Industry ‘relieved’ over NBN

 

Gillard welcomed but changes needed.

Telcos, IT businesses and peak information industry groups expressed relief after Labor returned to power in Canberra with the support of the Greens and key independents.

Telecommunications analyst Paul Budde and the Communications Alliance - which helped draft technical specifications for aspects of the Labor's broadband plan - were among those relieved by the Federal election outcome.

"We are certainly pleased to see clarity in the political situation,” Communications Alliance chief John Stanton said.

Australian Information Industry Association chief executive officer Ian Birks said that "when you have a change of Government, there is a lot of confusion created".

"As a result, business gets slowed down," Birks said.

“Therefore we are pleased that Labor has been returned [to office]."

And Intel's A/NZ managing director Philip Cronin said it "will allow the IT industry, and the business community in general, to plan with confidence”.

Cautious optimism

Many in the industry welcomed the key role broadband played.

The issue helped sway independent MPs Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott to side with Labor.

Birks said he could not recall a "prior case of our industry having such a significant role to play" in Australia's political landscape.

"It's a pointer to the future," he said.

Others were cautiously optimistic. "We hope this augurs well for all parties in the new Parliament to adopt a national-interest approach to fostering better communications outcomes for all Australians,” Stanton said.

“The Government now owes it to the people that supported them during the election campaign on the issue of the NBN to lift their game and come up with policies that will see the NBN used as a true trans-sector project,” Budde said.

"[There is] clear demand for more transparency, better government communication at the [Prime Ministerial level] and [for] a genuine discussion to review the NBN plans to improve them wherever we can."

Optus' director of government and corporate affairs Maha Krishnapillai called the election focus on broadband a “testament” its importance in how Australians lived, worked and played.

“We hope that we can now move beyond the broadband debate and get on with the job of building a world class broadband network,” Krishnapillai said, calling for “long overdue regulatory reform to improve competition and choice, particularly for those in regional Australia”.

Technology decisions

NBN Co may be restarting its "spending, tenders and recruitment" but it faced questions over whether optical fibre was the right path for Australia.

iTnews reported earlier this week that a fragile industry consensus on the NBN had started to fragment under pressure of political uncertainty and fresh proposals from segments of the industry.

Optus threw its weight behind fibre.

"Fibre is indisputably the best way to deliver high speed broadband for the long-term," Krishnapillai said.

The rollout model would also change in the new political landscape with regional areas to be prioritised over metropolitan sites.

Internet Industry Association chief executive officer Peter Coroneos supported laying the network in the bush first: “the industry has always seen that [build-in] as how it should have been built”.

“There isn’t equity of access currently," he said.

"Given that there’s very strong recognition in regional Australia about how important broadband will be, I think it makes sense that the build occurs where the need is greater, rather than convenience.”

Copyright © iTnews.com.au . All rights reserved.


Industry ‘relieved’ over NBN
"umbria wrote: @deteego, I think you'll find that the population density in the Australia-wide localities to actually get NBN fibre does average a few hundred people per square km. 4-5% will ..."
By deteego
 
 
 
Comments: 57
johnpro2
Sep 7, 2010 10:03 PM
Nice change from the usual hospitals roads and schools grab for more tax payers hard earned cash.

I suspect your average user does not require this Rolls Royce comm solution, esp when mobile/satellite is possibly the future.
jp
peterh_oz
Sep 7, 2010 11:09 PM
Yes John I suspect you're right. Just like in 1895 the average user didn't need electricity and in 1940 didn't need a telephone.
HubertCumberdale
Sep 7, 2010 11:43 PM
johnpro2 wrote:
I suspect your average user does not require this Rolls Royce comm solution


Your average user may not require this "Rolls Royce" solution but MY average user does. Not for their benefit but for mine. I dont want to have to worry whether someone has a dinky little ADSL speed or proper 100mbit connection before about sending them a ridiculously large file from my Phase One camera.
thor
Sep 7, 2010 11:48 PM
remember we didnt need 32kb dialup internet 5 years ago. Sorry John going to have to disagree with you there, wireless internet is not acceptable for large population. As a technician incharge of looking after in a medium size company, using wireless take a lot of time and hassles because it simply can not produce the speeds required for business. At home, I struggle to watch youtube, load up large work document, all via wireless, once the cable is plugged in, it loaded in a third of the time. You add many hundred of thousand, Hello Bottlenecks.
gbyrneg50
Sep 8, 2010 12:57 AM
I think that the NBN will be outdated before it is completed. There are new technologies for wireless broadband as well as ADSL. I believe it would have been more prudent to deal with "black spots" case by case with existing technologies eventually going to the new technologies when they become available. The fibres don't have a long life span (15 years if above ground) so that the whole thing will be a huge white elephant.
peterniss
Sep 8, 2010 3:59 AM
gbyrneg50; as fast as technology moves, copper is physically limited as to what it can carry as is optical fibre. Fibre however is much less limited by simple physics and xDSL based data transmission is still no where near that of even the earliest versions of fibre. And your idea that fibre somehow breaks down over a short time is based on what exactly? What part of a glass fibre wears out? This is news to me and im an engineer. I think your talking rubbish.
HyRax
Sep 8, 2010 7:45 AM
@gbyrneg50: Fibre moves data at the speed of light, because that is what they transfer - pulses of light. If you are able show me a technology that can move data faster than that, then you can say fibre is heading to the outdated bin.

What IS potentially limiting us in future are electrical network switches and routers - they still use electrical impulses and will be the next bottleneck to overcome over the next decade for high-speed backbones.
Rossyduck
Sep 8, 2010 8:09 AM
It is a sad day for Australia and our children. In reality fibre was never in question as the long term majority solution - the long term business case holds up in mosts cases, even for small towns vs. wireless. It is the archaic way (aquaducts vs pipes) that NBN Co are implementing it that is the problem. This is what happens when you annoint a bunch of people able to talk their way to the top as sole custodians and give them a blank cheque. If there was any doubts as to their integrity - take a look at their rushed procurement just before the election - these clowns deliberately set out to put themselves in a financial postion to make it impossible for any government elected by the Australian people to can NBN Co without having to swallow a poison pill. Nothing like drawing a salary from the public purse without Commonwealth controls to make one want to keep the gravy train flowing. And if there is competition able to do it better ? Auntie commonwealth will just pass a law. Good gig to hold onto.
umbria
Sep 8, 2010 8:48 AM
@Rossyduck, it's true the Rudd-Gillard mess lumbered from one hastily planned, slapdash and poorly audited program to another. The NBN was unique. OPEL then NBN Mark I with their band-aid copper FTTN approach, were shown as incapable of delivering adequate broadband in their budget outside big cities, Minister Conroy actually consulted industry. To everyone's astonishment, he adopted the right plan for a vast country, and set up a body that has shown tight financial management and an emphasis on planning the detail right from the outset, and ironing out practical details through pilots.
Competition will deliver benefits when ubiquitous public infrastructure exists. We have seen fifteen years of what competition delivers, farcical parallel cable rollouts, exclusion of rivals when Telstra was handed control of the whole copper network, predatory wholesale pricing stifling regional services, the list goes on.
My vote is with Mike Quigley and co. Roll on, NBN.
djzort
Sep 8, 2010 9:03 AM
seniors move to areas with better health, families move to areas with better schools, yet health and schools are available in all areas.

