not in their best interest.
If the installation of fibre is left to the “free market” you will end up with one of two undesirable outcomes. Optus Telstra and any other telco’s each running fibre down every street with wastage beyond comprehension or alternatively with Telstra cherry picking the most profitable sites up front, wholesaling if and when they choose for any price they choose and at the same time making it next to impossible for later competitors to move in.
The NBN is too important to leave to free market forces. If the government takes control of fibre today and they choose to sell it in the future, they will be able to legislate accordingly to ensure no matter where you live or how profitable your area is (density) we will all be assured future proof fast internet todaY.
I’m not going to disagree with what you have said here but I’ll question it’s direct relevance to the topic.
There’s one issue about which technologies give the best price/performance outcome and another quite different issue about the politics of how we should handle charity, welfare and wealth transfer in our society.
This is probably not the forum for discussing the wider issues of how capitalism, charity, equity, welfare and wealth transfer fit together, but it is at least relevant to ask firstly whether a primarily technical venture (such as NBN Co) is an appropriate vehicle for implementing, shall we say a mildly socialist political policy? Secondly, is it a good idea to use the arbitrary upgrade of infrastructure as smokescreen for social policy? Thirdly, how long can the NBN remain in the disguise of a genuine commercial entity (as the Hon Senator Conroy keeps insisting that it is) when it’s real purpose is wealth distribution?
Now I recognise that any large monopoly will tend to implement some level of wealth distribution amongst its customers simply out of convenience, to keep prices consistent (and in the NBN case, explicit anti-cherry-picking legislation is going to force that to happen). Thus, the selection of a monopoly business model does to some extent fit the Labor party social policy targets and that’s not exactly a technical decision either, nor does it have anything to do with the relative merits of one medium over any other. But don’t you find it ironic that most of the problems you outline with Telstra being a pig toward their competitors actually stem from the original decision to make Telecom a monopoly all those years ago. Remember that the Telstra directors do indeed have a legal obligation to their shareholders (including the government shareholder) to deliver the best share price they can, and the best dividends. A director making back door deals with one particular shareholder, for political reasons, could very likely be spending time in jail as a consequence.
The NBN Co will suffer from all the same problems, but worse because it doesn’t really know what it wants to be — as you keep pointing out, some of it’s intended operations are essentially those of a charity, and some are to achieve political objectives, social equity, etc. But other parts of NBN Co are supposed to operate as a regular corporation (just like Telstra is, with just the same legal obligation to maximise shareholder value). No one in the history of everywhere has ever constructed such a weird hybrid beast that is all things to all people — it always ends in tears. At the same time, the ALP wants to use it as a way to hide spending from the federal budget, so they can clean up the deficit and balance the books. No one can hide from reality in that way (at least not for long).
Tel,
Boiling this down to being a socialist agenda of wealth distribution is…… INSANE. You dismiss the relevance of the NBN to other infrastructures stating it is inherently different to roads, hospitals, rail etc etc but fail to see that extremely high data usage is the direction that the WORLD is heading in.
To contrast the bordering on extremely conservative view you appear to be painting, looking to the future broadband will be considered a basic human right, It will be required by people to conduct their work, their studies, their shopping, their leisure. It will effect all sectors either directly or from flow on benefits. The number of people, businesses and remote sites connected to the NBN will reduce the cost to the consumers and ensure even those on minimum wage can afford access. The amount of data sent and received will make what we have today pale in insignificance. The “value added” services allowed by the NBN will develop and increase which will in turn further increase the profitability of the NBN, decreasing the access cost. Work flexibility will increase as a virtual office can be made in the home, including live video feed whenever your co-workers require your input. Schools can have guest speakers delivering live classrooms to students at many schools simultaneously.,,,
I will be the first to say that much of the above is possible today, But information was once sent by smoke signals but I am glad we have come a long way since then. There are numerous examples throughout history of capital expenditure and development taking place despite existing levels of capability being adequate to suit immediate needs. Roads, Sewers, Potable Water, Rail, Stormwater. it does not matter, infrastructure is built to accommodate FUTURE DEMAND.
The former Lib Government and Current Government obviously acknowledged the importance of reliable and fast internet services to all Australians and the requirement for better service than we have today. This is one of the cornerstones of any broadband plan. Obviously those that live in the most densely populated areas already have access to fast broadband at decent speeds and this has been delivered by the free market as there was a profit to be made. There are many in the major cities who are still waiting for decent broadband and nearly all rural people are in the same boat.
