Turnbull blasts NBN waste, internet filter

 

Shadow comms minister predicts "massive destruction of wealth".

Freshly minted federal shadow communications minister Malcolm Turnbull has criticised the Federal Government over its NBN investment, likening it to the '90s subsea cable boom that led to a "massive destruction of wealth".

In his first interview since being appointed to the shadow ministry this afternoon, Turnbull told ABC Radio's PM program that a public company would not be able to get away with a proposal of the NBN's magnitude without a "financial analysis or business case".

"Big fortunes have been [won and] lost - I've seen both sides of the coin," Turnbull said.

"In the late '90s, possibly hundreds of billions of dollars were spent on subsea cables, essentially broadband capacity, around the world. It was a classic case of built-it-and-they-will-come.

"All of those sold for cents in the dollar. We're certainly using them [now] but there was a massive destruction of wealth [that resulted from them being built]."

Turnbull described himself as a "notorious internet junkie" who was "very committed" to its growth in Australia.

"But I'm also committed to not wasting tens of billions of dollars," he said.

"Where is the financial analysis? Where is the business plan that would justify this investment?"

He said the lack of data presented by the Government to its "shareholders" - the taxpayers - was "simply wrong" and an "affront to democracy".

"There is a huge opportunity cost [associated with this project]," Turnbull said.

"Every billion [dollars] wasted on this project is money that cannot be spent on education, hospitals, roads. Take your pick.

"Taxpayers' money is a finite resource. You have to use it in an intelligent way.

"What Labor is doing wouldn't be feasible for a public company [to do]."

Turnbull predicted a return on the NBN that was "pathetically low, positively anemic".

"In my judgement we will end up with an asset valued at a half or quarter [of $43 billion]," he said.

Turnbull maintained that the Coalition's broadband policy was "superior to the NBN" but acknowledged it would be "reviewed".

"Whether we sold it or effectively explained it, I'll let others form a judgement on," Turnbull said.

And he voiced his opposition to Labor's internet filter policy and called on the Government to "dump it".

"I'm absolutely and utterly opposed to it, as is the Coalition," he said.

"It's a really bad idea from every respect. I have nothing good to say about the filter and the best the Government can do is drop it."

The comments came on the back of a blog post by Turnbull accepting his elevated role and blasting the Government over plans to rejig the NBN rollout.

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


Turnbull blasts NBN waste, internet filter
"Hey guys. Seems like everyone is sledging each other for no net gain. Has anyone read the other post on IT news? There are no comments so maybe not. "Stanton: High-speed internet could be worth ..."
By Pilotyoda
 
 
 
Comments: 175
johnpro2
Sep 14, 2010 6:44 PM
I have to admit that signing folk up to the Rolls Royce standard will possibly not work ..I even avoid the Gateway bridge and Clem 7 tunnel here in Brisbane because of price.
Wireless/mobility is the future for the younger gen.

Jp
Ace
Sep 14, 2010 10:38 PM
I dare say in 10 years you will not be among the 'younger generation', and might be slightly peeved that the nations broadband is only suitable for teenagers tweeting each other.
Maxxi2
Sep 14, 2010 10:43 PM
At just which implementation of increasingly high cost telecoms technology over the past 30 years did Australians stop taking up the new technology, stop buying accounts and stop paying for better levels of services, access and power??

History proves Turnbull wrong, including when he invested in an ISP roll-out...

Oh but hey, let's look at the downside for the Coalition and Turnbull with the NBN:

1. He did not invest in it
2. If it succeeds both he and the Coalition look like idiots
3. If it succeeds then the ALP will win the next election

But as always, his rhetoric is strong and he delivers it so well. You really gotta like that.

That does not mean he is right, which is why he is NOT the leader of the Coalition anymore. His job is not to find the best telecoms solution for Australia, his job ios to take down Conroy, Gillard and the ALP.

So simple, and in that context he will attack from many angles, he will lament the glorious OPEL proposal, and be outraged at everything the ALP does.

OPEL was a misguided proposal that was a telecoms vendors dream, they would have had a big chunk of Australia in a sub=standard knickers-twist for a decade, dragging in more money that any of us could dream of.

Well any of us except the telecoms vendors and providers.

But on the one side he brings the example of undersea cables over dimensioning through private companies, and on the other many folks are lamenting the potential of a super NBN and internet access in Australia, with too little international capacity.