so why is broadband any different?

its just tax payer dollars buying ignorant votes. (and tax payer dollars encouraging piracy)
Hartleigh
Sep 8, 2010 9:32 AM
@umbria couldn't agree with you more. I am sick to death of dealing with Telstra & Optus and their junk. Nothing better than a new player to shake things up. A much better idea than having an ad-hoc national network with carriers that struggle to talk to each other.
Francis
Sep 8, 2010 10:07 AM
@gybyrneg50 & peternis Above ground Fibre does only have a life of around 15 years when erected overhead. It wears out as the plastic covering deteriorates with exposure to UV Light. However the glass also fatigues and fractures as it is brittle and can only stand a certain amount of movement or flexing before it breaks. This flexing occurs due to wind and debris such as tree branches hitting it in storms.
But put it in an underground duct and its life is indefinite.
This can also be related to Aerial Bundled Cable (ABC) used by the electricity distributors which only has a life of 40 years before it has to be replaced as the insulation deteriorates with heat and UV light. But a similar cable underground has a life span of 60 to 100 years So overhead may be cheap in the short term but past that it becomes expensive.
For this reason alone and to increase reliability the NBN must be located underground.
listohan
Sep 8, 2010 10:23 AM
@gbyrmeg50 I "think" there are fairies at the bottom of the garden. Given the delay between research and ubiquitous deployment, can you tell us where you find references to the research that WILL (not might) result in your thoughts turning into reality.

@HyRax at the risk of a charge of being pedantic, electricity and light travel at the same speed. I think what you are talking about is capacity not speed. Utes and B doubles can travel at the same but when it comes to their respective loads...
Bazwalt
Sep 8, 2010 10:42 AM
@johnpro2 - As other's have said John, it's not about what you or the average user wants/needs. Get your head out of the sand, it's about what Australia as a whole needs.

@gbyrneg50 - Your statement about fibre's lifespan is the most ludicrous one I've ever heard. As others mentioned, fibre is essentially glass. It does not degrade or breakdown. It is also a medium that uses light to transport data. If you can show me something that is faster than light, than I will kiss your feet. My suggestion is to get your facts right before making a statement.

@Rossyduck - That's fine - you go and use dialup or satellite and then come back and tell us how things went. Like it or not, we have to take a risk and implement something for the future. Now is a better time than ever. The NBN may not make its repayments over the next 10-15 years but I will certainly repay itself when our kids are far older. Toughen up and accept change.

@Francis True - But NBNs plan is to only lay fibre above-head where underground is not possible. I believe the number of people in this situation will be somewhat small/limited. I don't claim this to be fact but simply a reliable piece of information.
RobertT
Sep 8, 2010 10:48 AM
All, I know I'm new to this discussion, but there is one thing that I just don't get, regarding this whole discussion.

Put simply!
why is it always assumed that the best solution for the metro is also the best for the bush?

The economics and installation reality of both places(metro vs bush)are dramatically different. To use the popular car analogy, it is like taking a top fuel dragster to an off road competition.

Personally if I were making the plans I'd be placing much greater emphasis on multiple over-layed RF systems. There is so much that could be done with the so called "white space" spectrum (400Mhz to 700Mhz)especially outside the metro areas. After all there is little or no TV to interfere with. Overlaying this with some high bandwidth point to point Ghz RF links will provide fantastic service most of the time and reasonable service when dust storms and rain fade the RF links.

The real key, in my mind, is to establish multiple and redundant RF mesh links between the end points. Basically a town wide mesh.

As for LTE and Wimax systems they were not designed for rural deployment. Most of the commercial 3G & 4G chips sets (that I know off) are optimized for eliminating near field interferer's NOT achieving the best possible result from a weak RF signal. The two problems are very different, I'd even go as far as to say that QAM over OFDM is not the modulation of choice for a weak rural wireless link. The linearity of the PA for the uplink is also a problem.

I just wish there were more room for discussion within the rural NBN solution space. It is exactly those unique Australian distance problems, that make FTTP unsuitable, which lend themselves to solutions based on multiple RF feeds and maybe even point to point FSO links.


wjc
Sep 8, 2010 10:56 AM
Simple test for the Gillard government!
The incoming relevant Minister will simply direct NBN Co and Mr Quigley to prioritise those areas suffering from NO REAL BROADBAND AT ALL - those poor Telstra RIM/Pair Gain victims abandoned by Mr Thodey. Gungallan was a start - now, let's get those regional areas such as the Gold Coast fixed FAST! Let us all make this a test of the sincerety of the new Labor Government - say, fix it all within 12 months?
evilsync
Sep 8, 2010 11:17 AM
John, how did you even find this website?

Wireless/Satellite being the future? It will NEVER be the future.
davmel
Sep 8, 2010 12:44 PM
@RobertT "There is so much that could be done with the so called "white space" spectrum (400Mhz to 700Mhz)especially outside the metro areas."

That spectrum is harmonised under ITU agreements for use as TV broadcast spectrum (500-700MHz) which will be fully utilised for DVB-T broadcasts once the TV channels above 700MHz are re-farmed down below 700 MHz in the next few years.
The 400-500MHz spectrum is heavily utilised by two way radio trunking systems, police, ambulance, countless commercial radio licensees, UHF CB, amateur radio etc.

I can't fathom how you could call it "white space" when it is possibly the most heavily used radio spectrum we have! This is why terrestrial wireless solutions are not the best solution since there is very little available spectrum to deploy high speed internet services to a large number of users.
davmel
Sep 8, 2010 12:55 PM
@evilsync "Wireless/Satellite being the future? It will NEVER be the future."

It has to be the future for remote locations. You just can't justify spending 10 million dollars trenching a fibre cable to a single remote homestead!
deteego
Sep 8, 2010 1:09 PM
Wireless is fine for cloud and mobile networking (you know, people going around doing buisness on their smartphones/ipads and laptops). Fibre isn't going to help that area one bit, and thats the point of Wireless. Wireless as a technology is also massively improving, Fibre Optic internet isn't

Coalition never stated that they are going to run the whole country on wireless, or that their plan is "only wireless". The coalitions plan has multiple technologies, Fibre backhaul + wireless + satellite (and other technologies). Using appropriate technologies in the correct places/situations is the whole point behind the coalitions NBN plan, something that it seems most people have difficulties comprehending (note suprising though, when some rural stated that only 1gb internet would give them 100 times faster internet, when they were currently downloading at 100kb, you do the math).