As for the everything to everyone mentality of the NBN I think this is a bit of a push. The NBN plain and simple is the asset replacement of the current copper network. NBN Co are creating the network and shall wholesale it to retailers. There is a blurring of the definition of Retail but the focus point should be that for all intensive purposes, NBN Co sells to RSP’s (?) who then sell to ordinary families, businesses and corporations.
we are talking about delivering fixed services over significant (many kilometres) distances.
That should be done by backhaul or FTTN. The reason why the copper line is kilometers apart is because we are using distances designated back in the days where the copper was used for telephone exchange. Again thats not a mandate for a FTTH.
The fact that an incremental upgrade is cheaper has also, if you have followed the whole debate, not only been questioned (the estimate to install a fibre to the node network, when we include private funding, is over $20b),
False, it was ~5 billion dollars for a comparable coverage of around 90%. The $20 billion dollar mark was for a tender reaching 98% of Australia, I sure to god don’t want to see the figure for a 98% FTTH (this was the flawed Telstra tender btw)
The fact that the market is the best deliverance of the optimal technology for a particular user is true, however, what do you do when you have a market that is incapable of doing that to an acceptable level?
There currently is no market for FTTH on such a large scale apart for media reasons (something that is already being duplicated with for HFC). Verizon only managed to get FTTH profitable by cherry picking an incredibly small area of America in heavy demand areas
Do you know how many businesses who could possibly benefit from fibre technology miss out?
Yeah but, we are giving Fiber to every man, women, child, dog, pet fish etc etc. No one is arguing against delivering fiber to buisness’s areas or districts (or hospitals or schools)
All things considered, I think you completely missed the point of Michael’s article here. It’s a “can we get some honest debate here based upon facts?” because quite seriously, how is discussing mobile wireless relevant here when the the Liberal’s policy is also about fixed services? How is discussing how copper is great over short distances relevant here when we are talking about longer distances?
Michael is just as guilty as this article in terms of providing “facts”
That should be done by backhaul or FTTN.
Those are of many solutions to the problem. You cannot say authoritatively what should or shouldn’t done, you lack the experience, as do I, and does Michael.
The reason why the copper line is kilometers apart is because we are using distances designated back in the days where the copper was used for telephone exchange. Again thats not a mandate for a FTTH.
It is a mandate to do something about the problem, which I am sure you do not deny, however the question has arised time and time again, what is the right thing to do? If you had not noticed, that is the question we are all asking. From a technical point of view FTTH is a superior solution to FTTN. From an economic point of view, FTTN is a superior solution to FTTH.
False, it was ~5 billion dollars for a comparable coverage of around 90%. The $20 billion dollar mark was for a tender reaching 98% of Australia, I sure to god don’t want to see the figure for a 98% FTTH (this was the flawed Telstra tender btw)
If that were the case then why does the Coalition want to invest $6b. If a FTTN network with 90% coverage were only to cost $5b, then the Coalition could afford to pay FTTN network upgrades outright. How curious, why doesn’t the Coalition just say “With our $6b we could roll out FTTN and then give control directly to Telstra”, or better yet, why don’t they decrease their economic contribution?
There currently is no market for FTTH on such a large scale apart for media reasons (something that is already being duplicated with for HFC). Verizon only managed to get FTTH profitable by cherry picking an incredibly small area of America in heavy demand areas.
No one is denying this fact. There is a limited commercial market for it. But the government isn’t a commercial entity is it?
Yeah but, we are giving Fiber to every man, women, child, dog, pet fish etc etc. No one is arguing against delivering fiber to buisness’s areas or districts (or hospitals or schools).
We are giving a general conduit to access that is capable of up to 1Gbps/4bps to 93% of Australian homes. 93% is not every man, woman, child, do, pet fish, etc etc. Do not blur the debate by attempting to overstate what it is the NBN is doing.
Michael is just as guilty as this article in terms of providing “facts”
I disagree. I think he has always been attempting to direct the debate away from misinformation.
From a technical point of view FTTH is a superior solution to FTTN. From an economic point of view, FTTN is a superior solution to FTTH.
