Putting NBN words in Cisco’s mouth

95

blog Alright, admit it. Who’s been feeding News Ltd commentator Andrew Bolt stats published by global networking giant Cisco (PDF)? Fess up. We know it was one of you anti-NBN guys. From Bolt’s blog today:

The Gillard Government is spending $37 billion on a bet that what we really want is a national broadband network that has us tethered to a wire in the wall. Communications giant Cisco Systems forecasts another future – and it’s mobile:

“Global mobile data traffic grew 2.6-fold in 2010, nearly tripling for the third year in a row. The 2010 mobile data traffic growth rate was higher than anticipated. Last year’s forecast projected that the growth rate would be 149 percent. This year’s estimate is that global mobile data traffic grew 159 percent in 2010.”

Leaving aside the fact that Cisco doesn’t actually build mobile networks (although they should — God knows there is enough demand), I think it’s safe to say Bolt is out on a limb here. Yes, use of mobile broadband via dongles and smartphones is increasing. But does this mean that the fibre-based NBN is irrelevant? No.

And in fact, if you actually read through the report Bolt links to, Cisco itself points out that by 2015, over 800 million terabytes of mobile data traffic will actually be offloaded to fixed networks by means of dual-mode devices (for example, iPads with both 3G and Wi-Fi) and femtocells, which consist of tiny mobile phone receivers providing coverage to areas the size of houses, for example.

Let’s say it one more time, people. Wireless and wired technologies are complementary. Com-ple-men-tary. There. Everyone feel better?

Image credit: Richard Dudley, royalty free

95 COMMENTS

  1. Andrew Bolt never lets a little thing like “facts” get in the way of a good story, though.

  2. Notice he doesn’t mention that fixed data is also growing – and faster than mobile data growth. I’ve yet to see a mobile carrier offer 1TB per month plans for the same as fixed.

    Bolt the Dolt.

    • I made a few comments along those lines but as usual any attempt to inject facts into the debate quickly get drowned out by the die-hard Bolt fans who aren’t terribly interested in facts or reason, only left vs right (or their imagining of it). In fact a number of the regulars have already decided that I’m a paid ALP shill and/or NBNco employee. I don’t even vote Labor, but hey, whatever…

      I’ve been doing this ever since Bolt started his anti-NBN campaign in the hope that at least some people would see the other side of the story, but it’s probably a waste of time. The sad thing is that his blog used to have a lot of interesting debate (I’ve been following it for a few years now) and Andrew himself was willing to get involved and see both sides of the story. But now it’s degenerated into groupthink and tribalism, and the truth all too often gets trampled on the path to ideology. It’s especially frustrating in this instance when hard data is available (eg wireless vs fixed-line traffic stats and projected demand) but gets totally ignored.

      What really interests me is what’s driving this campaign to begin with. Say what you will but Bolt is a smart man and he’s far from ignorant; I find it hard to accept he genuinely believes what he’s saying. If it’s a ploy to generate page impressions from hundreds of frothing-at-the-mouth commenters, hats off to the guy – it’s working brilliantly.

      Hey, isn’t that Renai’s strategy as well? ;)

      • Both sides are just as bad as twisting and misrepresenting to prove their point. Facts can be used to prove anything (as can be clearly seen by Conroy’s attempt to justify the filter, everything he said was factually correct, even though it is a ridiculously stupid idea)

        Claiming that you are injecting “facts” into the debate is laughable. Its the way facts are presented, how much emphasis are put on facts, and most importantly what inconvenient facts are not presented is what will give an objective account. As another example, facts can be used in full effect to create logical fallacies such as dichotomies (fiber is faster, more efficient, and dedicated compared wireless, something that is factually true, therefore fiber is the predominant technology that the government should focus on, ignoring current copper).

        Funnily enough, its tunnel minded people in specific disciplines of science (whether interested or involved) that tend to do this

        The amount of journalists, or even commentates that I have seen who actually do this I can fit on a single hand

        • I actually agree with you, they are all the same just some a bit more to the right, than the others!

        • Everyone is guilty of this, even you, even if you didn’t intend it. I know I never intentionally left out a piece of information or misrepresented the facts in the course of the debate, but as you and others have often corrected me on an incorrect or misinformed piece of information, obviously I have done it.

          • You’re a freaking second year Uni Student, just like me, we both don’t know what we’re talking about, get off your high horse.

            The fact you are a university student means you don’t actually know all the facts. You can and have made some misrepresentations.

            You just chose to ignore them and try and paint the in a more positive light by drawing attention to the faults of those who attempt to correct you like some know it all.

            It is a cowardly way to approach debates. I know this because I used to do it to.

          • You’re a freaking second year Uni Student, just like me, we both don’t know what we’re talking about, get off your high horse.
            No I am not

            The fact you are a university student means you don’t actually know all the facts. You can and have made some misrepresentations.
            You are the one bringing up university students, not me. I am simply stating that what you are saying is wrong, regardless if you happen to be a uni student or a 60 year old man

            You just chose to ignore them and try and paint the in a more positive light by drawing attention to the faults of those who attempt to correct you like some know it all.
            Your statements about detecting faults in physical copper are incorrect due to basic physics. And if you wan’t proof that copper isn’t pulled out every 30 years to check for physical faults, the copper connection in my house hasn’t died for the past 40 years, since if Telstra wants to pull out a cable they have to notify residents because a phone line is a basic provision

            It is a cowardly way to approach debates. I know this because I used to do it to.
            The problem is that you are involving yourself into a debate passionately and talk about things on the top off your head thinking you know what you are saying. Luckily for you, however copper lines testing is not as common knowledge as to how light propagates through fiber, which completely caught Michael off guard (but the way the lines are tested uses the exact same principles in physics). When I say that you are as wrong as Michael Wyres (in his debacle about speed of light) in this area, I really mean it

            I would seriously recommend you do some basic research, you are a uni student after all. Copper has been around for hundreds of years, the testing for copper is well documented and researched

          • No I am not

            Then who are you? No seriously, I want to know.

            You are the one bringing up university students, not me. I am simply stating that what you are saying is wrong, regardless if you happen to be a uni student or a 60 year old man

            Given that you said you go to UNSW on a day-to-day basis it is a reasonable assumption to make.

            Your statements about detecting faults in physical copper are incorrect due to basic physics. And if you wan’t proof that copper isn’t pulled out every 30 years to check for physical faults, the copper connection in my house hasn’t died for the past 40 years, since if Telstra wants to pull out a cable they have to notify residents because a phone line is a basic provision

            What part of the statement? It was a pretty wide statement. The figure I chose was lowball, even I admitted that.

            The problem is that you are involving yourself into a debate passionately and talk about things on the top off your head thinking you know what you are saying. Luckily for you, however copper lines testing is not as common knowledge as to how light propagates through fiber, which completely caught Michael off guard (but the way the lines are tested uses the exact same principles in physics). When I say that you are as wrong as Michael Wyres (in his debacle about speed of light) in this area, I really mean it

            And you’re not talking off the top of the head. The difference is you probably know a little more about the area than I do. Or even a lot more. I don’t actually know, cause I have no idea who you are.

            I would seriously recommend you do some basic research, you are a uni student after all. Copper has been around for hundreds of years, the testing for copper is well documented and researched

            I have been. In fact so far it seems you have just been misunderstanding what it is I am saying.

          • Given that you said you go to UNSW on a day-to-day basis it is a reasonable assumption to make.
            Its also an incorrect one

            I would recommend you stop making so many assumptions, they are not turning out to be accurate

            What part of the statement? It was a pretty wide statement. The figure I chose was lowball, even I admitted that.
            Everything, copper is not required to be pulled out every 30 years to check for physical issues with the cable (or sheathing or soldering parts)

            And you’re not talking off the top of the head. The difference is you probably know a little more about the area than I do. Or even a lot more. I don’t actually know, cause I have no idea who you are.
            Why should you knowing who I am make a difference in how correct your statements are? Either what you say is correct and is generally correct, or its not, or you are twisting stuff around to suit your agenda.