So what is it folks, will we have too much domestic or too much international capacity???

Or is all just so much fluff and Australia will soak up and use the NBN just like they have used every other domestic telecoms infrastructure build that supported the national market access?
deteego
Sep 14, 2010 11:49 PM
Yeah you are right Maxxi, his job is not to give everyone a Royles Royce

People like the coalition for that reason. I think the state of our hospitals and other infrastructure (roads/rail) and schools is far more important then light speed internet (which at most 10% people would use, and thats being overly generous). On the other hand, better hospitals benefit how many people, and its actually something can save lives????
djzort
Sep 14, 2010 11:52 PM
@Maxxi2 your argument is extremely unclear. Turnbull made a lot of money with investments in australian isps. NBN's delivery time frame is not before the next election. Upon what basis are you claiming OPEL was misguided?

Youre correct that turnbulls role is to undermine the governments argument. But thats the purpose of the opposition - to oppose everything. Ying and Yang - Night and Day... all that sort of thing.
deteego
Sep 15, 2010 12:29 AM
djzort wrote:
@Maxxi2 your argument is extremely unclear. Turnbull made a lot of money with investments in australian isps. NBN's delivery time frame is not before the next election. Upon what basis are you claiming OPEL was misguided?

Youre correct that turnbulls role is to undermine the governments argument. But thats the purpose of the opposition - to oppose everything. Ying and Yang - Night and Day... all that sort of thing.


On this note, thats the reason why its usually very difficult to be in opposition, because not only do you have to criticize whoever is in government, you also have to put on your own mandate as to how your own government would be better
Syan
Sep 15, 2010 7:26 AM
@Maxxi 2. NBN offers something a lot of regional areas don't get - access to services and information. For example, the use of this technology can provide health services into areas which may not normally get them. It won't get any cheaper to create such a network but Turnbull has a hard job to convince us otherwise. More fear mongering will ensue...
Mabelode
Sep 15, 2010 8:49 AM
"What Labor is doing wouldn't be feasible for a public company [to do]."

Exactly why we currently have pathetic service outside of the metro areas.
lofwyre
Sep 15, 2010 8:59 AM
I read many comments about how the money would be better spent on hospitals, the problem with this argument I think is that if we don't build the NBN the money won't be then spent on hospitals. It's not like we have the money in our pocket and are looking for somewhere to spend it.

I don't know if the NBN is a good idea or not but Turnbulls remarks are so thick with political one-liners and news-bytes it makes me want to ignore everything he says.

"What Labor is doing wouldn't be feasible for a public company" [that's part of their job].

"But I'm also committed to not wasting tens of billions of dollars". [Crap, name a government that doesn't waste money]

"affront to democracy" [as if democracy has anything to do with. I didn't vote to build a toll highway in Sydney, I didn't vote to build the copper network Telstra (then government owned Telecom Australia. I have no clue about technology so why should I vote on it]



Bazwalt
Sep 15, 2010 9:40 AM
@johnpro2 - "Wireless/mobility is the future for the younger gen." <--- I have to laugh at that mate. You really are misguided.

Wireless/Mobility offers nothing more than convenience, it is far from being (and likely never will be) the way of the future. It is NOT a fixed service and has no way of remaining reliable and resilient.

I'm not saying wireless is bad, it's just not the best thing for a country to rely on.

It really annoys me that everyone flaunts the "white elephant" and "Rolls Royce" terms around. NBN is about more than speed and downloading your porn..it's about creating a future-proof reliable network that can expand to meet our needs for the next 50 years.

The copper network is dying and this is FACT, Wireless is nothing more than convenience, and Satellite is a joke.

The NBN, though expensive, has been the best proposal put forward. Coalition had their chance to put forward a better campaign for communications and FAILED.

Their choice in comms minister was poor and their organisation was sub-par. It was very clear that the coalition has little to no plans or knowledge about communications and therefore is incompetent at bringing forth a better deal.

Our countrys communications is the close to being the worst one in the world and the longer we wait - the worse it will get. NBN closes the gap and gives us a future. It might be expensive but risks need to be taken and if we trust and help NBN we can make the process much more easier. Fighting this deal won't help.

The Govt had Telstra and stuffed it up, Coalition has had plenty of chances to give us a better option, let's make it right this time.
Francis
Sep 15, 2010 10:14 AM
I am becoming thoroughly sick of all this negativity from Turnbull and his boss Abbott.
They are just acting like head kickers and bullies and not acting in the national interest.