Actually FTTN is a compromise between an economic and technical solution. A purely economic solution would be only putting FTTN areas where there is demand. There is also a FTTN to FTTH upgrade path, those box’s are like mini exchanges, the NZ FTTN has cabinets that allow GPON systems inside
If that were the case then why does the Coalition want to invest $6b. If a FTTN network with 90% coverage were only to cost $5b
I said ~5b (approximate), those were figures from tenders during the failed NBN MK1 (which was a tender that only Telstra could win, nice work there). There is probably going to be ~30% contingency, plus that was the cost only for FTTN (and not wireless in the rest of the areas)
then the Coalition could afford to pay FTTN network upgrades outright. How curious, why doesn’t the Coalition just say “With our $6b we could roll out FTTN and then give control directly to Telstra”, or better yet, why don’t they decrease their economic contribution?>
Of course they did, how the hell do you expect them to be able to bring everyone to a ~12/1 minimum speeds with around 6 billion dollars, as Malcolm has been saying. Oh thats right, its called FTTN + FTTH + wireless. Of course, as I explained earlier, they can’t give any figures on how much its going to cost them because that changes depending on the NBN rollout. Malcolm has already said that his vision is a mix of FTTH + FTTN + a “bit” of wireless
Furthermore, to even greatly provide you with further empirical evidence of why the coalition cannot put forward concrete policy, as you already know, Telstra released a plan b for a FTTH/FTTN plan (which if they did would greatly reduce the amount of government investment required) which AGAIN changes everything. So if they had a concrete policy already, then the coalition would have to change it, AGAIN
Stop expecting a concrete policy on the NBN right now when its clearly obvious that the NBN is screwing up the whole telecommunications sector
No one is denying this fact. There is a limited commercial market for it. But the government isn’t a commercial entity is it?
Its not just a commercial market, its general demand, as consumers. Company roll out services where there is demand , regardless of what reasons the users have for that internet
I disagree. I think he has always been attempting to direct the debate away from misinformation.
I really could try and point out how many times Michael deliberately misinterpreted, or simply put out false information or FUD to back up his highly vested interested in NBN, but I think we are past that stage
Considering what he has been saying lately, I would have easily mistook him for Conroy if his name wasn’t Michael Wyres
*pissing myself laughing*
That’s the funniest thing I’ve heard all day.
What is it they say? When someone degrades their argument to personal slurs, it’s because they have nothing?
*spins your propeller*
*pats Michael on the head*
Just like the speed of light has an effect on bandwidth, my friend.
Its not an insult if its true, its just embarrassing (for you)
I don’t feel embarrassed at all. I’m happy to accept errors that I might make from time to time.
You could learn something from that.
*spins your propeller backwards for something different*
“What is it they say? When someone degrades their argument to personal slurs, it’s because they have nothing?”
But of course it’s ok when you do it?
No, it’s not.
But I’ve just proven it pisses you off – so you should stop too… ;)
Can I just note to everyone, that I have been very impressed by the quality of the science-based discussion on this thread — normally you don’t see that sort of physics discussion online. Bravo!
@Renai LeMay
“Can I just note to everyone, that I have been very impressed by the quality of the science-based discussion on this thread — normally you don’t see that sort of physics discussion online. Bravo!”
Are you assessing the ‘quality of the science based discussion’ at all in that statement? – or just assuming there are plenty of tech terms sprinkled throughout that no one is qualified to make sense of one way or the other, but never mind ‘Bravo’ anyway!
Nice diversion from the real problem of the NBN, that is its horrendous cost to taxpayers for generations to come and the constant spin on its justification.
Seems I spoke too soon, in relation to the usual FUD suspects and their irrational drivel, when I said this –
“Yes indeed Renai. It is most refreshing to read.
Especially from those against the NBN, when they are able to actually forward a little factual information for a change, rather than relying upon, the typical rhetoric. I.e. regurgitating the opposition’s FUD relating to cost, ROI, white elephant, insulation, trying to discredit any positive info/Quigley/Conroy etc….” {END}
As such… heeeeeeere’s alain!
Yes indeed Renai. It is most refreshing to read.
Especially from those against the NBN, when they are able to actually forward a little factual information for a change, rather than relying upon, the typical rhetoric. I.e. regurgitating the opposition’s FUD relating to cost, ROI, white elephant, insulation, trying to discredit any positive info/Quigley/Conroy etc…
Thre seems to be an assumption among the anti-NBN team that people are happy with second rate(slow) access to communications.
If so, why are the nature strips around here cluttered with cathode ray televisions and commuter monitors at each council clean up? They can’t all be broken.
@Richard Ure
‘If so, why are the nature strips around here cluttered with cathode ray televisions and commuter monitors at each council clean up? They can’t all be broken.’
Is that a cryptic crossword clue? – ok I give up, what is the link between discarded TV’s and computer monitors that are not broken and the NBN?
My point is that many choose to believe folk are only interested in the cheapest solution. That is, if you are on dial up, you will be content with dial speeds for life.
In reality, when a technology (e.g., digital television) is available or forced on people, they don’t settle for a no frills set top box, but upgrade to flat screens of varying dimensions.
Got it now?
@Alain
Seriously mate, you can’t see the point?? If you actually think about what you are reading before trolling for the anti NBN camp your eyes might be opened just a little.