Also regarding the amount of money FTTH will cost (something Gillard admitted), even with the NBN I doubt a lot of people in rural areas would even use it, instead opting for a plan giving them ADSL2+ speeds.

Its kinda funny that the ISP's own solution is surprisingly similar to the coalitions one
Daveh
Sep 8, 2010 2:07 PM
@deteego "Wireless is fine for cloud"

Best line ever. Do you understand what cloud is? Most of the data involved in working within a cloud environment requires large amounts of back end data transfer and huge bandwidth because of the high numbers of connections. Sure YOUR need may be less, but the actual cloud requires great tracts of bandwidth.

Also, how is Fiber not evolving? 100Gbps Ethernet has been released as a standard in the past 12 months?! With direct comparison to WiFi the upcoming LTE standard supports a theoretical maximum of 0.36Gbps.

Simply because it has not had a new retail grade product for years? (Could that be because there is no consumer need for this grade of cable?) Fiber as an OSI-L1 medium is literally light years ahead of Wierless technologies.

As for rural areas, if you wish to look at infrastructure, LTE (as the most advanced standard) has a maximum range of 12KM. Meaning repeater stations every 12 KM, the current standard grade OFC cable's have an attenuation range of 70-150KM. Meaning the number of repeaters increases dramatically as you require more stations.

To bash OFC as a commercial grade product in favor of wifi shows a limited understanding of all the available technologies at any level outside your lounge room.

Finally, i would also like to give a shout out to satellite, which while giving a theoretical max of 1Gbps provides an average throughput of 0.000256Gbps (256Kpbs) at an average trip time of 900ms - which makes VoIP and other real time technologies impractical if not useless. (your connection time over copper to america is about 250ms)

Guys, if all you are concerned about (as old Tony said) is your Email, Facebook and internet browsing then yes the NBN is a little beyond your needs.

HOWEVER, when you move to anything more then you need more bandwidth. For an example look at Akamai Technologies and see what kinds of bandwidth's cloud businesses use.

As an additional note, as more people come online and begin using you gain signal contention and time to perform an action increases. For a GREAT example of this head to somewhere like Malaysia and make a mobile phone call during the day, doesn't sound like much but you can wait up to 20 seconds in peak periods to get a connection - simply due to network congestion.
deteego
Sep 8, 2010 2:15 PM
Yes I do understand what Cloud networking is, and wireless technology is whats pushing cloud networking. For example, have a look at Googles latest show on Android 3.0 in regards to cloud networking/wireless. The fact that you have numerous devices (some of which are wired, the majority being wireless) such as 1 or 2 main computers, a smart phone, a laptop/tablets, its wireless that is pushing that. The benefits of cloud computing become much more apparent when you have a large number of devices sharing the data, and those recent devices are all gadgets that run on wireless

Fibre is not evolving, its been around for 30+ years. Gigabit came out 1970's. Gigabit has been deployed in regular consumer PC's since 1998 (or around that). Gigabit 10 only has a use for servers, since realistically (not in lab situations), the highest speed you would get out of Fibre would be 1gig a second

Edited by deteego: 8/9/2010 02:16:19 PM
RobertT
Sep 8, 2010 2:39 PM
@davmel
"White space" is not my term see IEEE 802.11af
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_spaces_(radio)

I understand that this spectrum is already allocated and indeed Treasured, because it is truly the sweet spot for RF systems. However if you march forward 10 to 20 years and look at cities with a universal FTTP deployment there will be no need for broadcast TV. Additionally the broadcast TV is only really saturated in the metro and secondary cities however it is pitifully under represented in third tier rural areas. (which incidentally is those where Fiber is also not an economic solution).

So basically I'm suggesting that there should be some "wide band" radio (say 400Mhz BW on a multi carrier system) with selective notching that can overlay the allocated space. In the Metro regions it wont function very well BUT in Rural areas (with no competing allocated signals) it will be fantastic, no problems with rain, dust, trees etc. To work properly the average RF TX power must be kept low, so you will need a Multi-hop system topology. If the system is built from the ground up as a MESH system then Latency and jitter can be effectively managed, with prioritized packet forwarding or even burst high power RF TX for latency critical packets.

Life style is another issue with FTTP in rural areas. Basically put, most of our rural population is not sitting at a desk 10 hours a day, so delivering content to a stationary target is not nearly as useful as it is in the city.
Daveh
Sep 8, 2010 3:03 PM
@deteego. Its like you read only what you wanted to.

Who provides all this cloud content, where is it stored, how can it get back to you? Have you ever SEEN a data center? I have been involved in a real world 40Gb deployment to a cloud environment - 1b where?. While YOUR PERSONAL needs are indeed satisfied by wireless the needs of ALL USERS would not be.

If you read my comment fully and looked up what i said you would have seen the kind of bandwidth needed by a HIGH END cloud provider. It CANNOT be satisfied without fiber.

As i said, look beyond your household needs and the world beyond your home LAN.

As for your comment about time of invention being related to a stoppage in evolution then please explain the following:

Car, sewerage treatment, Computer, Mobile Phone (around since the 80s), camera, television, radio, internet, airplane, etc. As these devices were initially designed during or before 1970.

As for Wireless communication, 1880 - little older than the 1970's. For modern 'WiFi' you are looking @ 1985 when the spectrum that it used became legal. 25 years...

And finally, its cloud computing, not cloud networking.
deteego
Sep 8, 2010 3:56 PM
What part of "Coalition would have also provided Fibre backhaul" is hard to understand? They were just not going to implement FTTH to every house using tax payers money

In cloud computing you need massive data requirements (speed and size) within the cloud, not to every node (computer) connected to the cloud (which is what the NBN is). No one said that the the entirety of the backhaul would be run on wireless (except you??)