The NBN is just addressing the mess they left behind when they sold Telstra while at the same time dragging communications into the 21St Century.
As for economics did we do a cost benefit study into the overland telegraph, the Phone System including mobiles or how about Schools, Hospitals, Railways, Water supply, Roads and Sanitation systems?
I believe that it was in an earlier edition of this newsletter that I read that in countries that had built FTTP networks that GDP had risen by 1.5% which would pay of this piece of infrastructure fairly quickly.
As far as the oppositions system is concerned, it is just a ramshackle assortment of yesterdays technology. Then we have the cry of leaving it to the Private Sector, great, as an example we have Telstra who does all the heavy lifting in supplying communications to the whole country. Then we have Optus et all who come along and cherry pick on the highly profitable areas which results in a duplication of services resulting in wasteful unused capacity. In a country as large as this with a small population base there is room for only one fully integrated wholesale communications provider.

Now while I do not like the secrecy and manner that Conboy is doing the job, at least he is getting on with it.

Good one Tony and Mal your negativity has just lost you my vote and that of quite a few others I would expect.
umbria
Sep 15, 2010 10:57 AM
As Alan Kohler said in Business Spectator today, we DO have a detailed cost analysis, in the $25 million NBN Implementation Study released on May 6. With Telstra now in the tent, NBNCo's own revised internal business study is also about to be published.

Where Malcolm Turnbull is right is that the government has done a poor job in failing to quantify the many quite certain economic and social benefits of a near-ubiquitous and reliable fixed fibre network - as poor a job as the coalition did in selling its clunky alternative policy a few weeks back.

But it is folly to condemn the laying of future-proof, no-maintenance fibre to large country towns, and also to smaller ones where it would be cheaper than wireless. I mean, why wouldn't you do it, when it will certainly make those towns more attractive to new arrivals who can do their business and stay in touch without the city grind?

Suppose taxpayers end up paying even $40 a month for a decade to build the NBN, and in return they reduce their monthly household phone and internet bill to $50, getting a brilliant, unchokeable and permanent broadband connection as a side benefit. Local councils can afford to supply free web access wirelessly around town centres with this infrastructure in place, boosting the amenity of their towns.

I'm afraid that Tony Abbott has Mr Turnbull on a hiding to nothing criticising the technology mix. And remember that the Senate Committee's last word is that it may decide to keep the fibre publicly owned, so the asset value for resale should be assumed to be zero.

I have an idea. Perhaps Mr Turnbull can use his business expertise to develop and offer what he considers to be a dollar evaluation of the benefits and cost offsets which the OECD and Paul Budde among others have asserted will certainly accrue from the NBN?
Tom Brown
Sep 15, 2010 10:58 AM
All the coalition is about is buggering up any plans the government has, good or not, and they do not care what and who is damaged on the way. I thought Turnbull may be above it but it appears I am wrong.

This is the character of Abbott, Turnbull, Truss and the leaders of the opposition, they have nothing to offer Australia, their arguments of holding the government to account is bull, they only see their way to power is to misinform the electorate and throw mud at everything trusting some sticks. They load the gun then let others of an ilk fire it. They behave like zealots ignoring both fairness or conscience.

Off course the Coalition adherents lap it up and become very vocal giving the impression of being the majority which is by far not the case.

Q&A this week Mr Truss and Mr Palmer when asked about working with Independents and Greens both assumed it meant it was for the coalition agenda not that of the greens or independents(about half way through)
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3004171.htm
Truss was unable to say the coalition was able to work with anyone elses plans and as they have no new plans except paid maternity leave then that was it. So very narrow and short sighted.
MerariSchroeder
Sep 15, 2010 11:18 AM
Some people are just not getting it.
1. We can still have FTTP, but with a more affordable approach.
2. The more affordable an NBN is the better for the nation
3. Having no NBN is also still an option
4. Wireless isn't unsuitable for the future. LTE is 300Mbps with 20Mhz of spectrum. LTE Advanced is 1Gbps with 100Mbhz of spectrum.

Finally, don't be a luddite - thinking that Fibre is the only way - that no other technology will be developed in the next 20 years. Don't be so narrow minded, dancing to the Governments piping. They have not performed a cost benefit analysis, and they are resisting it because they must have something to hide.
RDEFCON1
Sep 15, 2010 11:20 AM
The first question is not whether fibre is the futur. The first question is whether now is the appropriate time to spend $43bn laying it.