Many many many people will not continue using their VHS when DVD is better, they will upgrade their mobile phones to be the newest and the best, they will buy better golf clubs when they come out on the market, they buy better cars, better televisions, better computers.
Correct me if I am wrong Richard, but the message was that It is not in human nature to defy progress, otherwise we would all be driving old cars, watching TV on 32cm TV’s and surfing the net on 200mhz computers.
Most Australians will connect to the NBN, if not immediately, eventually all properties where it is available will be connected.
@Jasmcd
“Many many many people will not continue using their VHS when DVD is better, they will upgrade their mobile phones to be the newest and the best, they will buy better golf clubs when they come out on the market, they buy better cars, better televisions, better computers.”
Nice try but the taxpayer funded NBN does not equal the above, it’s news to me that the taxpayer developed the DVD, better golf clubs, better cars, mobile phones, televisions etc.
They are all private enterprise products which the consumer can elect NOT TO BUY they wish!
“Most Australians will connect to the NBN, if not immediately, eventually all properties where it is available will be connected.”
Australians will connect to the NBN and I mean connect as in a resold ISP NBN BB Plan not as in the so called ‘free connect’ because it is being rolled past your door but because Telstra and Optus have disconnected everyone from HFC and Telstra has decommissioned the copper exchange system.
Why will Telstra and Optus do this? – because they have been gifted taxpayer billions by Conroy to do so – but remember this must not be counted in the dollar total of the NBN.
And he’s back. Once again I must remind you that no deal has been struck between Optus and NBN Co.
Yes indeed he’s – alain/advocate (Mr. Contradiction). back…LOL. And as usual not letting the facts stand in the way of his FUD…!
For some comic relief, go to http://goo.gl/iPHDA to see the Poms whingeing in their comments to an article in the Telegraph about spending far less for their far less ambitious “superfast broadband” project.
There is a lot of misinformation in regards to the financial impact of the NBN, portraying it as an unimaginably sized project, beyond the role of government and more suited to the likes of the private sector.
To put it in perspective –
40 Billion Dollars = $1800 per person in Australia
If it were to be spread over a 30 year period, it would be reduced to $60 per person per year with only the interest left to pay. From what I have read $60 is also the cost of the NBN per connection per month.
40 Billion dollars is the GDP of countries like Uganda and Ghana. Which are ranked as 92 and 94 respectively in terms of GDP by the IMF.
There are currently 2 men in the world whose net worth is over 40 billion and as such could afford to fund the NBN. There are many more families with a combined wealth who could do the same.
The NBN is also approx. 1/20th of our GDP
40 Billion is the announced amount lost when a former MP in India allowed the sale of 2G mobile licences for less than they were worth.
40 Billion is just under the total annual sales figure for EBay
40 billion is a S%*T load of money, however there are many projects, funding programs and other infrastructure developments world wide worth that much or more.
@jasmcd
That’s brilliant, your justification for the $40 billion NBN is underpinned by the fact that there have been other ‘losses’ of $40 billion elsewhere in the world so therefore it’s ok, and that’s what Ebay makes a year?
Interesting you say that it is ‘only’ $1800 per person, that’s also including all those ‘persons’ who will NEVER use it eh?
You avoid any mention when that $40 billion will be paid back – for the obvious reason it will never be paid back.
@Alain,
Do you actually read the comments you reply to? Of course Ebay’s total sales per year is no justification for the NBN as your “witty” post infers. Many people think that 40 Billion is an unimaginable amount of money and that spending this much will automatically lead Australia to financial ruin.
The figures listed are to put into perspective that 40 Billion spent, resulting in the ownership of a world class telecommunications infrastructure, is not going to hurt this country.
Now, do your taxes pay for Medicare, PBS, Private Health Subsidies, Public and Private Schools, Community grants, Road infrastructure, Disaster recovery, Diplomatic visits over seas, Military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, Child Care Rebates, Solar Panels on roofs, Maternity Leave………………. the list goes on.
Every person pays for the above, some you will agree with, some you will disagree with. But all are in the Greater Good of the community and economy.
$1800($1809) per Australian is pretty self explanatory, it was not devised to be tricky or deceive. It is quick simple math $38B divide 21 million population.
If it makes you feel better you can continue to imagine that this is just a big conspiracy and that everyone in favour of the NBN is either secretly works for the government or is just a sheep following the crowd but it won’t change the fact that many Australians see the benefit of this massive undertaking and many around the world will envy the network we will have.
“$1800($1809) per Australian is pretty self explanatory, it was not devised to be tricky or deceive. It is quick simple math $38B divide 21 million population.”