Edited by deteego: 8/9/2010 05:07:04 PM
Francis
Sep 8, 2010 5:25 PM
@Bazwalt Re underground Fibre.
I wish you were right about the NBN being underground. My information is that it will only be underground where there are Telstra Ducts available or in greenfield areas where the services are already underground. A typical example being Townsville where NBN Co let the contract to the local energy supplier to string it from their poles. This was after the local council advised them that it was not prudent to go overhead as the area was badly affected by cyclones requiring overhead infrastructure to be replaced.
In my street Foxtel and Telstra copper cables are underground but goes up the nearest Power Pole and then overhead to the home. Ill bet the NBN does the same. As an example in the Third report By the Senate Select Committee on the NBN there is even graphics showing the cable attached to the power line between the pole and home. This shows a lack of knowledge on behalf of those pulling the strings and building the NBN. For the record Energy Australia has just been down our street and replaced all the leadins to the homes as the cable had reached it design life of 40 years. Boy that's going to be fun with the fibre cable attached to it. Are they going to replace both at the same time? if not imagine the damage likely to be done to the fibre cable in unattaching it from the old cable and then reattaching it to the new one. Not to mention the extra time and cost involved.
ITnovice
Sep 8, 2010 8:00 PM
As far as i am concerned, there are no 'technology decisions' to be made as nothing has changed. The government and NBN Co decide, not the industry (which is self-interested and fragmented).
Mike_Sadler
Sep 8, 2010 8:17 PM
@RobertT

I'll play. So would you mind sharing with the group the theoretical maximum payload (in Tbps) you can carry on 400MHz of contiguous spectrum (let alone non-contiguous blocks) today? Please?

I guess you now work for a Wireless OEM/design house? Designing Mesh products perhaps?

Must have been a heck of a vacation you had here to have become so expert on what we need in 'the Bush'... or should I say, to decide a third world system is all our country folk will ever need. The offer still stands BTW; do your homework and I'm happy to 'enlighten' you about the relative merits of each proposal.

@deteego
I can't work out if you're trolling or just dangerously stupid. Please, lets meet at my warehouse any day and I'll get two 10Gbps Fibre Switches straight off a shelf, we can hook 'em up, generate some load and measure throughtput. You'll be expecting 1Gbps, I'll be expecting 10Gbps - just as, oddly enough, my customers do. If they want 1Gbps they order a switch with a 1Gbps fibre port. Get it? I can only test MM, but if you could rustle up 10km 1310 fibre, happy to do a SM test too. Oh, the fact that Google, a company who is making big waves/noises in the 'cloud' space and the 'mobile' space is saying that the natural partner for 'cloud' (Apps) is 'mobile' (Android); well you can the issue, eh? It's what we like to call 'marketing spin'. The fact they're also rolling out FTTP in the US, was probably something you elected to ignore? Check out: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/think-big-with-gig-our-experimental.html
deteego
Sep 8, 2010 9:57 PM
Mike_Sadler wrote:

@deteego
I can't work out if you're trolling or just dangerously stupid. Please, lets meet at my warehouse any day and I'll get two 10Gbps Fibre Switches straight off a shelf, we can hook 'em up, generate some load and measure throughtput. You'll be expecting 1Gbps, I'll be expecting 10Gbps - just as, oddly enough, my customers do. If they want 1Gbps they order a switch with a 1Gbps fibre port. Get it? I can only test MM, but if you could rustle up 10km 1310 fibre, happy to do a SM test too. Oh, the fact that Google, a company who is making big waves/noises in the 'cloud' space and the 'mobile' space is saying that the natural partner for 'cloud' (Apps) is 'mobile' (Android); well you can the issue, eh? It's what we like to call 'marketing spin'. The fact they're also rolling out FTTP in the US, was probably something you elected to ignore? Check out: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/think-big-with-gig-our-experimental.html


Believe it or not, in the real world there are more then just 2 people connected through a single Fibre Optic cable. The backhaul is where the bottleneck is, not the FTTH. You are not going to be downloading at 1gps when everyone in your neighborhood is doing the same and it all goes through the backhaul

In japan the average net speed is 60 megs a second according to this graph (Japan being the country which has the highest % of FTTH in the world)
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/Images/commentarynews/broadbandspeedchart.jpg

That is 16 times less then 1 gig a second. As you can also clearly see from that graph, the average speed of US is also 10 megabit a second. So the coalitions plan of 12 megabit a second for 97% of the US is not backwards at all (in fact it would put as in #6, only behind the countries with FTTH plans, 2 of those countries having population densities of at least 30 times greater then Australia, and the other 2 countries are in epic recession currently which only leaves Netherlands)

Well actually it wouldn't put us in #6 because a lot of data is still stored offshore, however if a lot of that content was in Australia it would definitely put us up there

Edited by deteego: 8/9/2010 10:02:10 PM
Gavk
Sep 8, 2010 10:04 PM
Wireless is a horrible solution, you do it right - you do it once - you do it with Fiber.

Speed record for wireless is 1,000Mbps - speed record for Fiber is 69,000,000Mbps.

Averate latency on Fiber is 0ms. Average latency on Wireless is in excess of 200ms.

Obvious choice is obvious.
Gavk
Sep 8, 2010 10:06 PM
Oh also I find it ironic people claim wireless is the future and Fiber is old tech.

Wireless was invented in the 1860's you know? Much older than Fiber...
deteego
Sep 8, 2010 10:11 PM
Gavk wrote:
Wireless is a horrible solution, you do it right - you do it once - you do it with Fiber.

Speed record for wireless is 1,000Mbps - speed record for Fiber is 69,000,000Mbps.

Averate latency on Fiber is 0ms. Average latency on Wireless is in excess of 200ms.

Obvious choice is obvious.


Average speed Fibre = 100 mps a second (in an actual urbanized situation)
Average speed Wireless = 10mps (in similar situations with properly set up wireless network)

When you start taking into account real world situations (you know, bottlenecks, which don't exist in lab situations where you just have 2 computers sitting next to eachother) you would realize that when you start reaching 'high' speeds of internet, the bottleneck is in the backhaul, not to the house. Unfortunately Fibre is the limit (can't really go faster then the speed of light) and thats what the Backhaul would use, so thats where the bottleneck appears when you thousands of people using high speed internet on the backhaul. For low/medium speed internet, bottleneck is to the house. There is also a further bottleneck in regards to where data is actually stored, so the Japan average speed (where most people have FTTH) is 60 mbit, and they have a lot of servers in japan (so I am being generous on the Fibre side)

At my uni (where we have up to a thousand people using wireless at the same time in a confined area), the average speed is 10mps (around 1.2 meg a second). It peaks around 20mps (when not around peak hours)

Edited by deteego: 8/9/2010 10:24:58 PM
Mike_Sadler
Sep 9, 2010 1:00 AM
@deteego

I would have thought you'd jump at 'trolling', but 'dangerously stupid' it is.

Thanks for sharing your bone fides with the group too. If you had previously used "in the real world" and "at my uni" in the same post, I'd never have accused you of trolling.

You're really stuck on this backhaul thing, aren't you? I'd welcome some evidence as to why there'll be insufficient bandwidth available to service 93% of the population. Just one shred would be a start. Any example is fine.