Turnbull's undersea cable analogy is very apt. Undersea cables were always going to be essential. However several companies invested too much, too early - and the result was financially disastrous.

The second question is whether the government should spend the money building a state-owned monopoly, abandoning any hope of true competition - or leave it to the private sector. Nuances here might involve the government building in regional areas where the private sector is already failing to invest. A responsible government would exercise more caution and exhibit less haste in when spending large amounts of taxpayer money - just as a responsible corporation does when spending shareholder funds. Again, Turnbull nails this. He's not against fast internet - he just wants to see prudent and responsible use of taxpayer money, and to debate the opportunity costs of spending $43bn on a national fibre network. He makes a good argument, and I'm glad to see someone who knows the industry stepping into the communications portfolio. Conroy's going to have to step up.
MerariSchroeder
Sep 15, 2010 11:49 AM
@RDEFCON1
Very true, that's a good way to put it. Time appropriate -In 8 years it will likely cost half as much to lay FTTP: Telstra could be structurally seperated, new construction technologies such as micro-trenching, and we could build it with savings and cash flow.

You should contribute to NBNOptions.org
RDEFCON1
Sep 15, 2010 11:56 AM
Thanks Merari. Will do.

I think the biggest problem with the NBN discussion is the polarisation of sides into pro-NBN vs 'technophobes'. Spending $43bn should be treated seriously and it shouldn't be about 'Rolls Royces' or nothing. There is a viable middle ground where we can get good outcomes for Australia without risking excessive amounts of taxpayer funds that could be well extremely well spent in other areas such as health, education and public transport.
deteego
Sep 15, 2010 1:00 PM
Bazwalt wrote:
@johnpro2 - "Wireless/mobility is the future for the younger gen." <--- I have to laugh at that mate. You really are misguided.

Wireless/Mobility offers nothing more than convenience, it is far from being (and likely never will be) the way of the future. It is NOT a fixed service and has no way of remaining reliable and resilient.

I'm not saying wireless is bad, it's just not the best thing for a country to rely on.

It really annoys me that everyone flaunts the "white elephant" and "Rolls Royce" terms around. NBN is about more than speed and downloading your porn..it's about creating a future-proof reliable network that can expand to meet our needs for the next 50 years.

The copper network is dying and this is FACT, Wireless is nothing more than convenience, and Satellite is a joke.

The NBN, though expensive, has been the best proposal put forward. Coalition had their chance to put forward a better campaign for communications and FAILED.

Their choice in comms minister was poor and their organisation was sub-par. It was very clear that the coalition has little to no plans or knowledge about communications and therefore is incompetent at bringing forth a better deal.

Our countrys communications is the close to being the worst one in the world and the longer we wait - the worse it will get. NBN closes the gap and gives us a future. It might be expensive but risks need to be taken and if we trust and help NBN we can make the process much more easier. Fighting this deal won't help.

The Govt had Telstra and stuffed it up, Coalition has had plenty of chances to give us a better option, let's make it right this time.


So according to your logic, Laptops as an invention is a failed concept because its a product focused on mobility at cost of performance/power
Bazwalt
Sep 15, 2010 2:36 PM
@ deteego - No, not at all, Laptops are great and so is wireless. They simply have their uses under particular conditions.

Laptop = Portale and Convenient
Wireless = Portable and Convenient BUT not as reliable as a fixed service is when it comes to powerhousing todays and more importantly the FUTURES communications.

@MerariSchroeder - At this very moment and into the "forseeable" future Fibre is the only way. I am by no means saying that innovation isn't possible but at this stage there is nothing faster than the speed of light that we can harness.

When we discover something faster than light...I'll concede.
singo79
Sep 15, 2010 2:44 PM
Go back to your lousy 3G connection Turnbull! I will point out that Turnbull, during the election campaign, made it quite clear that his own 3G connection was good enough for him. Therefore it is apparent that he (Turnbull) and the other Coalition naysayer are only concerned about themselves.

Don't worry about the state of affairs of broadband in this country and the fact that services are greatly disproportionate between country and city. You may have a decent connection in your city seat Turnbull, which would still experience high ping rates, but us country folk have been getting the raw end of the deal for over a decade thanks to your inept party failing to recognise the fact and address the situation. At least the Labor Party has addressed what you and your naysayer couldn't be bothered in tackling.