You deliberately avoided the question I asked as to how many of the 21 million will actually use it but pay for it it anyway.
“but it won’t change the fact that many Australians see the benefit of this massive undertaking”
Well yeah there is plenty of commercial vested interest backing this turkey, but then again they are not paying for it either, hence the appeal.
Oh my god. I mean like… how dare the government make us pay for something we’ll never use. They like never do that! Cause everybody gets cancer and should pay for treatment, right? Cause everybody uses the roads and should pay for them to be built right? Cause everybody uses rail links and should pay for them to be built right?
Cause everybody uses rail links and should pay for them to be built right
In the area where people connect with the trains (i.e. use them), they in fact do. There is in fact software modelling that determines where railways should be built (and what path etc etc) due to congestion and a cost effective approach to providing the rail system
This hasn’t been done for an NBN
Hah! Puuhhhleaze.
Exactly where have significant amounts of new rail been built in Australia in the last 100 years?
Sydney Airport link? Losing money.
Brisbane Airport link? Losing money.
Adelaide to Darwin? Losing money.
Where was your modelling software when someone decided to build those?
*wiping away tears of laughter*
Uh, the software just tells you to build it and the most cost effective way to do so (as in finding the area of land thats cheapest to build over etc etc). It has no control over incompetent governments, business deals, corruption, political footballing etc etc
Oh btw, can I see the modelling for demand on the NBN. Oh wait….there is none.
Wouldn’t put it past you to have an idea what you are talking about Michael, just like with the fiber regarding speeds of light. I would seriously recommend you stop talking about what you don’t know about. Stick with your blabbering about VOIP, at least you are factually correct in that area
How many fibre networks has the great deteego built?
*whistles*
Still waiting for that modelling on NBN’s FTTH based on demand instead of the “build it and they will come” principle…..
Come one – you really think they decided where to go by throwing darts at a map, don’t you?
Thats not based on demand, thats based on capital costs, try harder.
WTF are you talking about now?
The methodoly used by NBNCo to designate where the FTTH is being rolled out.
It had nothing to do with demand, and everything to do with capital costs.
No, it had everything to do with (initially) covering 90% of the population, and then (later) covering 93% of the population.
Wrong again sir.
Yeah, and how did they choose that figure of 90% (which increased to 93% due to expected population increase over the NBN rollout period)
You think they pulled the figure out of their arse?
Its clearly stated (and shown) in the diagram on page 14 in the mckinsey report that they reached the figure of 93% because up to that amount the capital costs for installing FTTH is (on average) level and low
There is nothing in there about NBN installing FTTH where there actually is demand.
Demand…ahh, the simple mind at work.
Without the copper network, there will be plenty of demand.
@MicheaWyres
“Without the copper network, there will be plenty of demand.”
Oh I see that’s how you create ‘plenty of demand’ you make sure there is no fixed line alternative, what Telstra should do is upgrade its copper to FTTN, SingTel and Telstra then keep the HFC and let the NBN compete for wholesale customers.
Customers will flock to the NBN won’t they? because it so technically superior the other infrastructures won’t get a look in, that’s putting aside the elephant in the room and the major cause of fixed line cancellations – capped plans on mobiles and the seemingly insatiable wireless data demand.
Best to have the big two ISP’s ‘persuaded’ with bagfuls of $$$ to shut HFC, ADSL and PSTN down.
That’s how FTTH will survive on its -cough- ‘technical merits’ -cough-!
@ deteego..
for
And I am still awaiting (about 2 or more months now) you to be man enough to admit you were WRONG re: Senate forming government…LOL
Yet although you do not understand basics that even primary school children would, you castigate someone else for their comments regarding speed of light etc…
Now I’ve heard it all, please stop, my sides are splitting with laughter
Please forgive my rogue “for”???
It’s especially funny given he keeps at me for it, when I accepted (willingly) that my statement wasn’t as accurate as I believed it to be.
That sounds like a valuable task for software if it does not do the hard bits. About as useful as a software solution to pick the winner of the Melbourne Cup.
Oh I see that’s how you create ‘plenty of demand’ you make sure there is no fixed line alternative, what Telstra should do is upgrade its copper to FTTN, SingTel and Telstra then keep the HFC and let the NBN compete for wholesale customers.
Optus/SingTel have not signed a deal with NBN Co. How many times do I need to repeat it to you? They are free to compete with their HFC assets, and probably will, considering they don’t have as much value to add as Telstra did with their ducts.
Customers will flock to the NBN won’t they? because it so technically superior the other infrastructures won’t get a look in, that’s putting aside the elephant in the room and the major cause of fixed line cancellations – capped plans on mobiles and the seemingly insatiable wireless data demand.