            That has no relevance to who I am, you are just bringing it up because you are cornered and you are trying to backtrack

            I have been. In fact so far it seems you have just been misunderstanding what it is I am saying.
            No you are misunderstanding how testing of copper telecommunications is done and how accurate it is.

          • Its also an incorrect one

            I would recommend you stop making so many assumptions, they are not turning out to be accurate

            It actually wasn’t my assumption, it was RS’. But still, you have done nothing to even indicate what it is you do, and yet you made a point of attacking Michael’s position of being in the VoIP market as therefore the only area he is capable of being knowledgeable in.

            I am simply holding you to the same standard.

            Everything, copper is not required to be pulled out every 30 years to check for physical issues with the cable (or sheathing or soldering parts)

            No you are misunderstanding how testing of copper telecommunications is done and how accurate it is.

            I gave you an example where the testing can and will fail. It is very hard to detect an exposed wire unless that exposed wire makes a short. If a short only happens in specific and rare environmental conditions the cable is faulty by the tests will report that the cable is in fact fine. Do you deny this case?

            That has no relevance to who I am, you are just bringing it up because you are cornered and you are trying to backtrack

            You’re right, your position in society does not have relevance into how accurate your assumptions are. If that is the case, why is the fact the Michael work in VoIP relevant to his support of the NBN?

      • The amount of journalists, or even commentates that I have seen who actually do this I can fit on a single hand
        The amount of journalists, or even commentates that I have seen who actually don’t do this I can fit on a single hand

  3. You Wankers,

    You will probably delete this comment just like the other bit of truth you couldn’t face.

    Are fixed wire comms dead – NO, (not for yet anyway, if ever)
    Is the Conroy’s NBN 2.0 destructive – Yes, a waste – YES

    Will the NBN 2.0 get enough fixed wire subscriber in time to cover the viability threshold that will continue growing further away with the interest bill that will keep expanding – NO.
    Against the ever expanding ability of wireless – NO.

    Will you techie fools who have no concept of commercial / marketing dynamics ever recognise you dont have a clue about why the NBN is an flagrant extravagant, keynesian corruption. And the last thing this is about is fibre’s ultimate greater capacity to carry data.

    Will the NBN 2.0 evolve into something way different to what it is now (93% fibre) – Absolutely.
    Will Conroy be exposed for the Mega Criminal Fool that he is? YES

    Professionally Negligent? Yes , S . . . t YEAH.

    • What are you basing these predictions on? The fact that fixed broadband connections are still increasing? Or the fact that total data usage on fixed broadband is increasing, while for wireless broadband is decreasing? Or maybe it’s the fact that wireless connections are increasing not to the detriment of fixed broadband at all?

      Will you techie fools who have no concept of commercial / marketing dynamics

      Perhaps we should trust technological luddites who also have no apparent concept of what the actual market is doing as well?

        • I started listening to Andrew Bolt a few months ago on the radio when I started driving to work, and it didn’t take long to come to the conclusion that he’s a knocker. Anything that anyone else does is wrong, but I haven’t heard him come up with a workable idea himself yet, and anyone that points out the holes in his viewpoint is talked down and hastily shoved off the air.

          Luckily I now start work early enough that I don’t have to listen to his uninformed blather.

    • It’s true what they say, that the uneducated fall back on foul language when they are inept in dealing with an issue that they cannot comprehend.

      People who understand marketing don’t understand technology and Reality Check is living proof!

    • “flagrant extravagant, keynesian corruption”

      Makes the NBN sound that much more exciting, and great to see Keynes getting the attention he deserves post GFC.

      Consider me corrupted!

      The lines of people queueing in Japan to use the payphones when the mobile network failed under load after the earthquake said it all really. Days later people were struggling to get out tweets.

      The earthquake also illustrated why the battery backup is actually a pretty good idea, since the Japanese don’t have battery backup on their fibre, so in some cases were without mobile or fixed lines for a period of time.

      Roll on the NBN..

  4. Anyone ever stop to think that were going to have to replace the copper in 10 years anyway since its reaching the end of its lifecycle? Might as well upgrade it in the process.

    • That is absolutely the point.

      Replace now in a controlled and measured way, while the copper is in (generally) working condition, instead of being forced to quickly do something 10 or 15 years from now when it breaks down completely, leaving people without any service.

      “Succession planning” for political buffs, or “phased cutover” for the techno-buffs.

      But we can’t say that, because that’s another reason to do it, and we’ll get slammed by the Bolts of this world for even suggesting such a sensible plan.

    • Except that is an invalid premise that copper is near the end of its lifecycle

      This is FUD that is being spread by NBN proponents since there is no evidence provided, whatsoever, that there is any significant amount of copper that is degrading or reaching the end of its lifetime.

      It also doesn’t (scientifically) make sense, but *shrugs*

      • If you were a more reasoned debater you would also suggest a sensible alternative here. For example:

        The premise that the copper is reaching the end of its life cycle is invalid. Newer areas of the network still have a few decades left in them. A more reasoned approach would be to replace the copper network with fibre as the copper sections reach the end of their lifecycle. This process will unfortunately take a large amount of time, so we will speed up the upgrade process by upgrading high demand areas to FTTH and rolling out FTTN (which utlises the majority of the last mile copper) in other areas where the copper has many decades left in it.

        That would have been a far more reasoned argument that also provided a nice solution to the problem while also acknowledging the benefits of FTTH and the need to include a prudent upgrade path to it. It would also fit your “putting our eggs into more than one basket” argument that you attempted to make above.

        • Even decades doesn’t make sense, copper has a lifetime of hundreds of years, if not more when insulated. This myth was already debunked on AusNOG, when some “smart” people suggested that copper wiring for telecommunications needed a replacement of the copper (when it reality it was issues with connections, or sheathing, and in the worst case scenario if it was copper the outer layer can be scraped which brings back the copper back to normal bandwidth)

          To put things into perspective, the Statue of Liberty (which is not insulated) is made out of copper. Check out how old it is, and I don’t think there is any chance of it falling down any time soon ;)

          The premise that the copper is reaching the end of its life cycle is invalid. Newer areas of the network still have a few decades left in them. A more reasoned approach would be to replace the copper network with fibre as the copper sections reach the end of their lifecycle.
          Nothing wrong with this, just stating that the amount of copper that has reached its lifetime is an extreme minority.

          That would have been a far more reasoned argument that also provided a nice solution to the problem while also acknowledging the benefits of FTTH and the need to include a prudent upgrade path to it. It would also fit your “putting our eggs into more than one basket” argument that you attempted to make above.
          The coalitions (and yet to be plan) has more similarities with this approach then labors. If the ~12/1 mbit speeds are going to be enforced, and someone happens to have an “end of lifetime” copper connection (something that an FTTN wouldn’t alone fix), and its cheaper (and more economical) to replace with fiber, then thats what would happen.

          Basically whatever it takes to bring speeds to a 12/1 speed, in some cases it will require nothing, in some cases it would require a FTTN node, in others it would require FTTH

          • Even decades doesn’t make sense, copper has a lifetime of hundreds of years, if not more when insulated. This myth was already debunked on AusNOG, when some “smart” people suggested that copper wiring for telecommunications needed a replacement of the copper (when it reality it was issues with connections, or sheathing, and in the worst case scenario if it was copper the outer layer can be scraped which brings back the copper back to normal bandwidth)

            And let me put this in perspective, you are talking to, on approximately a thirty year bases, pulling out the entire cable, and then likely relaying a replacement, then taking the old cable, inspecting it, patching any problems with it if that is at all possible, and if not, stripping away the oxidisation and insulation, melting it down, and recasting it.

            The fact is you will still need to effectively replace the entire cable in order to do this, the fact that you can reuse the cable if it’s fine or reuse the raw materials isn’t the problem, the cable, as a whole object, still needs to be replaced, and quickly, especially if your goal is consistent service.