Are you also saying that, because there'll be insufficient backhaul capacity (which is not true and totally unproven by anyone so far anyway) then an appropriate way to manage the network is to saturate the local loop such that it sucks, instead of end users discovering the backhaul sucks? In any event, you do understand that a L2 RSP could provision a FTTP connection at whatever bandwidth made sense for the service offering they wish to deliver? Please tell me that you're NOT doing an IT degree, or at least that you are failing it dismally. Utter nonsense. Have you ever built a single production network? Unbelievable.

I'm sure you are told at Uni to cite sources? Start doing it here. A graph of unknown origin and currency doesn't quite cut it in the 'real world'.

Best for last; you said:

"What part of "Coalition would have also provided Fibre backhaul" is hard to understand? They were just not going to implement FTTH to every house using tax payers money"

So, it would seem you were aware that large interconnect upgrades were happening? Which is it; there's going to be backhaul built to expand capacity, or that there won't be sufficient capacity? Choose just one.

Maybe you are a troll after all?
RobertT
Sep 9, 2010 2:12 AM
@Mike
It is a little late so I'll have to reply quickly.

As I have said before, I have no hidden agenda, I'd just like to see if I can contribute some ideas that might result in better solutions. I'm the first to say that I'm no an expert on the rural areas of Australia, but I do listen when average people tell me what they want especially when it relates to comms systems.

You asked about the throughput for a 400Mhz BW signal and I'm sure that you are aware that the best you could achieve over a wide area is about 8 bits/Hz. Theoretically there is nothing to stop you deploying OFDM at QAM 1024 but realistically the SNR and PA power required, make it impossible. Additionally spectrum reuse issue arises at such high PA power levels, so total system data throughput is better with multihop at lower TX power levels.

You asked if I'm currently working on RF mesh. The answer is no, actually I'm working on a 3G chip for TDSCDMA.



I think somewhere you assumed that my proposals would not include a fiber backhaul, when actually I'm all for fiber backhaul, nothing beats fiber backhaul, not on cost, capacity or upgrade-ability. Heck I've seen single fibers carrying over 1Tbps of data and that was with simple RZ modulation. Optical Fiber is incredible stuff, no doubt about it.

You asked about an RF standard for the system that I'm proposing. There is no existing solution, mainly because most people are not trying to solve this unusual Australian problem so their systems are unsuited. Interestingly CSIRO has a development effort ongoing which is very similar to what I have mentioned, at the moment they are very quite about their efforts. I think they may even have a test deployed.






advocate
Sep 9, 2010 9:27 AM
This comment by Optus:

"Fibre is indisputably the best way to deliver high speed broadband for the long-term," Krishnapillai said.

Remember the OPEL project? Optus was the principal player in that company formed especially for the Howard Government's private/public partnership BB plan prior to the election when Rudd won.

The OPEL rollout was all primarily all about wireless and Optus was right behind it promoting it as the way to go, now a different Government different tune to whistle and guess what 'fibre is indisputably the best way'.



Edited by advocate: 9/9/2010 09:29:25 AM

Edited by advocate: 9/9/2010 09:32:07 AM
Francis
Sep 9, 2010 10:35 AM
For the life of me I cant understand why we are arguing about Wireless vs Fibre or for that matter if a better technology might come along and make Fibre obsolete.
When I cant get a 3G mobile signal in my home in a suburb of Sydney Wireless has a problem.
As far as fibre is concerned, you can not send a signal faster than the speed of light. (Except in Science Fiction like "Star Wars")and as far as I am aware there is no technology even on the Horizon to better Fibre.
Its all horses for courses. Fibre for the populated centres and wireless where the cost of running Fibre is uneconomic.
In the mean time lets just concentrate that the NBN is built properly and not strung up at the beck and call of the elements. You never know your life may depend on it one day so lets make it as reliable as possible.
deteego
Sep 9, 2010 12:29 PM
Mike_Sadler wrote:
@deteego

I would have thought you'd jump at 'trolling', but 'dangerously stupid' it is.

Thanks for sharing your bone fides with the group too. If you had previously used "in the real world" and "at my uni" in the same post, I'd never have accused you of trolling.

You're really stuck on this backhaul thing, aren't you? I'd welcome some evidence as to why there'll be insufficient bandwidth available to service 93% of the population. Just one shred would be a start. Any example is fine.

Are you also saying that, because there'll be insufficient backhaul capacity (which is not true and totally unproven by anyone so far anyway) then an appropriate way to manage the network is to saturate the local loop such that it sucks, instead of end users discovering the backhaul sucks? In any event, you do understand that a L2 RSP could provision a FTTP connection at whatever bandwidth made sense for the service offering they wish to deliver? Please tell me that you're NOT doing an IT degree, or at least that you are failing it dismally. Utter nonsense. Have you ever built a single production network? Unbelievable.

I'm sure you are told at Uni to cite sources? Start doing it here. A graph of unknown origin and currency doesn't quite cut it in the 'real world'.

Best for last; you said:

"What part of "Coalition would have also provided Fibre backhaul" is hard to understand? They were just not going to implement FTTH to every house using tax payers money"

So, it would seem you were aware that large interconnect upgrades were happening? Which is it; there's going to be backhaul built to expand capacity, or that there won't be sufficient capacity? Choose just one.

Maybe you are a troll after all?


Fibre is the limit for speed on a backhaul, you cannot go faster then speed of light. That means, when everyone starts getting "high" speed internet, the bottleneck is on the backhaul and not to the house connection. If there was another technology that could go faster then the speed of light that could be used for the backhaul then it would be a different story, but that isn't the case. Fibre may be able to transfer speeds of up to 1gbs a second, but when you have thousands of people sharing bandwith on those fibre lines (and using it to full capacity) not everyone will be downloading it at 1gbs a second. In fact typically speaking (with the various other bottlenecks, such as overseas content), using other countries that have adopted FTTH, speeds are around 50-150 megabit per second. There is already technology in America where copper can transfer speeds up to 100 megabits for CTH (copper to the house) that is one kilometer or less to the node. Its also massively cheaper then FTTH and would do fine in suburban settings (in urban areas of course its a different story)

The coalitions policy explicitly stated they would upgrade the backhaul to sufficient capacity (using Fibre) when required albeit it at a later time (around 2013 iirc). Japan, a country which has the best infrastructure on internet (basically FTTH to almost every house and one of the strongest backhauls) has only a 60 megabit speed average for their network (and Japan is a country that has a massive amount of data stored on servers within Japan, thats not the case for Australia). Only the first few adopters of Fibre will enjoy those advertised speeds, and that will only be to other people that also have FTTH connections, it won't make a difference for offshore content

There is a difference between insufficient backhaul capacity and saturation of network speeds because of other bottlenecks. Backhaul can be one if everyone uses high speed internet, there are many more irregardless of this (content being hosted overseas is a an example of one). The coalitions backhaul policy was basically exactly the same as Labors one (and my issue was never with Labors backhaul), the difference was with regards to giving everyone FTTH.