What technically superior infrastructure? And please, the whole myth about how wireless is going to “replace” fixed line infrastructure has been debunked so many times it’s not funny. There has been a rise in the number of fixed line internet subscribers in Australia during the period of the wireless boom you are referring to. Go look at the statistics. People are not “cancelling” their fixed line internet plans.
Your constant replies over the same line, thinking that the reason NBN Co is paying for Telstra to give them access to their assets and customer migration is a big conspiracy for the government to gain control over the telecommunications market is just quite frankly bullshit. So why do you continue to repeat it? Do you think repeating it a thousand times will make it true?
Ummm seriously, the FUD you blokes continually spin daily, is laughable – although I do admire your conviction to both your employer (thus your own wallet) and your political party…
But deteego, criticising/comparing how rail infrastructure is built to the NBN is flawed. Simply because the NBN (like the PSTN before it) isn’t something that is built regularly.
The PSTN and/or NBN are a once in a lifetime build/investment for most of us, with little or nothing to use as a prior gauge! Where as there are basic guides/templates to use, for building rail infrastructure, roads, hospitals etc…
However in saying that, I’m sure it could be argued that the McKinsey report, Corporate Plan, Senate (you know all about the Senate NOW don’t you… LOL) grilling and particularly the new ” joint NBN oversight committee (which DOES NOT have a governmental majority)” will all, sans template or “software modelling…LOL” play their parts in determining where and when, re: the NBN!
Regardless, it wouldn’t matter if there was software or whatever, because you would refuse to accept it’s findings, if contrary to your own thoughts. Or worse, like the Corporate Plan, on the one hand you will bluntly call it toilet paper, to suit one FUD spinning argument. But in another, use the figures within the Corporate Plan/toilet paper [sic] as gospel, to suit another FUDulent comment!
Which you have and continue to do… don’t you? So really…!
The argument made was that a number of Australians do not want the NBN but are being forced to take it. There are many cases of precedence set for such a thing though. They have been listed in detail and quite frankly the “well im not gunna use it” mentality has no merit.
As far as software modelling goes for the provision of fibre, I do not see how it is needed. If you are comparing rival technologies, in the long run there aren’t any. Wireless is not capable of meeting the speeds and network congestion that will be experienced if the majority of users are on it, not to mention the increase in EMR levels. Relaying any other type of network would be of a similar cost to laying fibre anyway. People seem to forget that policies and plans for the provision of Broadband to the population did not just pop up overnight. Politicians have spent billions already on failed programs and ongoing subsidies over more than a decade. The only thing that changed in this time the definition of acceptable broadband speed.
As far as modelling of the network goes, NBN Co would be undertaking this continually during the role out phase, as this is part and parcel of operations and development of services.
I’d make a terrible debater if I ever had to seriously debate an issue, resorting to sarcasm? *sigh*
Still, I thought the point I was trying to make was perfectly clear, obviously not, thank you for rephrasing my original point in a better framing.
Yes indeed how dare they.
As such, I was thinking about jumping in that submarine “I bought (with MY tax dollars)” and doing a spot of fishing at the weekend…sigh!
It seems the naysayers are becoming more desperate (and although one would think impossible) stupider, as each and every point they make is categorically disproved…!
@Alain,
I am not dodging the question, simply ignoring a stupid question directing focus away from the real issues. But hey, I am interested in some official facts and figures so please, enlighten us and tell us all the EXACT number of Australians who do not wish to EVER have access to the NBN. When doing so please cite the source of this information so I can know in the future where to access such amazing statistics.
And just to be sure, I am talking about the number of Australian Citizens not wishing to have the NBN, not the number of “The Australian” subscribers who don’t want it. Though I have a feeling that the numbers might be similar between the two.
Teehee!
@Jasmcd
I’m not building the NBN, so where are the figures that justify the NBN build based on the need of the end user.
NBN hype is all about the value add services of retail IPTV and movie download serviced to multiple points in the home, not that anyone has asked the end user if that’s what they want and are willing to pay a extra fee for on top of the NBN retail BB plan.
Best not go there because you never commission a proper population sample representative survey unless you know what the outcome is, the outcome on that one is too hazy and unpredictable.
Best to tell people what they need, if the vast majority of the population (because we have ripped out the copper) use the NBN for ‘PSTN’ telephony, emails and casual browsing just like they do today with ADSL, what the heck, it’s only taxpayer billions.
The most important socket on the NBN box will be the telephone socket so people can use their existing handsets, the second most important feature will be the battery backup so it works just like PSTN.