            To put things into perspective, the Statue of Liberty (which is not insulated) is made out of copper. Check out how old it is, and I don’t think there is any chance of it falling down any time soon ;)

            Not a valid example in this case. Copper cabling requires specific things, which you mentioned, the connections and insulations, to be intact for optimal signal quality. The lifecycle of a copper cable is not determined by the lifecycle of copper.

            Nothing wrong with this, just stating that the amount of copper that has reached its lifetime is an extreme minority.

            Bullshit. Now yes, it is much much less than some people would have you believe, but the amount of cable that needs urgent repair work or a complete replacement or even just a full cable inspection is significant, and always will be significant, as this is exactly what all those Telstra contractors are payed to do the majority of the time.

            The coalitions (and yet to be plan) has more similarities with this approach then labors. If the ~12/1 mbit speeds are going to be enforced, and someone happens to have an “end of lifetime” copper connection (something that an FTTN wouldn’t alone fix), and its cheaper (and more economical) to replace with fiber, then thats what would happen.

            Basically whatever it takes to bring speeds to a 12/1 speed, in some cases it will require nothing, in some cases it would require a FTTN node, in others it would require FTTH

            Which is fine, except I disagree that such a stagnated approach is sustainable because the 12Mbps figure is one that was quite literally pulled out of some accountants ass. It was decided for the pure reason that it can be done cheaply, if it’s going to be “good enough” is up to debate.

            Considering one of the primary policies of telecommunications companies is to over provision to account for future demand (dark fibre anyone?) I’m thinking it’s not “good enough”. But hey, that’s kinda got off topic.

          • And let me put this in perspective, you are talking to, on approximately a thirty year bases, pulling out the entire cable, and then likely relaying a replacement, then taking the old cable, inspecting it, patching any problems with it if that is at all possible, and if not, stripping away the oxidisation and insulation, melting it down, and recasting it.
            Nope, and that isn’t what happens in reality, because the copper cabling doesn’t deteriorate as you are perpetuating in that statement

            Copper cables are also only physically inspected once it has been established that there is a physical issue with the copper, its not done by brute force (LOLS!). There are electromagnetic metering measurements to check if there is an issue in the physical copper wire (and it can pinpoint in which area of the copper)

            The fact is you will still need to effectively replace the entire cable in order to do this, the fact that you can reuse the cable if it’s fine or reuse the raw materials isn’t the problem, the cable, as a whole object, still needs to be replaced, and quickly, especially if your goal is consistent service.
            I would suggest you read up about what a solder termination is or what stripping the end of the cable is, because clearly you don’t know what you are talking about. Neither requires you to physically take out the cable.

            Not a valid example in this case. Copper cabling requires specific things, which you mentioned, the connections and insulations, to be intact for optimal signal quality.
            It actually doesn’t, the skin effect has an effect on bandwidth, but its very minimal, because the outer edge of the copper only effects a certain frequency (where technologies such as VDSL use as much frequency as possible)
            The lifecycle of a copper cable is not determined by the lifecycle of copper.
            Considering copper is (almost) inert, its a major factor. The worst that happens to the copper by Telstra (most of which is in ducts in environmentally “safe” conditions) is very thin layer oxidization in the spare areas where there doesn’t happen to be insulation.

            The major issue with loss of bandwidth on copper is crosstalk or electrolysis while the cable is being used, neither which have a significant impact on the permanent bandwidth of the copper

            Which is fine, except I disagree that such a stagnated approach is sustainable because the 12Mbps figure is one that was quite literally pulled out of some accountants ass. It was decided for the pure reason that it can be done cheaply, if it’s going to be “good enough” is up to debate.
            False again, it was based off the FCC’s (America’s independant organisation for telecommunications) which recommended a minimum 4/1 mbit speeds for everyone. Since Australia is able to invest more, this was tripled for our country.

            The other reason for that number is technical reasons, 12 mbits equates to about a 1-1.5km radius around FTTN nodes (with ADSL2+), which is the golden number in how spacial FTTN should be regarding network topology (efficiencies in both cost and distribution).

            Considering one of the primary policies of telecommunications companies is to over provision to account for future demand (dark fibre anyone?) I’m thinking it’s not “good enough”. But hey, that’s kinda got off topic.
            Misrepresenting again, Dark Fiber costs around 10% of the installation FTTH. Dark Fiber is literally unlit fiber thats put into the ground and hasn’t been connected. Dark Fiber is the economically smart way to provision for future demand, that is what Scandanavian countries are doing for example (instead of this stupid approach of ripping copper out everywhere)

            The point of installing dark fiber is when the demand arises (if it does arise) the fiber is there to install on last mile

          • Nope, and that isn’t what happens in reality, because the copper cabling doesn’t deteriorate as you are perpetuating in that statement

            And how am I saying it deteriorates then? If you read that carefully, you’ll note the inferred case the cable is perfectly fine and the fault had nothing to do with the cable but it still need to be inspected.

            Copper cables are also only physically inspected once it has been established that there is a physical issue with the copper, its not done by brute force (LOLS!). There are electromagnetic metering measurements to check if there is an issue in the physical copper wire (and it can pinpoint in which area of the copper)

            I didn’t say it was done in brute either. I said that every thirty years you’ll likely be pulling out the cable and inspecting it. And what makes you think they don’t pull out cables to do preventive maintenance on them? It’s not some freaking wonder material you know, it’s some metal, that oxidises on the surface easily, covered in some plastic, in a hollow PVC pipe about a centimetre across, a meter under the ground.

            Cables that are damaged can quite easily pass the tests, a false negative, because only specific environmental conditions (usually heavy rain) will result in a fault. In fact our friend MIchael, who you always accuse of misrepresenting the state of copper cabling in Australia, has had this very problem down his street.

            I would suggest you read up about what a solder termination is or what stripping the end of the cable is, because clearly you don’t know what you are talking about. Neither requires you to physically take out the cable.

            That only applies if the fault is with the termination. But you knew that already.

            Not a valid example in this case. Copper cabling requires specific things, which you mentioned, the connections and insulations, to be intact for optimal signal quality.
            It actually doesn’t, the skin effect has an effect on bandwidth, but its very minimal, because the outer edge of the copper only effects a certain frequency (where technologies such as VDSL use as much frequency as possible)

            I said optimal signal quality. By definition the skin effect is actually less than optimal. And the skin effect is only minor considering, the biggest problem, as you again pointed out is the splicing. Sure the splicing doesn’t require the entire cable to be replaced if it’s at fault, but it sure is hell is a significant fault.

            Considering copper is (almost) inert, its a major factor. The worst that happens to the copper by Telstra (most of which is in ducts in environmentally “safe” conditions) is very thin layer oxidization in the spare areas where there doesn’t happen to be insulation.

            Which is why we talk about the lifetime of cable in decades isn’t it?

            The major issue with loss of bandwidth on copper is crosstalk or electrolysis while the cable is being used, neither which have a significant impact on the permanent bandwidth of the copper

            Now you’re just stating facts in order to try and make it further look like I have no idea what I’m talking about. I know that. That’s obvious to anyone who has spend the slightest time studying or working with copper cabling.

            False again, it was based off the FCC’s (America’s independant organisation for telecommunications) which recommended a minimum 4/1 mbit speeds for everyone. Since Australia is able to invest more, this was tripled for our country.

            Actually, you’re wrong, because the FCC recommendation for 4Mbps came out after 12Mbps was decided on for Australia. You only have to look at the dates to work that out.

            The other reason for that number is technical reasons, 12 mbits equates to about a 1-1.5km radius around FTTN nodes (with ADSL2+), which is the golden number in how spacial FTTN should be regarding network topology (efficiencies in both cost and distribution).

            And the people on the fringes of that radius, without an upgrade to FTTH, will likely never get much more than that. Extended Reach ADSL2+ and even VDSL2+ still cannot deliver much more than 12Mbps at that distance, and although there are some technologies coming out for compensating for crosstalk and noise, I hardly expect them to be able to suddenly pull 100Mbps out of the cable.