There are 2 cases, either
1. Not that many people use Fibre so the backhaul has sufficient capacity to deliver the high speeds between people within Australia using Fibre (in this case the FTTH scheme was a waste of money when the private industry could have provided the same thing since not everyone ended up needing/using FTTH)
2. Everyone ends up adopting FTTH, in which case it creates a bigger bottleneck on the backhaul (since everyone is using high speed internet on it) and we get the situation which we have in Japan (average speeds are nowhere near 1gigabit a second) in which case doing FTTH for everyone was overkill

The backhaul is the most important part of both plans, and in both cases (Labor/Liberal) they were the same

Edited by deteego: 9/9/2010 12:45:32 PM
rsgooch
Sep 9, 2010 2:38 PM
I will throw my two cents in here even though it may well get thrown back at me.

@deteego I think you are forgetting a large part of your argument is based on Japan. Keep in mind that Tokyo alone has 12 million people. I would hazard a guess that a large part 80-90% of the that population utilizes broadband. The contention ratios are probably extremely high, therefore impacting the speed of the net. In Australia we do not suffer the same population densities that other country suffer so contention ratios are much less even in our urban centers like Sydney or Melbourne. I come from the States and I did not see a ADSL modem in any of the business that I worked in until I came to Australia. Most Companies had T1 or a fractional T1 and most had 2 one for voice and one for data. As "Cloud Computing" becomes more main stream we must move from ADSL to some type of high speed fiber infrastructure to take advantage of this technology. I can tell you I am not looking forward to trying to run my ERP for 30-40 employees across an ADSL modem to the cloud and actually get work done.



Edited by rsgooch: 9/9/2010 02:45:29 PM
deteego
Sep 9, 2010 3:28 PM
rsgooch wrote:
I will throw my two cents in here even though it may well get thrown back at me.

@deteego I think you are forgetting a large part of your argument is based on Japan. Keep in mind that Tokyo alone has 12 million people. I would hazard a guess that a large part 80-90% of the that population utilizes broadband. The contention ratios are probably extremely high, therefore impacting the speed of the net. In Australia we do not suffer the same population densities that other country suffer so contention ratios are much less even in our urban centers like Sydney or Melbourne. I come from the States and I did not see a ADSL modem in any of the business that I worked in until I came to Australia. Most Companies had T1 or a fractional T1 and most had 2 one for voice and one for data. As "Cloud Computing" becomes more main stream we must move from ADSL to some type of high speed fiber infrastructure to take advantage of this technology. I can tell you I am not looking forward to trying to run my ERP for 30-40 employees across an ADSL modem to the cloud and actually get work done.



Edited by rsgooch: 9/9/2010 02:45:29 PM


I already mentioned before that Fibre would be used for the cloud in cloud computing. The companies which release cloud applications (mainly google, but there are others) probably already use Fiber for their data centers. So unless people are going to be using video editing applications over cloud, there isn't going to be much of a difference between a 12 megabit connection to cloud or a 100megabit connection to the cloud

As for your points about Japan's population density (which does factor in), Japan does have the bonus (which I mentioned before) where all their local content is hosted in servers on the country (this removes a massive bottleneck). This is not the case for Australia. The extreme majority of content that we download from Australia is overseas (mainly from America and Japan and Southern Asia). This is consequently the same reason we don't have feasible 'unlimited' plans

Remember that Japan is only one example, there are other countries that have high percentage of FTTH (such as Spain and Portugal which are undergoing similar schemes, there is also Netherlands) and their average speed is from around 10 to 30 megabits.

So in short, yes Japan has high density, however they have a lot of content stored on local servers (also remember that population density isn't just a negative, it increases congestion but if you have a lot of local content it means you can download it faster because its closer to you, which is the case in Japan). The worst thing would be if you have a country with high density and little to no local content. Also remember the high density of Japan made the cost benefit of FTTH schemes much much much much cheaper then countries like Australia. There is a reason why countries with such density/geographic properties (massive land area, cities carry most of population and are distributed around continent) don't have FTTH policy. It makes perfect economic sense to use such a policy in countries like Japan, South Korea and Singapore.

Edited by deteego: 9/9/2010 03:41:01 PM
Gavk
Sep 9, 2010 8:52 PM
Do you think we don't have loads of server farms and content mirrors in Australia also?

We do, loads of them even.

We will also have over 22Tb/s of international capacity by the time the NBN is finished, more than enough.

The largest telco in Japan only runs 600Gb/s... loads of our ISP's have 1Tb/s plus.
Tom Brown
Sep 10, 2010 11:44 AM
Hi! this discussion is the most I have seen on itnews
Francis, the speed of light is not the fastest speed recorded and so not the fastest medium for information. But really the bandwidth in an enclosed environment is "as good as it gets" with todays science. Wireless is dependant on the environment, weather, interference.

Many comments about backhaul, Opel was for the backhaul blackspots between major centres.
Backhaul also exists from any point of presence, wireless towers and exchanges, and to get good broadband and telephony for e.g. a town of 1000 customers there is significant backhaul, more than wireless is suited, microwave maybe satellite is too much latency but these all fail in bad weather and so no service level guarantee!

So significant fibre has to be laid to achieve any service level guarantee even 12Mb/1mb let alone what business may require. Now it becomes a matter of scale and again why would we allow whole areas to be disadvantaged by lack of a ubiquitous fibre infrastructure, planned to maximum benefit and easily able to be expanded and added to.
deteego
Sep 10, 2010 12:07 PM
Gavk wrote:
Do you think we don't have loads of server farms and content mirrors in Australia also?

We do, loads of them even.

We will also have over 22Tb/s of international capacity by the time the NBN is finished, more than enough.

The largest telco in Japan only runs 600Gb/s... loads of our ISP's have 1Tb/s plus.


Our server farms (in relation to how much content we provide) is probably the worst out of the developed country. The reasons are obvious, our population is quite small (20 million) and Australia is on the other side of the world. Countries such as America, Europe and Asia have large server farms because other smaller countries have networks running through those countries and they have much larger populations. For Australia, the only countries which are dependant on Australia for the internet is Antarctica and some smaller pacific nations. For New Zealand its even worse.