And nowhere has the Federal Government ever said that it personally is going to spend $43 billion. That figure is the total worth of the network, with about $24 billion coming from public coffers!

Generally us people in the bush are happy with the NBN proposal, as we will finally get proper services at rates the same as city dwellers. Just because we live in the country doesn't mean that we are second class citizens, for we pay our taxes like everyone else.
ubermensch
Sep 15, 2010 3:08 PM
"Finally, don't be a luddite - thinking that Fibre is the only way - that no other technology will be developed in the next 20 years."

OK great let's all sit back with our feet on the table and wait for technology to come up with "something" better. Trying to scare off investment in something real by putting forward the prospect of vapourware....... really????
KarL
Sep 15, 2010 3:13 PM
@Syan - For example, the use of this technology can provide health services into areas which may not normally get them.

How is the NBN going to provide Telemedicine (if it is possible) when there is no doctor on the other end? Do you think you want to be operate on by a surgeon over the NBN link when the remote hospital can't give you a clean room and Anesthetics? If you die from Telemedicine service from NBN dropping out, go sue the government and not the doctor.

If all the doctors in big hospitals are already tied up, who is going to be sitting at the terminal doing Telemedicine?
RDEFCON1
Sep 15, 2010 4:25 PM
@Syan and @KarL

Actually, there's been no suggestion that 'telemedicine' will be delivered over NBN. Conroy has suggested it couuld offer improved 'triage' services.

Triage = "the determination of priorities for action in an emergency"

So essentially, NBN is going to allow for a glorified 000 service - so that emergency services can 'see' that you need help, instead of just listening to you. WOW, what a revolution!
cootified
Sep 15, 2010 4:30 PM
I don't think Turnbull is attacking the internet or how it is delivered.

Turnbull is simply attacking Labour on how it came about with NBN without a business plan and financial analysis.

Turnbull is a politician, I don't think he really cares about the internet or how its delivered.
But if a political party makes promises with no proof silhouette, then he has the right as a politician to challenge that promise.

RDEFCON1
Sep 15, 2010 5:15 PM
@cootified

Further, he has a responsibility as a shadow minister to challenge the government on it's policies and to put the alternate case. Glad there's now someone in the job who has the knowledge and experience to do exactly that.
KarL
Sep 15, 2010 5:41 PM
@RDEFCON1 4:25PM - Actually, there's been no suggestion that 'telemedicine' will be delivered over NBN. Conroy has suggested it couuld offer improved 'triage' services.

We are both satirical in our comments. ;-)

However, Conroy announced, "The $60 million Digital Regions Initiative would fund projects to deliver high-quality digital applications in the health sector to the bush, including remote medical consultation, diagnosis and treatment."

http://www.itwire.com/it-policy-news/government-tech-policy/27106-conroy-unveils-60m-ehealth-nbn-project-fund

That is the problem with politicians and the people who believed in them. It is easy to say by building the NBN, e-Health can happen without address the basic problem of not training enough doctors and keeping them in the public system.
deteego
Sep 15, 2010 7:50 PM
Bazwalt wrote:
@ deteego - No, not at all, Laptops are great and so is wireless. They simply have their uses under particular conditions.

Laptop = Portale and Convenient
Wireless = Portable and Convenient BUT not as reliable as a fixed service is when it comes to powerhousing todays and more importantly the FUTURES communications.

@MerariSchroeder - At this very moment and into the "forseeable" future Fibre is the only way. I am by no means saying that innovation isn't possible but at this stage there is nothing faster than the speed of light that we can harness.

When we discover something faster than light...I'll concede.


I don't think you got my point

Desktop PC's -> Very fast, powerful, can be online forever (fixed power connection) a lot more capable
Laptops -> None of the above (without a lot of cost) but infinity more mobile, not as reliable (can run out of power and other issues associated with using laptops)

Fibre -> Very fast, powerful however expensive
Wireless -> Not as fast, can have connectivity issues however a infinity more mobile, not as reliable

Its that convenience which makes it in a lot of situations multitudes better then Fibre Internet. For me (since I am a Uni student), Fibre internet is barely going to help me. I take a laptop to uni, since I like to work at university, so do a lot of people (in fact a massive number of people). Our whole internet uni network is on wireless for this reason (unless you expect the uni to install 20->100 gigabit ports into every lecture/classroom and provide cabling for everyone). The uni network has an average speed of 12 megabits, and dropouts happen at most around twice a day (if you are using it for extended periods of time, like 9+ hours). I do not need light speed internet, neither do a lot of other people, just like most people do not need Ferrari's because bottlenecks are in other areas.