            And notice you just said “efficiencies in both cost and distribution” meaning that’s cheaper if we put the node density that low.

            Misrepresenting again, Dark Fiber costs around 10% of the installation FTTH. Dark Fiber is literally unlit fiber thats put into the ground and hasn’t been connected. Dark Fiber is the economically smart way to provision for future demand, that is what Scandanavian countries are doing for example (instead of this stupid approach of ripping copper out everywhere)

            I know exactly what dark fibre is, I was using it as an example of hour companies over-provision. If anything here it is you misrepresenting. Dark fibre is a good example of provisioning for future demand because it is an economically smart way to do it as you put it.

            Installing FTTN networking doesn’t provision for future demand at all because of the nature of the technology used it is unlikely that improved technologies can improve the bandwidth available to those at the fringes, as such those people will need to either get upgrade to a full FTTH setup, or some other solution like sub-nodes or signal repeaters, all of which are of significant cost compared to the upgrade path for FTTH.

          • I said that every thirty years you’ll likely be pulling out the cable and inspecting it.
            No they do NOT, which makes the rest of your post complete jibberish

            They ONLY pull out the cable if they find a physical fault of the cable, which can be found WITHOUT pulling out the cable.

            The cable is only pulled out when a physical fault is found, its not done as some sought of exercise as you are claiming. Why the flying donkey you would pull out a cable if nothing is wrong with it is beyond me

            Cables that are damaged can quite easily pass the tests, a false negative, because only specific environmental conditions (usually heavy rain) will result in a fault. In fact our friend MIchael, who you always accuse of misrepresenting the state of copper cabling in Australia, has had this very problem down his street.
            Please, just stop talking. You are just as incorrect as Michaels statement about fiber giving better bandwidth due to the speed of light

            Tests for bandwidth do not give false positives, you send an electromagnetic signal through all frequencies and check how much bandwidth is propagated (which is the exact same way that internet is delivered through the copper cable). If that tests passes, then you are not going to have a bandwidth issue with the internet. Regarding latency, a similar method is also used

            I would seriously recommend that you actually spend a few minutes doing some research (before you post) since you clearly don’t know what you are talking about in this area. Michael wasn’t talking about false positives, if Telstra did tests on his cable they would find out he has a physical fault on his cable.

          • They ONLY pull out the cable if they find a physical fault of the cable, which can be found WITHOUT pulling out the cable.

            The cable is only pulled out when a physical fault is found, its not done as some sought of exercise as you are claiming. Why the flying donkey you would pull out a cable if nothing is wrong with it is beyond me

            Why do I have to put my car into the shop every 6 months to have the engine looked over? It is called preventive maintenance. Sure you can extend the lifecycle to copper cables to decades before you want to do an inspection of the cable but if you just leave it in there until something goes wrong that is pure negligence!

            Tests for bandwidth do not give false positives, you send an electromagnetic signal through all frequencies and check how much bandwidth is propagated (which is the exact same way that internet is delivered through the copper cable). If that tests passes, then you are not going to have a bandwidth issue with the internet. Regarding latency, a similar method is also used

            Sorry, yes, I did in fact mean false postive, not false negative. My bad. However, do you seriously think that is the case? You are deluded.

            If the cause of the fault is purely an environmental one, like, I dunno, rain getting into the ducts, the cable will pass your “tests” when it’s dry and then suddenly “fail to work” when it’s wet. This has been documented over and over again. I am not wrong about this because I have seen it happen. Michael even has a nice example for you on his blog if you care to read it.

            I would seriously recommend that you actually spend a few minutes doing some research (before you post) since you clearly don’t know what you are talking about in this area. Michael wasn’t talking about false positives, if Telstra did tests on his cable they would find out he has a physical fault on his cable.

            Are you sure about that? If I recall from his commentary on his blog he did report the fault to them on many occasions and it wasn’t until the third time this happened that they actually re-spliced a cable.

          • Why do I have to put my car into the shop every 6 months to have the engine looked over?
            Why the flying eyebrow are we comparing cars to cables

            Please do me a favor, and stop posting, you don’t know what you are talking about. Cables are not pulled out for regular maintenance, full stop.

            Sorry, yes, I did in fact mean false postive, not false negative. My bad. However, do you seriously think that is the case? You are deluded.
            Yes it is the case, thats how the copper cables are tested. Fiber cables are tested in the same way, except they use photons instead of electrons at different frequencies

            Are you sure about that? If I recall from his commentary on his blog he did report the fault to them on many occasions and it wasn’t until the third time this happened that they actually re-spliced a cable.
            Uh yes, they would do a frequency analysis of the cable and the results would state that his cable is unable to provide optimal bandwidth (within a certain threshold).

            When Telstra chooses to repair a cable is a completely different matter to identifying if the cable has a physical fault.

          • Please do me a favor, and stop posting, you don’t know what you are talking about. Cables are not pulled out for regular maintenance, full stop.

            I never said you were. I said that a telecom will undertake preventive maintenance. This means that faulty cables that still function correctly will be pulled out and replaced and inspected. I put a lowball figure of 30 years on how often this means cables will be inspected there as well to try and help explain the concept that at some point between now and 30 years in the future that twisted pair that leads into your house will likely have some part of it replaced because of a fault or possible fault.

            I never said they’ll pull them out by brute force, you did. I never said that they’ll pull them out every 30 years, I said they’ll likely pull them out every thirty years. As in it is likely that they will.

            Yes it is the case, thats how the copper cables are tested. Fiber cables are tested in the same way, except they use photons instead of electrons at different frequencies

            No, I meant you are deluded if you think that the tests are perfect. I even tried to give you an example, a cable that functions fine in the dry, but in the wet, when the pits are filled with water, the cable splice makes contact with the water and shorts, and no longer functions. That is a fault that would be difficult to detect as it only occurs when the cable is immersed.

            Uh yes, they would do a frequency analysis of the cable and the results would state that his cable is unable to provide optimal bandwidth (within a certain threshold).

            The nature of the failure meant that the cable was fine when it was dry and only failed after heavy rain because the pit would be full with water. So in this case, the tests would have failed the engineers because the failure only occurred under specific environmental conditions.

            When Telstra chooses to repair a cable is a completely different matter to identifying if the cable has a physical fault.

            I never said anything to the contrary.

          • Fortunately enough people have had the joyless experience dealing with the copper network or not being able to get adsl that in 10 years we won’t need forums full of posts about SNR and attenuation, and in 3 years the coalition’s telecommunications policy will be unrecognisable from today simply because it’s not even worth it to keep Malcolm in check.

            If the tolerance for failure, and poor service delivery was applied to any other utility there would have been a royal commission by now, but because of the unfortunate circumstance of Sol Trujillo it is a Labor government that is delivering FTTH instead of Telstra delivering FTTN under Howard.

            There were politicians still banging on about the cost of the Sydney Opera House long after it had delivered Australia an incalculable ROI, and the only difference with this is that the NBN has a more predictable ROI path if not without some risk that the asset will be worth significantly less than the government’s investment. Average out the optimists and the pessimists and we’re left with something that is barely worth debating.

            I just can’t fathom how dribbling out FTTN, FTTH, or wireless over decades would benefit anyone. Not the people supporting a patchwork of networks, not the help desks, not the businesses delivering services that depend on bandwidth, not even a government pushing it as policy in an electorate.

          • Fortunately enough such people are in an extreme minority (that also and understandably happens to be very vocal) and furthermore this isn’t a mandate for the NBN

            The actual technology being used in last mile is also only one factor regarding the quality of your connection, TransACT has already told us that

  5. We have a government with the worst record for infrastructure project waste ever, running the largest and most complex infrastructure project ever. The project is making big assumptions on take up when the current takeup suggests that takeup, particularly larger volume plans is simply not there. It will be destroying smaller ISPs by the number of POIs reducing competion and legistlating against bigger players establishing rival networks. And at the end they privatise it somehow without creating another monopoly but still attracting investment? How is this NOT going to be a complete fiasco?