NBN hype is all about the value add services of retail IPTV and movie download serviced to multiple points in the home, not that anyone has asked the end user if that’s what they want and are willing to pay a extra fee for on top of the NBN retail BB plan.
Dude, for once in your life do some research. The IPTV solutions on NBN can be offered in such a way stand alone packages that will not require a basic data connection to operate, as such they are effectively a replacement for PayTV solutions like Foxtel and Austar.
Best to tell people what they need, if the vast majority of the population (because we have ripped out the copper) use the NBN for ‘PSTN’ telephony, emails and casual browsing just like they do today with ADSL, what the heck, it’s only taxpayer billions.
Wasn’t it you that said there is a decline in fixed line telephony connections? Yes I think it was. Have you also looked up the ABS Stats on broadband penetration and usage and noted how the fixed line connection data usage and uptake has continued to increase? Again, a little research please.
From a technical point of view FTTH is a superior solution to FTTN. From an economic point of view, FTTN is a superior solution to FTTH.
Actually FTTN is a compromise between an economic and technical solution. A purely economic solution would be only putting FTTN areas where there is demand. There is also a FTTN to FTTH upgrade path, those box’s are like mini exchanges, the NZ FTTN has cabinets that allow GPON systems inside
If that were the case then why does the Coalition want to invest $6b. If a FTTN network with 90% coverage were only to cost $5b
I said ~5b (approximate), those were figures from tenders during the failed NBN MK1 (which was a tender that only Telstra could win, nice work there). There is probably going to be ~30% contingency, plus that was the cost only for FTTN (and not wireless in the rest of the areas)
then the Coalition could afford to pay FTTN network upgrades outright. How curious, why doesn’t the Coalition just say “With our $6b we could roll out FTTN and then give control directly to Telstra”, or better yet, why don’t they decrease their economic contribution?>
Of course they did, how the hell do you expect them to be able to bring everyone to a ~12/1 minimum speeds with around 6 billion dollars, as Malcolm has been saying. Oh thats right, its called FTTN + FTTH + wireless. Of course, as I explained earlier, they can’t give any figures on how much its going to cost them because that changes depending on the NBN rollout. Malcolm has already said that his vision is a mix of FTTH + FTTN + a “bit” of wireless
Furthermore, to even greatly provide you with further empirical evidence of why the coalition cannot put forward concrete policy, as you already know, Telstra released a plan b for a FTTH/FTTN plan (which if they did would greatly reduce the amount of government investment required) which AGAIN changes everything. So if they had a concrete policy already, then the coalition would have to change it, AGAIN
Stop expecting a concrete policy on the NBN right now when its clearly obvious that the NBN is screwing up the whole telecommunications sector
No one is denying this fact. There is a limited commercial market for it. But the government isn’t a commercial entity is it?
Its not just a commercial market, its general demand, as consumers. Company roll out services where there is demand , regardless of what reasons the users have for that internet
I disagree. I think he has always been attempting to direct the debate away from misinformation.
I really could try and point out how many times Michael deliberately misinterpreted, or simply put out false information or FUD to back up his highly vested interested in NBN, but I think we are past that stage
Considering what he has been saying lately, I would have easily mistook him for Conroy if his name wasn’t Michael Wyres
Posting it twice doesn’t make it true…LOL!
Actually FTTN is a compromise between an economic and technical solution. A purely economic solution would be only putting FTTN areas where there is demand. There is also a FTTN to FTTH upgrade path, those box’s are like mini exchanges, the NZ FTTN has cabinets that allow GPON systems inside.
… Thank you for further clarifying my point further. Do you want a cookie?
I said ~5b (approximate), those were figures from tenders during the failed NBN MK1 (which was a tender that only Telstra could win, nice work there). There is probably going to be ~30% contingency, plus that was the cost only for FTTN (and not wireless in the rest of the areas)
Completely missed my point didn’t you. If it is really only ~$5b to rollout FTTN to 90% of the country (it’s not, it can’t be), well that’s a pittance isn’t it, why does the government need to invest $6b, even when we include added investments for alternative technologies like fixed wireless and extra backhaul. That just does not add up. Let me point something out to you, if you use FTTN with ADSL2+ DSLAMs, provided the node density if thick enough (max of 1km) you can quite easily deliver than 12/1 “commitment” you keep telling me about. And if you can do that for your fictitious $5b, then why hasn’t Telstra just done it already, they make between $2-4b profit a year. What makes you think an injection of a few hundred million is going to prompt them to do anything further than they have too? It isn’t.