Australias Wireless is not that good because their wireless network is not that good. Thats like arguing wired internet sucks because everyone is using dialup instead of ADSL2+/Fibre. We don't have a massive population density, so we won't have massive issues with spectrum ,and furthermore its not going to be the ONLY technology people use. Coalition never wanted to replace everything with wireless, its just one of the technologies they are promoting

Fibre isn't the be all and end all of future internet, in fact trends are showing the opposite (vs wireless internet)

The point is, people use mobile internet. In fact, the market for mobile internet is growing much much faster then fixed line internet (for reasons that should be obvious). In terms of internet SPEED, Australia is actually not THAT far behind other countries. You will see that almost all developed nations have average internet speeds of 1-10 megabits (and yes Australia does fall in that area). There are 5 countries above that which have FTTH (which get average speeds of 3-6 times of whats mentioned above).

Australia is backwards in regards to internet usage and capping, but that is unfortunately what happens when you are a country that is literally in the middle of nowhere with a small population (no economic way to use server farms and no real nearby countries where we can hog the data off) which means majority of our content is gotten overseas which is very expensive. Fibre is not going to solve that problem, unless everyone adopts cloud computing or we suddenly get more server farms. It will mean we can download music/movies faster with P2P and some institutions (such as Uni's and large data centres) will be better off, but that isn't going to be any different from coalitions plan.

TLDR version SPEED IS NOT THE ONLY THING PEOPLE CARE ABOUT (and in a lot of cases the speed difference is trivial, not many people will notice the difference between loading a web page in 0.35 seconds compared to 0.13 seconds or something like that). Personally I think a far bigger issue is providing generic internet access for everyone, and thats something that the NBN pales in comparison to coalitions (coalitions plan covered 97% of Australia)

Edited by deteego: 15/9/2010 07:52:21 PM
Mordd
Sep 15, 2010 9:59 PM
Deteego, tell me how we manage to do 1080p live streaming of a surgery in progress from one hospital to another to allow doctors to remotely consult in everything from the mundane to the extremely serious. Are we meant to do this with the great wireless technology you love, sure no issue if in the middle of the surgery the signal drops out due to intereference.

You want the reason why speed is so important, Remote Medical Consultation as well as Video Conferencing for business are 2 whopping big reasons right there that simply would not be possible with the technology the Coalition is proposing. Only something like the NBN will cut it for that. So pull your head out of your arse and look at whats in front of you.
deteego
Sep 16, 2010 12:15 AM
Mordd wrote:
Deteego, tell me how we manage to do 1080p live streaming of a surgery in progress from one hospital to another to allow doctors to remotely consult in everything from the mundane to the extremely serious. Are we meant to do this with the great wireless technology you love, sure no issue if in the middle of the surgery the signal drops out due to intereference.

You want the reason why speed is so important, Remote Medical Consultation as well as Video Conferencing for business are 2 whopping big reasons right there that simply would not be possible with the technology the Coalition is proposing. Only something like the NBN will cut it for that. So pull your head out of your arse and look at whats in front of you.


If you are using wireless to do high definition streaming (completely ignoring the fact that high definition is not required in almost all those cases, but whatever) then you probably shouldn't be using in the first place. That is like complaining that Laptops in general are crap because you are trying to play tier one games with graphics on them (i.e. Crysis)

Futhermore there is wireless technology that is capable of delivering 1gigabit internet speeds, its called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTE_Advanced and companies are already adopting it.

If people need high speed internet, they will get FTTH, which is possible with either the coalitions plan or NBN (its just that the coalitions plan doesn't give it to EVERYONE)
HubertCumberdale
Sep 16, 2010 1:53 AM
deteego wrote:
If people need high speed internet, they will get FTTH, which is possible with either the coalitions plan or NBN (its just that the coalitions plan doesn't give it to EVERYONE)


And you dont see the problem with this? Seriously? Is anyone in Australia capable of thinking beyond their four walls?!?! If I get FTTH I shouldn't have to worry about whether the person at the other end of my large file transfer is capable of receiving it of not. If everyone doesn't have it then it completely devalues the connection I have and limits the services.
Bazwalt
Sep 16, 2010 9:11 AM
@ deteego - Mate, I never said anything about speed. In fact, my whole argument was never about speed and this is what you and probably a few million people cannot seem to grasp. The NBN is not directly about speed, its about building a network that will be reliable and resilient to degradation and other faults. Speed is simply the added bonus.