    • I assume you’re referring to the “pink batts” thing and the BER program? First of all, neither of those programs are infrastructure projects. Second of all, the BER program was actually implemented quite well, despite what right-wing media would have you think. I’ll agree on the pink batts fiasco, it was hastily put together and not well-managed, but at least tens of thousands of homes got insulated out of it.

      Secondly, I would say that the assumptions on take-up are actually quite conservative. But that’s just based on actual statistics. If you care to back up your “big assumptions” claim with some data then we’d have something to discuss.

    • In fact, Justin – the government is not running the NBN, it is just paying for it.

      Current takeup rates have nothing to do with the final release of the network as they are trial plans in a tiny section of Tasmania, and the POI decision was that of the ACCC – not the government nor the NBNCo itself.

      I also don’t see how privatising the company in 10 years will result in any more or less of a monopoly that before privatisation – all that will be happing is that the company will shift to private ownership.

      In any case, there is little alternative to effectively renationalising ownerhip of the national broadband access network – private industry has salutorily failed to deliver a solution to the Australia public on its own, as has been demonstrated by the current woeful state of affairs.

  6. What is also overlooked, particularly by those who praise private enterprise and bag government built…

    Who actually fitted those pink batts, which cause the problems…?

    • … and weirdly the rate of house fires went down during of the insulation program, but clearly the private enterprise required more government regulation because obviously deaths and fires are unacceptable. Ironic really.

      Before this turns into a whirlpool thread however, I agree that the number of POA’s will cut down the number of ISPs, but who cares. The value of a current ISP has been in sorting out craptastic copper connections and installing their adsl2+ dslams in exchanges. Once that’s gone it just becomes all about bundling with services that use it like iptv, and complementary mobile services. The great thing about NBN is the transparency of the wholesale pricing compared to Telstra wholesale which means it becomes more like selling petrol. Nobody makes money retailing petrol, they make their money from chocolate bars and other overpriced junk food.

      • ISPs have been on a path of acquisition and mergers for some time now. The NBN may accelerate the process but the result will be no different – a handful of big players and maybe a couple of small niche players. And IMO that will be a good thing for consumers overall; the current ISP landscape is confusing for non-techies, far too much choice with little apparent differentiation. It’s little wonder so many choose Telstra by default, despite their (until recently) uncompetitive pricing.

  7. Typical Bolt rubbish. Why is he quoting statistics from other countries, we live in Australia, and thankfully have a body called the Australian Bureau of Statistics that have all the required statistics laid out, statistics that apply to Australia, not USA, or Germany, not china or whoever else these News Limited journalists want to quote.

    It might be too complex for bolt, so I turned it into a pretty picture
    http://i.imgur.com/mzZkk.png

    The amount of data downloaded over wireless is shrinking, yet it is skyrocketing on wired. Infact, the increase of data over fixed in the past 6 months equates to more than double the TOTAL amount of data downloaded over wireless.

  8. Relai, is this one of those rants where you get annoyed because the NBN apparently gets some criticism. I am just stating this, because this news article isn’t any better then Andrews Bolts article

    And the government doing national FTTH is anything but a complementary plan, why do you think people say they are putting all their eggs into one basket.

    • What’s better, Andrew Bolt’s article based on lies and half-truths, or Renai’s article, based on facts? There may be opinions expressed in both, but opinion based on fact is better than opinion based on ideological dogma.

    • “And the government doing national FTTH is anything but a complementary plan”

      Really? So you think the existing wireless networks are going to disappear?

      “why do you think people say they are putting all their eggs into one basket.”

      I dunno, probably because they have no idea what they’re talking about.

      • Really? So you think the existing wireless networks are going to disappear?
        That doesn’t hide the fact that the NBN is only using wireless where FTTH can’t reach (and satellite after that).

        A more balanced would be wired + wireless investment (and not just wireless in regional areas). Such a plan would be considered complimentary

        I dunno, probably because they have no idea what they’re talking about.
        I would say they know more then most of the people that post here, if 93% FTTH, 4% wireless and 3% satellite with a total cost of $50 billion dollars isn’t putting all your eggs into one basket, I don’t know what is

        Arguing otherwise is grasping at straws

        • A more balanced would be wired + wireless investment (and not just wireless in regional areas). Such a plan would be considered complimentary

          So let me get this straight, you complain that NBN wastes to much money and when you encounter a problem with how the regional (last 7%) is being done your idea how to get a “more balanced” solution for the affected regional areas is to effectively, spend more money?

          They are invested in backhaul fibre for the country and putting up towers in and around small towns, which is exactly what the Coalition will be doing in regional areas as well.

          • You do realize that FTTH is the most expensive component, so doing FTTN instead of FTTH will actually reduce the cost (and save even more funds due to not having to do deals with Telstra or whatnot)

          • Yes, I am perfectly aware of that. What has that got to do with your original argument that applied to regional areas (the last 7%)?

            Looking at regional areas in isolation, a combination of FTTN (or FTTH) and wireless technologies will be more expensive than a purely wireless solution.

            Now as in the context you suggested it was an amendment to the NBN, then by extension you just suggested that more money should be spent on the NBN.

          • Yes, I am perfectly aware of that. What has that got to do with your original argument that applied to regional areas (the last 7%)?
            My original argument is that wireless is only being delivered as a last resort where FTTH cannot even be (insanely) delivered, doing FTTH to 100% of the country would be like >$100

            A complimentary plan would put government injections to help deliver wireless in congested CBD areas for example, or in places like Tasmania.

        • “A more balanced would be wired + wireless investment (and not just wireless in regional areas). Such a plan would be considered complimentary”

          Why would the government invest in wireless when we already have three competitive wireless networks covering the vast majority of the population? The FTTH network will be complementary to these networks. No further investment required. Pretty obvious really, or so I would have thought?

          “if 93% FTTH, 4% wireless and 3% satellite with a total cost of $50 billion dollars isn’t putting all your eggs into one basket, I don’t know what is”

          Looks more like putting all your eggs in three baskets. Nice effort contradicting yourself in a single sentence!

          • “A more balanced would be wired + wireless investment (and not just wireless in regional areas). Such a plan would be considered complimentary”…

            So putting all your eggs in 2 baskets…LOL!

          • Looks more like putting all your eggs in three baskets. Nice effort contradicting yourself in a single sentence!
            I would recommend you read the definition of grasping at straws, because that is what you are currently doing. Investing a single technology in ratio of 90%+ is what is considered putting eggs into one basket (also the most expensive technology at that).

            If it was something like 33%/33%/33% for different technologies (FTTN/FTTH/wireless?) then that is putting eggs into 3 baskets

          • The size of the baskets are irrelevant. The fact you have one oversized baskets and two small baskets does not negate the fact their are, in fact, three baskets.

          • The size of the baskets is incredibly relevant, in fact thats the whole point of the idiom

            The whole point of the idiom putting all your eggs into one basket is when a subject puts almost (or close to almost) all their efforts into one area.

            93% is what would I defined as putting all the efforts into (almost) one area. Same thing like if I would invest 93% of all my money into a highly risky company.

          • There is nothing fundamentally wrong with putting a significant amount resources into a particular basket. It is in fact done all the time, and the problems with signal points of failure a mitigated by the use of redundancy. This is particularly relevant in the telecommunications industry when only one technology is utilised for backhaul the majority of the time, and this is fibre.

            The point of the idoim is not about diversifying per se, it is about ensuring minimising the points of failure. Why are they only collecting eggs in the idoim?

          • There is nothing fundamentally wrong with putting a significant amount resources into a particular basket.
            That’s exactly what putting your eggs into one basket means…..

            Furthermore you are correct there is nothing fundamentally wrong with putting your eggs into one basket if you have properly taken into account all environmental factors

            The opposite is true regarding NBN, NBN just took into account one factor, that is town size (premises of town >=1000).