To be more accurate there might be some other developed countries that have worse server farms then we do, however in almost every case they are landlocked countries (and they may have a country right next to them with a large server farm, this is very much the case for Europe)

Japan may have a telco that only runs 600gbs, they are likely to have at least (at the bare minimum) 10x the amount of servers then Australia does

Edited by deteego: 10/9/2010 12:09:04 PM
Mike_Sadler
Sep 11, 2010 6:14 AM
@RobertT

Noble sentiment Robert, but just because you met a few cane farmers that would be happy with RFC 2549 comms, doesn't mean they represent 'the Bush' nor that they know just what they're missing. When they fall off the perch, its a bit lame that the next resident can't get decent broadband, entettainmnet and government services because Ma & Pa Kettle and all their neighbours didn't 'need' it, when asked. Without passing judgement on folks who are very likely 'expert farmers' they probably weren't demanding seat belts, collapsible steering columns and the like in their vehicles, RCD's on their swichboards, fencing around their pools, uniform traffic laws, food ingredient labelling; the list goes on.

I've spent a LOT of time in Telco/ISP land... no one has ever rung to complain their network is too fast.

If we can do it in the cities, we can do it in the regions.

It seems to me that, if your intentions are 'good', i.e predicated on the basis that the Bush deserves better than what they've got and wireless is better than, ADSL1 say, then you're making huge assumptions about the delta between FTTP and wireless. For some of the installs that you might imagine most easily prove your point, the biggest input to cost of truck roll might be fuel, accomodation and meals for two installers.

Please; if you are going to claim that FTTP is 'too expensive' or whatever, please divulge the delta to YOUR proposal so a judgement can be made. The world has moved on, there's a squillion dark fibres around the place and certainly anywhere there is a mix of user types its hard to imagine why you would 'allow' the Post Office, meat packing plant and local hospital connect via FTTP, but not the dwellings adjacent or on the fibre run to those campuses. It's GPON, not point to point Ethernet/active fibre. If the meatworks wanted 100 Mbps, or 200 or 300, why would you pass residences enroute with a PON run and NOT try to connect those homes too? That would be nuts.

So please Robert, costings, deltas, whatever... don't just assume that radio is 'cheaper', will 'do' or won't need replacing sometime soon anyway. FTTP should be the default for the majority of Australians and only when you can't deploy it do you use some other technology - and you still revisit the FTTP scheme periodically in case your problem has been solved with technology and you can get them off wireless.

BTW, I think 8 bits per Hz is pretty ambitous, especially in FNQ Rainforests, etc, that line the coast near population centres. Don't you think you'd have to allow for more fade, especially during 'the wet'? Its an actual question... I'd have thought absolutely no more than 6b/Hz and 4b/Hz where the terrain/precipitation is tricky. I'll be guided by you though.

Cheers,

Mike

PS: My point is, you are now working on wireless.
Mike_Sadler
Sep 11, 2010 6:20 AM
@deteego

Post soemthing meaningful or get out. Your posts are the most utter rubbish I think I've ever seem on a message board. You also still haven't provided the group with some data about how you need to do it again.
deteego
Sep 13, 2010 11:53 AM
Mike_Sadler wrote:
@deteego

Post soemthing meaningful or get out. Your posts are the most utter rubbish I think I've ever seem on a message board. You also still haven't provided the group with some data about how you need to do it again.


Uh hypocritical much?

You haven't provided any data as well, and your last post is what I regard as rubbish since it contributed close to nothing to the discussion

You may not like what I say, doesn't mean you need to rage over it.

Furthermore it's difficult to provide accurate data because we are the only country of our size/density doing such a plan (that's why you do a cost benefit analysis)
Mordd
Sep 13, 2010 4:41 PM
Deteego works for Tony Abbott - he's the Liberal mole on the forums. :P
deteego
Sep 13, 2010 7:10 PM
Mordd wrote:
Deteego works for Tony Abbott - he's the Liberal mole on the forums. :P


I wish, im a Uni student

I vote for whatever government is competent, which is something the Labor government is not. You can have the best 'idea' in the world, but if your government can't manage anything it will amount to nothing (or worse)
Maxxi2
Sep 13, 2010 8:55 PM
Hi deteego: I suggest you take up your question of competence and management capabilities relating to very large telecoms networks with a fellow named Mike Quigley.

It is rumoured that he has a job at the NBN and has also done this once or twice previously...

http://www.zdnet.com.au/mike-quigley-the-background-check-339297634.htm

That should be a good start for you...

30 years with a company that builds such networks globally is a qualification that not too many have deteego.
deteego
Sep 13, 2010 9:42 PM
Maxxi2 wrote:
Hi deteego: I suggest you take up your question of competence and management capabilities relating to very large telecoms networks with a fellow named Mike Quigley.

It is rumoured that he has a job at the NBN and has also done this once or twice previously...

http://www.zdnet.com.au/mike-quigley-the-background-check-339297634.htm

That should be a good start for you...

30 years with a company that builds such networks globally is a qualification that not too many have deteego.


Read harder

I am talking about the competance the government has, not the people they hire to do their work (although that can also count as well). Spending $43 billion dollars of peoples tax money on an NBN without a cost benefit analysis is not a competant decision, whatever way you look at it.

Im pretty damn sure giving everyone a Bugatti Veyron (even though 5% of people would actually NEED it instead of the rest just WANTING it) is also considered an incompetent decision, even if they have a good person in charge of doing the job. What happened with the pink bats etc etc.

Competency at the top level of the government (i.e. the actual government) is what I care about, and its something they have little of
Maxxi2
Sep 14, 2010 8:51 AM
Oh I read your post pretty hard deteego, and thus the response.

The massive difference with the NBN as opposed to many other govt projects is that the day to day management of the corporation is at arms length from the govt.

This is a significant differentiator and advantage. Operationally is has highly qualified, duly experienced and enormously successful people running it. Attributes missing is many other endeavours of the Rudd govt.

The costs/benefits analysis question is a massive red herring from the start and continues to be one, and will continue to be one.

The vast majority of those demanding the CBA either (with good but misguided intentions) do not have the required grasp of the industry at that level, or are those that simply seek more opportunity to attack the NBN and those advocating it.

It would seem that you are straddling both camps there deteego, as you demonstrate little or no understanding of the global telecoms industry. But to assist you in your fervent desire, I invite you to list the salient industry, market, pricing, COGs, margins, operational, implementation, management, vendor technology, financing, pricing, technology development, maintenance, competition, partnerships, governance, global developments, political, skills, HR and manpower aspects that you believe need to be in the CBA at a minimum.

Then break them down into the sections and sub-sections that are important for you in getting the right data from a CBA.

Then please also list how many other CBAs you have worked on or with and the ramifications of the various modelling methods they used and how the myriad resulting costings, revenues & scenarios worked out.

If you cannot do that with some expertise deteego, then you are just another windbag crying out for a costs benefits analysis with no idea what that actually means, how it is done and what it achieves.

And there are a lot of windbags doing just that right now.