No - I understood you quite find but my question is how exactly can you prioritise mobility over stability? What use is the mobility if your network is dropping off half the time. That just doesn't sit right with me.

Ah what kind of network do you suppose that your precious little wireless network towers back onto at a carrier level? More often than not you'll find that it backs onto copper :) (Busier Cells are or will probably be upgraded to fibre.

Upgrade the country to fibre and not only are fixed services fast and reliable but it will greatly benefit the wireless that you seem to love so much.

"I do not need light speed internet" This isn't JUST about YOU.

"neither do a lot of other people" YOUR opinion.

You're right though, Australia is backwards but you must remember that the NBN is more making data transfer reliable and faster for use within the country and not about pulling data down quicker from international servers. I want to emphasize the RELIABILITY.

The NBN also addresses the issue of being able to provide internet or business to both rural and urban areas where there would be none.

If rural areas can get access to the same infrastructure as the urban zones than there is a HUGE potential for vast business expansion. That small surgery in woop woop can transfer xrays and other large files quicker to the surgery they work with on the other side of Australia.

Oh and btw, coalitions plan was to simply reuse old technology that would only last 5-10 years. Which would land us back in the same boat. Not to mention it wouldn't fix the reliability issue. The coalition never proposed anything to the scale of the NBN.
advocate
Sep 16, 2010 9:51 AM
Mordd wrote:
Deteego, tell me how we manage to do 1080p live streaming of a surgery in progress from one hospital to another to allow doctors to remotely consult in everything from the mundane to the extremely serious.

There is a urgent need for this facility is there? - it's amazing that all these justifications for the NBN are based on so called critical situations 'that are urgently needed', which makes the case for the NBN look artificially good - "How can you knock the NBN when it is needed for this"?
I suppose that means that countries overseas that do have FTTH have a higher level of medical care do they?

If they were so urgent why isn't the rollout based on hospitals first everyone else last?

You and I know that the product that will be most used on the NBN by an overwhelming percentage will be IPTV, the NBN is all about crass commercial interest to flog even more product courtesy of the taxpayer to the sucker consumer, the media companies and the ISP's are licking their collective lips about that.


Edited by advocate: 16/9/2010 09:55:40 AM
deteego
Sep 16, 2010 11:27 AM
HubertCumberdale wrote:
deteego wrote:
If people need high speed internet, they will get FTTH, which is possible with either the coalitions plan or NBN (its just that the coalitions plan doesn't give it to EVERYONE)


And you dont see the problem with this? Seriously? Is anyone in Australia capable of thinking beyond their four walls?!?! If I get FTTH I shouldn't have to worry about whether the person at the other end of my large file transfer is capable of receiving it of not. If everyone doesn't have it then it completely devalues the connection I have and limits the services.


No because everyone does not need FTTH, in fact the extreme minority of people actually need FTTH (on the otherhand, the population in general does need FTTN, and both plans give FTTN). If the majority of content and sever farms and internet content in general was in Australia, you would have more of a point, but it isn't.

Bazwalt wrote:
@ deteego - Mate, I never said anything about speed. In fact, my whole argument was never about speed and this is what you and probably a few million people cannot seem to grasp. The NBN is not directly about speed, its about building a network that will be reliable and resilient to degradation and other faults. Speed is simply the added bonus.

No - I understood you quite find but my question is how exactly can you prioritise mobility over stability? What use is the mobility if your network is dropping off half the time. That just doesn't sit right with me.

Ah what kind of network do you suppose that your precious little wireless network towers back onto at a carrier level? More often than not you'll find that it backs onto copper :) (Busier Cells are or will probably be upgraded to fibre.

Upgrade the country to fibre and not only are fixed services fast and reliable but it will greatly benefit the wireless that you seem to love so much.

"I do not need light speed internet" This isn't JUST about YOU.

"neither do a lot of other people" YOUR opinion.