            This in fact has the exact same as what happened in the dotcom bubble, people invested heavily just because of one factor (this case internet)

          • There is nothing fundamentally wrong with putting a significant amount resources into a particular basket.
            That’s exactly what putting your eggs into one basket means…..

            Furthermore you are correct there is nothing fundamentally wrong with putting your eggs into one basket if you have properly taken into account all environmental factors

            The opposite is true regarding NBN, NBN just took into account one factor, that is town size (premises of town >=1000).

            This in fact has the exact same as what happened in the dotcom bubble, people invested heavily just because of one factor (this case internet)

          • So taking all your other “environment factors” into account (demand, efficiency in upgrade of costings, speed of upgrades, regulatory and economic environmental factors etc etc) what do you think is a better solution than fibre?

          • Mix of FTTN and FTTH. FTTN can deliver 100mbit synchronous to anyone that is 0.5 km from the exchange (which will be quite a few people if you are going to FTTN everyone to provide minimum 12mbit speeds) with VDSL2

            Furthermore because of the funds saved by using FTTN, you can extended the wired coverage (of FTTN)) to a further percentage of Australia (such as 98% with the tender from Telstra)

            FTTN also has an upgrade path to FTTH, GPON’s can be used with FTTN nodes or as a small extension to the node.

            Where FTTN is uneconomic (serious degradation of copper or other reasons such as density/distance) or if there is high demand for FTTH, you can install FTTH.

            Also using FTTB in apartments instead of wasting more $$$ on installing fiber to every holding inside apartment. FTTB can easily deliver 500mbit synchronous speeds with VDSL2, and you can use those saved funds in other areas

            Furthemore FTTN nodes can act as wireless microcells, using the fiber cores that are delivering the bandwidth to the FTTN node, which makes a significant difference on wireless usability.

            FTTN is also freaking fast, since there isn’t any last mile modification. FTTN to all the major cities would just take years

            Also note that this assumes that VDSL2 is the final technological breakthrough for a single twisted pair, which is highly unlikely

          • Oh and of course, keeping/using HFC wherever it is, since HFC can actually deliver 100mbit synchronous (its just that, as with most Australian internet plans that are not just ADSL2+, uploads are seriously limited due to the strain that uploads puts on routers with people leaving uploads on torrents)

            Since HFC is a type of FTTN, it can apparently be upgraded into an FTTH (apparently Virgin in Britain is doing this with their cable network)

          • That’s what the ISPs would have you think. There is no technical reason why they can’t provide us with better uploads.

            ADSL2+ even has Annex M which effectively doubles the uploads.

          • OK, so other than being cheaper in the short-term, how else does it help? Is it going to be cheaper when you take a future FTTH upgrade into account? Or are we assuming that nobody is ever going to need that between now and forever?

            Particularly when you still have the problem that some people will be able to get 100Mb/s+ but others will only be getting 50Mb/s or maybe even 12Mb/s and the distribution will be arbitrary and random (basically just whoever happens to be closest to the nodes). Whereas with the NBN, the network is uniform and the cut-off to 12Mb/s is well-defined.

          • As a side note, VDSL2 is not standardised in Australia to be used by Telstra, since it kinda dropped off the agenda when NBN MK1 failed (this is why VDSL2 is unavailable in Australia unless you lay down your own copper)

            OK, so other than being cheaper in the short-term, how else does it help? Is it going to be cheaper when you take a future FTTH upgrade into account? Or are we assuming that nobody is ever going to need that between now and forever?
            Because the NBN is actually expected to pay off the capital by itself, this version will result in significantly cheaper internet prices (in one way or another). Due to the way that NBN’s CVC/AVC charges are done, I see it highly unlikely that ISP’s such as TPG will be able to provide unlimited for 60 a month in a sustainable way.

            It also puts less strain on the government for other more important priorities

            The NBN will be the only monopoly network in the world that forces both an AVC (initial base cost) and a CVC (cost based on contention). Fiber networks around the world only have initial AVC charges, and if they have both they are not forced fixed line monopolies
            Graeme Lynch does a fantastic job reporting this issue regarding pricing on his commsday site if you go through his articles http://www.commsday.com/commsday/

            Furthermore there is no need of this shit of having monopolistic and retarded stupid and backwards socialist legislation going through the parliament just to make NBN work

            In regards to the FTTN->FTTH upgrade, you obviously have to install fiber to the last mile (but you have to do that with straight FTTH anyways), its just that you reuse the current network topology (i.e. FTTN) and you replace the contents of FTTN nodes with FTTH fiber equipment, and install last mile fiber from the houses to the nodes (or to the exchange). A lot of the FTTN cost is actually placing fibre backhaul and fiber to the node everywhere, something that will obviously be used for the FTTH upgrade

            Particularly when you still have the problem that some people will be able to get 100Mb/s+ but others will only be getting 50Mb/s or maybe even 12Mb/s and the distribution will be arbitrary and random (basically just whoever happens to be closest to the nodes). Whereas with the NBN, the network is uniform and the cut-off to 12Mb/s is well-defined.
            100mbits is a premium target, only heavily densely Asian countries (or islands) are able to provide such speeds everywhere at a sane cost. People need to accept the fact and be realistic and realize that countries, depending on their characteristics, have different advantages and disadvantages.

            There is no evidence that 100mbit should be required for 93% of the population. On a national, to the home basis, the main applications for such speed are basically media (3D TV, gaming, multiple streaming of content).

            Asian countries don’t have 100mbit speeds because their country decided to put a mandate on 100mbit speeds, its because cost of laying fiber for the last mile in such countries is negligible due to economics of scale (in regards to population density)

            As I said, FCC did a report and found that the minimum speeds that should be required are 4/1 mbits. If we are defining a lowest common denominator, we don’t do it as a premium.

            That of course is not to say that you will be unable to get 100mbit speeds, New Zealand is offering FTTH ontop of their FTTN, and is already providing 60/40 through VDSL2.

          • There is no evidence that 100mbit should be required for 93% of the population. On a national, to the home basis, the main applications for such speed are basically media (3D TV, gaming, multiple streaming of content).

            Of course, today there is little use of 100Mb/s to every home. But clearly there are uses for it – you even listed some above. The problem with your FTTN solution is, as I said, only a random selection of people will get the 100Mb/s. Whether that’s 30% or 50% or 10% of the population is irrelevant, the point is that it’s a completely random distribution. The NBN will solve that problem.

            As I said, FCC did a report and found that the minimum speeds that should be required are 4/1 mbits. If we are defining a lowest common denominator, we don’t do it as a premium.

            The FCC doesn’t say “4Mb/s” is the minimum that should be required, they say you can’t even call a connection “broadband” if it’s less than 4Mb/s. Besides, that’s the minimum required to call your service broadband today, in 2011. What about in 2021? Or 2050? In fact, the FCC have been talking about making 100Mb/s the required minimum in the next 10 years.

            Of course, ISPs in the U.S. don’t like that idea, but the fact is, here in Australia we have the opportunity to provide just that kind of speed (and more) to 93% of our population in the next ten years. So if you’re going to tout the FCC as the poster-child for defining reasonable broadband speeds, then FTTN is just not going to cut it.

          • Of course, today there is little use of 100Mb/s to every home. But clearly there are uses for it – you even listed some above.
            There are uses for everything, including rocket ships

            The question is whether a certain use of technology is required, and if so by how much, and if so then how much the government should fund it.

            Governments don’t usually tend to spend the amount of capital (per head) on what is mostly purely entertainment reasons as Australia is doing.

            The problem with your FTTN solution is, as I said, only a random selection of people will get the 100Mb/s. Whether that’s 30% or 50% or 10% of the population is irrelevant, the point is that it’s a completely random distribution. The NBN will solve that problem.
            The only problem is your premise that you think 100mbits is required everywhere right now (and even if it is, it still doesn’t require 93% FTTH considering we have HFC as an example).