And Deteego, if you haven’t noticed, Michael is actually directly trolling you a lot of the time now, cause your ego is getting the better of you. If you want to be mature about this, start trying to be mature about this debate, for example, what was the point of the first paragraph of your reply here? You just wanted to make it looked like I didn’t know what I was talking about by trying to twist my words away, when in fact what you said is exactly what I meant.
“…You just wanted to make it looked like I didn’t know what I was talking about by trying to twist my words away, when in fact what you said is exactly what I meant…”
Heh, so true.
Considering what he has been saying lately, I would have easily MISTAKEN him for Turnbull or Abbott if his name wasn’t “deteego”.
Completely missed my point didn’t you. If it is really only ~$5b to rollout FTTN to 90% of the country (it’s not, it can’t be)
New Zealand, country with a pop of 4 million had a national FTTN for 1.5 billion dollars (and had to deal with incredibly harsh terrain that NZ has).
So yes, it really is that cheap. Of course, that means that you do the deals between the governments (and in this case Telstra) properly, which Labor has a nack of doing the opposite
And Deteego, if you haven’t noticed, Michael is actually directly trolling you a lot of the time now, cause your ego is getting the better of you. If you want to be mature about this, start trying to be mature about this debate, for example,
You brought him up, not me. If you don’t want to debate him, don’t mention him
Harsh terrain in New Zealand?
Hmmm – there building FTTN all the way to the top of Mount Cook are they?
Australia has equally “harsh terrain”…and more of it…irrelevant argument. They are not building fibre everywhere, neither are we.
You should write comedy.
Yeah, but FTTN isn’t being built there, so thats kind of besides the point. Also NZ’s terrain is a LOT harsher then Australias. You go past the divide (coastal regions) and Australia is basically flat, and the only issue that the coastal regions of Australia have in regard to harsh terrain is that they are “hilly” (which hardly makes an impact on network infrastructure as compared to roads or rail). NZ has to deal with things like frost and whatnot
Anyways all of this is besides the point, the FTTN for Australia for ~90% of the country is not $20 billion dollars. Especially considering Telstra released their plan B (mix of FTTN + FTTH) in capital cities, they would no way in hell be able to afford to build an FTTN if it was that expensive (and thus they would have never released a plan B).
The 90% figure for FTTN takes into account just the populated edges of Australia (same as the area for NBN’s 93% FTTN plan)
Points to his reply below.
|
|
V
Please be careful to make sure your terminate your tags as well. As much as I like itatic text… I don’t like the whole page being italised. :)
You forget to terminate as well… ;)
I know. It happens. I’m sure Renai can clean it up when he get’s round to it. Fortunately my unterminated link just happened not to turn the whole page blue. :)
You say:
“…Yeah, but FTTN isn’t being built there, so thats kind of besides the point…”
Yet in your previous post you said:
“…New Zealand, country with a pop of 4 million had a national FTTN for 1.5 billion dollars…”
Can’t have it both ways…
“…Yeah, but FTTN isn’t being built there, so thats kind of besides the point…”
That was in reference to a proposed Australia’s FTTN, context matters my friend
You’d know all about twisting the context of words.
I’m even more sure you’re Turnbull or Abbott now… ;)
That $1.5b is in reference to what? Crown Fibre Holdings?
Wikipedia to the rescue:
Crown Fibre Holdings is a New Zealand state-owned company building a fibre to the home network by means of a public-private partnership. It aims to spend NZ$1.5b and connect 75% of New Zealand’s population. It was created as part of National Party’s 2008 election promise.
So the NZ$1.5b is only the public contribution, and the target is 75% of the population, which is quite low compare to 90% isn’t it? So, no, it is not that cheap. Unless you’re referring to another $1.5b project in New Zealand? Cause I can’t actually find one.
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1560426
You can just read through that thread, all the articles basically listing the deal with New Zealands FTTN/FTTH
Still failing to see how exactly the project will cost only $1.5b. That thread seems to be discussing, or at least the few posts I read before I cried “relevance to my point!” the technical nature of the plans and what it will mean consumers. There is very little economic discussion, bar price comparisons. Please explain how that thread, or find another link that, shows that rolling out FTTN will only cost $1.5b.
200TH COMMENT! Hehe this is so much better than ‘first post’. #tigerblood #winning
#winning – only if you’re bringing the party supplies…
hehe actually I am planning to allocate a prize for this.
But it doesn’t count if you give it to yourself!
You giving him a trophy? I thought you were going to take him out on one of your “1970’s psychdelic music” karaoke nights.
Congrats to Michael, he has made Delimiter’s Century Club — and not just a century either, but a double century:
http://delimiter.com.au/the-century-club/
The trophy will be in the mail next week. We’re not kidding.
I’d like to thank the Academy…
Comments are closed.