So easy to try and distract by decrying the work of others, especially those that actually know what they are doing, when they themselves have no idea of how the industry works, the scope and magnitude of the project and how to go about it.

Like some penny-ante bankers working on a $100mio project, they throw their arms up in the air yelling "COSTS BENEFITS ANALYSIS COSTS BENEFITS ANALYSIS COSTS BENEFITS ANALYSIS COSTS BENEFITS ANALYSIS COSTS BENEFITS ANALYSIS " - simply because they either have no idea of what is happening and want accountants to explain it to them, want others to do the work for them or simply want to delay and drag down the project for political motives.

When someone begins to compare Bugatti Veyrons with the NBN then I know that they have a whole bag full of old red herrings and are busily striving to spread them around, or are simply ignorant of global telecoms developments.

Again deteego, you seemed to have missed who is running the NBN, and you blind dislike of the government of the day and readiness to condemn anything they do is sign enough that you lack any objectivity at all and thus exercise a jaundiced judgement here.
deteego
Sep 14, 2010 9:10 AM
Not doing a cost benefit analysis for a major infrastructure project that involves a ridiculous amount of money (even for something thats not trivial) is almost unheard of in first world nations, whatever excuses you want to come up with to say otherwise

The general public do not overly favor the NBN, if anything it appears to be cut 50/50 for various issues. Clearly many people (including myself) have issues with government spending so much money without even costing if the money is well spent. The government has not transparently stated anywhere how such a scheme would pay itself off, other then banking for a digital economy

I would also say that Labor saying that everyone needs FTTH because its needed for some digital revolution is as much of a red herring

Also jumping on peoples credibility isn't going to get you anywhere, from what I can see you know just about as much on Telecommunications as anyone else in this forum (which is basically).

Show me an example of a country that has less then <6000km population density doing such a scheme and has > 6000000 km squared area. Oh wait, there is none. If you are going to be the first example of doing something then that is even a bigger reason to find out if what you are doing is worth it, because the only other countries that did a FTTH scheme to every house did it because of how triival it was (singapore,south korea, japan)
Bob
Sep 14, 2010 9:45 AM
It is only regulation that is stopping Australia having fast Internet everywhere. We have already world leading technology. We already have wireless working 150Km out to sea on the North West shelf and fibre 800Km out to remote Aboriginal settlements on the Gove Peninsula.

The only thing stopping everyone having it is the government regulation that any Telco that puts in fixed infrastructure first must make it available to competitors. So we are encouraging coming second. Pretty un-Australian.

A lot of "telco's" actually want copper because they have built their entire business around supplying Dinosaur SL on someone else's network and want to keep it that way.
umbria
Sep 14, 2010 11:56 AM
@deteego, I think you'll find that the population density in the Australia-wide localities to actually get NBN fibre does average a few hundred people per square km. 4-5% will only get 12 Mbps wireless and 100% will get satellite, including the 2-3% beyond the reach of wireless or fibre. For an indicative list of towns to get fibre and NBN wireless, see http://www.alp.org.au/getattachment/fb455905-5958-46b8-84cd-36e33c96e973/nbn/

RDEFCON1
Sep 14, 2010 12:24 PM
@Bob - too right!

Regulation that strips away the advantages of building infrastructure may have helped 'seed' competition in the first few years after the industry was opened up - but after that it killed the incentives for the true basis of competition - competitive infrastructure.

The failure of true competition in Australian telecommunications has nothing to do with Telstra's 'monopoly' (which it doesn't have, although it does have a lot of market power). The failure is cause by the explosion of regulation since the the industry was 'deregulated' (isn't it ironic? Don't ya think?).

So now we plan to fix the failure of competition by introducing a new monopoly. Here we see the ultimate triumph of politics over logic!
anonymous
Sep 14, 2010 5:02 PM

@Bob & RDEFCON1 - must be time for your cup of cocoa in the Telstra cafeteria, folks, your vision seems to be getting blurred.

It's not regulation that has held us back for twenty years, it's the legalistic gaming that has gone on non-stop to prevent potential competitors from being able to compete. You're not talking to just the punters here, remember, and most of us have been in a position to see exactly what's been going on (even if some don't want to admit it).

The "new monopoly" (nice of you to finally admit that the old one was/is a monopoly) will give equal access to all service providers. So, for the first time, we will have competitive offerings plus near-universal high speed access to meet future needs for decades to come.

What's not to like about that?
RobertT
Sep 14, 2010 10:33 PM
@Mike_S
I don't think I have ever been disrespectful, so I find your aggressive superior attitude quite disconcerting.

I'm not in the habit of making half ass decisions or in acting on absurdly narrow market input. So a little technical courtesy would be much appreciated.

For you information wireless systems can work and deliver between 10Mbps and 100Mbps, there is certainly a question of base station costs but in some ways selecting a lower frequency (under 800hz helps because of better non line of sight performance)

I think I have also said that I'd be looking for multiple RF and possibly FSO links.

So i'm not sure what game you think you are playing but I don't like your attitude



deteego
Sep 14, 2010 11:53 PM
umbria wrote:
@deteego, I think you'll find that the population density in the Australia-wide localities to actually get NBN fibre does average a few hundred people per square km. 4-5% will only get 12 Mbps wireless and 100% will get satellite, including the 2-3% beyond the reach of wireless or fibre. For an indicative list of towns to get fibre and NBN wireless, see http://www.alp.org.au/getattachment/fb455905-5958-46b8-84cd-36e33c96e973/nbn/



In most other countries its at least 10 times that (in Japan its almost double that). So you don't have to have a PHD in maths to figure out that you will benefit a lot more people with such schemes when you have such a density (which is why I called FTTH plans in Japan/Singapore/South Korea trivial)

Edited by deteego: 15/9/2010 12:09:46 AM
Comments have been disabled for this article.
 
 
 
Top Stories
iTnews on tour: The Executive Summit Series
Join us in Sydney and Melbourne to meet Australia's tech leaders.
 
NBN Co braces for secrecy probe
Opinion: Is commercial sensitivity a catch-all?
 
Exclusive: NBN Co withholds fibre upgrade price
Fears trial details could breach contractor confidentiality.
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...

Latest VideosSee all videos »

Latest Comments
Polls
Was your 2012 IT budget...




   |   View results
Cut by less than ten percent?
  17%
 
Cut by more than ten percent?
  34%
 
Flat
  26%
 
Increased by less than ten percent?
  7%
 
Increased by more than ten percent?
  15%
TOTAL VOTES: 350

Vote
Will you still use DropBox and other cloud storage in the wake of the Megauploads saga?

   |   View results
Yes
  63%
 
No
  37%
TOTAL VOTES: 230

Vote