            You are creating a problem out of the proposition that you think everyone needs 100mbits

            Besides, that’s the minimum required to call your service broadband today, in 2011. What about in 2021? Or 2050? In fact, the FCC have been talking about making 100Mb/s the required minimum in the next 10 years.
            You gradually upgrading depending on demand, nothing different here (and gradually upgrading does not me putting FTTH everywhere). I already mentioned earlier that FTTN upgrades to FTTH

            Of course, ISPs in the U.S. don’t like that idea, but the fact is, here in Australia we have the opportunity to provide just that kind of speed (and more) to 93% of our population in the next ten years. So if you’re going to tout the FCC as the poster-child for defining reasonable broadband speeds, then FTTN is just not going to cut it.
            ISP’s wouldn’t like it here either, do you know how freaking expensive routing equipment is (for the ISP) if you wish to provide gigabits of bandwidth and still manage a QoS? Hell in Australias case its even worse, since most data in Australia is overseas, where capital needs to be used to build international links where most of our traffic gets bottlenecked through

          • The only problem is your premise that you think 100mbits is required everywhere right now (and even if it is, it still doesn’t require 93% FTTH considering we have HFC as an example).

            And your problem is that you think 100Mb/s is never going to be needed. Yes you can upgrade FTTN to FTTH, but by the time you do that, it’s just as expensive as building FTTH in the first place.

            If you want to assume that not everybody is going to need 100Mb/s from now until forever then I think you’ll find you’re in the minority. Even the FCC – who only a few minutes ago, you were lauding as the poster-child of reasonable broadband speeds – is predicting that 100Mb/s will be the minimum in 10 years.

          • And your problem is that you think 100Mb/s is never going to be needed. Yes you can upgrade FTTN to FTTH, but by the time you do that, it’s just as expensive as building FTTH in the first place.
            I never said that, and your squashing down magnitudes to argue incorrectly

            Of course we will need 100mbit eventually (and by need, I mean non entertainment reasons, and something that society as a general needs and not some niche in for example technology), the question is when they will need it

            I am sure that some point in future we will all need rocket ships, does that mean we should spend the next 20 years building rocket ships for everyone with government funds?

            As you have pointed out, the need for 100mbit is not evident now, or even in 8 or 10 or 15 years. Which is why you deploy technologies that are more cost effective, but allow for upgrades should such events eventually occur. Thats what FTTN/HFC is

          • “Investing a single technology in ratio of 90%+ is what is considered putting eggs into one basket (also the most expensive technology at that).”

            Has it occurred to you that different technologies are appropriate in different environments? Wireless doesn’t make sense in the CBD’s, and fibre doesn’t make sense in the bush. Your idea of evenly spreading technological solutions across the population is based on what – some misguided sense of symmetry? Your logic is difficult to fathom, even indeed logic has anything to do with it whatsoever.

            Tell me, are you concerned that Telstra have all their eggs in one basket with the copper network? If not, why is it a problem with FTTH?

          • Has it occurred to you that different technologies are appropriate in different environments?
            Oh I am ABSOLUTELY aware of that, are you though?

            The NBN’s FTTH is basically putting fiber everywhere regardless of every single environmental factor apart from towns >= 1000 premises. The only environmental factor taken into account for the FTTH rollout is towns that have >=1000 premises. NBNCo’s 93% FTTH rollout completely ignores the other environmental factors, including demand, efficiency in upgrade of costings, speed of upgrades, regulatory and economic environmental factors etc etc. ALL of this is being ignored, everything is attempted to be done to deliver the FTTH to that 93% target

            This isn’t just FTTH in CBD’s, this is FTTH EVERYWHERE with towns >1000 premises

          • So bloody what?

            Maybe the technology is just that flexible. I mean hell, if copper pair cable is flexible enough to be rolled out almost everywhere why isn’t fibre?

          • Copper is already layed out, fiber isn’t. Since the majority of the cost in the FTTH is the last mile installation (like 80->90%), this means improving on copper is significantly (by factors) cheaper then fiber. Please stop misrepresenting the situation, this is not laying fiber vs laying copper, this is reusing current copper vs laying new fiber.

            According to you everyone should by a brand new car even though their current one works fine. If there was no copper layed out, then it would be a different story, but thats not the case. And for similar reasons, its why 90%+ of the population doesn’t drive brand new cars, or even purchases a new car until their old one is of no use. Its called being fiscal

  9. facepalm.

    Applies to Bolt and all the anti-NBN comments so far.

    Guys, come back when you have some facts or reality. I’ll even accept just one of those 2 thanks (it’d make for a refreshing change)

  10. http://i.imgur.com/mzZkk.png

    Have a look at the above and tell me that wireless only is a good idea.

    When will the anti-nbn crowd cup up with something that resembles a good argument about why we don’t need it.

    They keep on trotting out the same old tired arguments, knocking it and spreading fud.

    If they had a coherent message and a second option that was feasible i might listen to them.

    As it is, they will be on the wrong side of history.

    • It’s a little tricky using average user graphs because of the amount of bandwidth limiting that goes on particularly with IOS and app limitations on what you can and can’t do over 3g. I never use up my Virgin/Optus 3GB cap purely because it’s difficult to use it except if I’m tethered to a laptop all day.

      The bet against fixed line takeup is a bet against cable tv, video on demand and iptv. It’s also a bet against Telco’s bundling services, and assumes wireless carriers will have massive amounts of excess capacity in the next 20 years to soak up all the smart devices coming onto the network. It’s a bet that flounder’s against physics, the Telco investment cycles, and the forthcoming government spectrum auctions.

  11. 100% of arguments can be won with statistics 100% of the time. see what i did thar!

    The NBN is too expensive. Measure it anyway you want. Compare it to any other national network program anywhere in the world and it becomes ridiculous. Use what ever arguments you like the price is astronomical.

    The “business model” take up is outrageously overoptimistic. See what happens with other infrastructure when they get this wrong? Take toll road traffic projections for example.

    For a “return generating business” the estimated ROI would be difficult to work with in a pure private sector model. A model the NBN Co will become, even when (if) its built it simply wont be a good investment.

    There is a reason the Productivity Commission have not had crack at this policy. Ignorance truly is bliss.

    you can argue wireless/fiber till the cows come home wont change the fact that this Broadband Policy is going to fail every way you can measure it. statistics or not.

    • “The “business model” take up is outrageously overoptimistic. See what happens with other infrastructure when they get this wrong? Take toll road traffic projections for example.”

      Fortunately in this case we’re talking about taking over pretty much ALL fixed-line traffic in the country, so we can look at existing stats to make very accurate projections. So to use your toll road analogy, we’re not building a new toll road but rather replacing an existing toll road with a known traffic pattern and regular year-on-year traffic growth. Not so risky now is it?

      “this Broadband Policy is going to fail every way you can measure it. statistics or not.”

      So how are you planning to “measure” anything if you’re willing to dismiss the relevant statistics out of hand? I guess it’s easier to win an argument if you ignore the facts.

      • @Jeremy

        Exactly my point. the toll road analogy is sweet because in every case where new toll roads are built there is an existing route. Cheaper but slower or longer. This is exactly the case with the NBN. And when the business model is based on overoptimistic traffic the company goes broke. Exactly the case with the NBN.

        You want to get there fast. fine pay the toll happy days. If not then you have to take the slow lane but you will still get where you are going.

        That other route in this case, the slow lane, is going to be mobile. It will be the existing route that subscribers will take to by pass the new toll road that is the NBN. Its not a replacement for fiber. Its a slower alt route that is totally underestimated by NBN Co.

        Measuring failure is dependant on your perspective. You might say that if the NBN co dont make a proffit then they are a faliure as a business. Or you might say that if Broadband doesn’t get cheaper then they fail. Or you might say if its not more reliable. Or if ISP’s complaints to TIO dont decrease. Of course the NBN Co has no such goals so how ever they choose to spin it will be positive.

        • “That other route in this case, the slow lane, is going to be mobile. It will be the existing route that subscribers will take to by pass the new toll road that is the NBN. Its not a replacement for fiber. Its a slower alt route that is totally underestimated by NBN Co.”

          If there was any truth to this it would be happening already. And yet, fixed-line broadband connections (the toll roads of today) are still growing, despite the massive popularity of mobile connections. Can you give any logical reason why this would suddenly change after the toll road is upgraded? No? Fail.

  12. Copper is already layed out, fiber isn’t. Since the majority of the cost in the FTTH is the last mile installation (like 80->90%), this means improving on copper is significantly (by factors) cheaper then fiber. Please stop misrepresenting the situation, this is not laying fiber vs laying copper, this is reusing current copper vs laying new fiber.

    No that isn’t the premise of my argument all. Read exactly what I said.

    If you miss it the second time it goes something like this:

    Copper already goes everywhere, what is different about fibre that means it can’t do the same thing? Yes the copper is already in the ground, yes we can save a bit of money by reutilising the asset, but there is no reason that the fibre cable will be incapable of being run everywhere where the copper is

    • Copper already goes everywhere, what is different about fibre that means it can’t do the same thing? Yes the copper is already in the ground, yes we can save a bit of money by reutilising the asset,
      A bit?

      You mean a lot don’t you?

      For example, everyone that is already less then 1km from the exchange (especially in the dense city areas), the government has to spend a grand $0 on them

      but there is no reason that the fibre cable will be incapable of being run everywhere where the copper is
      Just as there is no reason why the government shouldn’t buy everyone a brand new car, or the government shouldn’t buy everyone a brand new desktop computer.

      Of course there is nothing preventing fiber being run everywhere that copper is, its just a retarded idea

      • You mean a lot don’t you?

        Nope. I mean a bit. Unlike you I try to think about the the future and what it is we will have to to continue to meet demand.

        Just as there is no reason why the government shouldn’t buy everyone a brand new car, or the government shouldn’t buy everyone a brand new desktop computer.

        Nope, but there is absolutely no reason why the government shouldn’t encourage people to try and use newer cars because they are more efficient and cheaper to run. Which is exactly what governments across the world do.

        Of course there is nothing preventing fiber being run everywhere that copper is, its just a retarded idea.

        In the short term, yes, it is, because demand can be meet with copper. I agree with you, but again, thinking about the future and how to provision for future demand, and it get’s… well the word I’ll use is “icky”.

        • Nope. I mean a bit. Unlike you I try to think about the the future and what it is we will have to to continue to meet demand.
          You do realize FTTN can upgrade to FTTH, right?

          Nope, but there is absolutely no reason why the government shouldn’t encourage people to try and use newer cars because they are more efficient and cheaper to run. Which is exactly what governments across the world do.
          If by encouragement you mean giving everyone a new car, then sure…..(lols…)

          Actual encouragement would be building a national fiber back-haul to give lowest possible effort of entry into the last mile and opening up the Australian’s last mile market. Oh wait, thats the coalitions plan…..*slaps face*

          In the short term, yes, it is, because demand can be meet with copper. I agree with you, but again, thinking about the future and how to provision for future demand, and it get’s… well the word I’ll use is “icky”.
          Its not icky, other countries have figured it out, and thats why no other country is doing what Australia is.

          • You do realize FTTN can upgrade to FTTH, right?

            Yes. But show me something that shows me that upgrading to FTTN, waiting 10 years, then upgrading to FTTH will cost less than upgrading to FTTN in the first instance and I’ll reverse my “a bit” statement.

            If by encouragement you mean giving everyone a new car, then sure…..(lols…)

            In Singapore they care you a redicious about of tax on your car if it is more than 7 years old. Would you prefer that model? If a customer is connected via copper they have to pay a premium so high that it’ll be cheaper for them to pay for there connection to be upgraded to FTTH.

            In the UK they had a scrapage scheme where old cars could be traded in for a huge discount on new ones. Would you prefer that model? Tax Telstra to hell if it continues to operate it’s CAN?

            The analogy between cars and Broadband just doesn’t hold up very well when you get into it eh?

            Actual encouragement would be building a national fiber back-haul to give lowest possible effort of entry into the last mile and opening up the Australian’s last mile market. Oh wait, thats the coalitions plan…..*slaps face*

            Its not icky, other countries have figured it out, and thats why no other country is doing what Australia is.

            Oh but It is icky. It’s a half arsed solution.

            Sure, it might encourage the market, but why can’t we encourage the market and improve the basic service? Sure the NBN is overkill in that last part, and doesn’t do the first part all that well, but hell, what about using VDSL2+ for the nodes off the bat instead of ADSL2+, surely that’ll only cost a few more billion? And how about changing the node density to be a little higher? That’s a few billion more isn’t it? And if implemented we could also do it in less time than the full NBN rollout couldn’t we.

            But that isn’t what you want us to try and do. You want us just to blindly follow the Coalition’s plan. And you accuse us of blindly following Labor’s? Seriously?

          • Yes. But show me something that shows me that upgrading to FTTN, waiting 10 years, then upgrading to FTTH will cost less than upgrading to FTTN in the first instance and I’ll reverse my “a bit” statement.
            Use your brain, FTTH everywhere is much more expensive because of the massive debt on capital required + interest. Its more expensive for consumers, you are spending $2000 on someone who will have no extra use on that fiber, but their internet plans will increase because that $2000 needs to be covered by NBN from consumers.

            In Singapore they care you a redicious about of tax on your car if it is more than 7 years old. Would you prefer that model?
            whats your point, we live in Singapore?

            Oh and btw, scrapping in old cars with massive discounts is AGAIN a very different story to government buying everyone a new car out of debt or with their own funds. I have yet to know a country which does this

            Oh but It is icky. It’s a half arsed solution
            In your opinion its half arsed, in my opinion its a fine solution considering that the NBN is an idiotic idea that Conroy came up with and he has no clue what hes doing.

            Sure, it might encourage the market, but why can’t we encourage the market and improve the basic service?
            NBN is killing the market and giving everyone what they think they need. The last mile market will basically die (in fact it will reverse in the opposite direction), and the RSP/ISP market will not improve at all (in fact will also probably worsen).

          • Use your brain, FTTH everywhere is much more expensive because of the massive debt on capital required + interest. Its more expensive for consumers, you are spending $2000 on someone who will have no extra use on that fiber, but their internet plans will increase because that $2000 needs to be covered by NBN from consumers.

            If your endgame is to give FTTH to everyone anyway, do the extra costs associated with operating a FTTN for an interim period cost more or less than the interest of going to FTTH in the first place?

            You’ll note this is a question. I am asking you if you know. This does not mean I think that it is less, this means I don’t know, and the reason being is I don’t think anybody actually knows.

            The only way that question becomes completely invalid is if you can show me that we don’t need a fixed line network at all, which I have not been able to find an argument to support.

            Oh and btw, scrapping in old cars with massive discounts is AGAIN a very different story to government buying everyone a new car out of debt or with their own funds. I have yet to know a country which does this

            Probably because cars aren’t analogues to utilities. Let us take KiwIRail in New Zealand, after Toll Holdings ran the track into the ground the government their invested $750 million into rail infrastructure directly, in the hope that that $750 million would be enough for the company to start turning over enough in order to complete the project under it’s own power from customer revenue.

            In your opinion its half arsed, in my opinion its a fine solution considering that the NBN is an idiotic idea that Conroy came up with and he has no clue what hes doing.

            So we differ in opinion. Okay then. Are you willing to discuss improvements to the Coalition’s plan?

            NBN is killing the market and giving everyone what they think they need. The last mile market will basically die (in fact it will reverse in the opposite direction), and the RSP/ISP market will not improve at all (in fact will also probably worsen).

            The suggestions I made that this in reply to were suggestions for improvements to the Coalition’s plan, contrasting the Coalition’s plan by saying the NBN is (in your opinion) going to destroy the market is not responding to that.

            It is not one plan or the other. In fact it is very important that we stop thinking like that. I have been defending the NBN because you seem to refuse to acknowledge that any aspect of the plan what-so-ever is of benefit to Australia.

Comments are closed.