You're right though, Australia is backwards but you must remember that the NBN is more making data transfer reliable and faster for use within the country and not about pulling data down quicker from international servers. I want to emphasize the RELIABILITY.

The NBN also addresses the issue of being able to provide internet or business to both rural and urban areas where there would be none.

If rural areas can get access to the same infrastructure as the urban zones than there is a HUGE potential for vast business expansion. That small surgery in woop woop can transfer xrays and other large files quicker to the surgery they work with on the other side of Australia.

Oh and btw, coalitions plan was to simply reuse old technology that would only last 5-10 years. Which would land us back in the same boat. Not to mention it wouldn't fix the reliability issue. The coalition never proposed anything to the scale of the NBN.


And I am saying (if you would read what I said properly) that the wireless networks (in Australia) are dropping half the time because they are not properly built (which is why there is a massive push for funding in that area). Russia for example, rolled out a massive 4G wireless plan, and it was hugely succesfull because they did it properly. Australias wireless in its current state is not that good, you cannot use that argument (in general) to say that wireless is shit.

Yes wireless does drop out, but if you have a properly built network that becomes a rarity (assuming you don't have massive population densities, which Australia and Russia don't). Obviously wireless is going to be more faulty then wired, bot how much that 'faultiness' is directly correlates to how well built the network is.

As I said earlier, most people don't mind if the wireless drops out a couple of times during the course of using it in a day and most people accept that drop in reliability for mobility. At my uni (which HAS a properly built wireless network) the dropouts are incredibly rare

Edited by deteego: 16/9/2010 11:48:41 AM
HubertCumberdale
Sep 16, 2010 11:53 AM
deteego wrote:
No because everyone does not need FTTH, in fact the extreme minority of people actually need FTTH (on the otherhand, the population in general does need FTTN, and both plans give FTTN). If the majority of content and sever farms and internet content in general was in Australia, you would have more of a point, but it isn't.


You still dont get it. I need FTTH and I need everyone else to have FTTH else my connection wont be as useful.

It's amazing that Australia has been reduced to a bunch of technophobes in such a short period, I guess this is the sort of meltdown to be expected after an election "Oh please mr gobermint! I dont want a scary new fibre connection capable of transferring large wads of data, I like dialup!"
Bazwalt
Sep 16, 2010 2:23 PM
@deteego - And I am saying (if you would read what I said properly) that the wireless networks (in Australia) are dropping half the time because they are not properly built (which is why there is a massive push for funding in that area). Russia for example, rolled out a massive 4G wireless plan, and it was hugely succesfull because they did it properly. Australias wireless in its current state is not that good, you cannot use that argument (in general) to say that wireless is shit.

Yes wireless does drop out, but if you have a properly built network that becomes a rarity (assuming you don't have massive population densities, which Australia and Russia don't). Obviously wireless is going to be more faulty then wired, bot how much that 'faultiness' is directly correlates to how well built the network is.

As I said earlier, most people don't mind if the wireless drops out a couple of times during the course of using it in a day and most people accept that drop in reliability for mobility. At my uni (which HAS a properly built wireless network) the dropouts are incredibly rare



Sure, the wireless networks might be dropping due to poor build. But no matter what, as you said, "Wireless is obviously going to be more faulty than wired" which is exactly the reason why it would not be a viable solution as a replacement for a fixed service.

A fixed, reliable, and future-proof service is what Australia needs and is currently talking about. You can't use the argument "Well this is easier to put in and does the job MOST of the time therefore it is better". Sorry, that just doesn't fly.

I'm not doubting that wireless is great and all, my argument is that it simply isn't a solution to replace Telstra fixed services.

"As I said earlier, most people don't mind if the wireless drops out a couple of times during the course of using it in a day and most people accept that drop in reliability for mobility."

You and a few people might be able to accept that - but I challenge you to ask the rest of Australia and get some good solid numbers of your support and come back to me. Then, I might just re-think my argument.
epimetheus
Sep 16, 2010 2:38 PM
"Where is the financial analysis? Where is the business plan that would justify this investment?"
Really, is Turnbull so naive? The actions of Labor governments is akin to those of Russia under Stalin. The only plans were/are "Five-year-plans" totally unrealistic and thought up by some uneducated hack with no idea of the subject!

"He said the lack of data presented by the Government to its "shareholders" - the taxpayers - was "simply wrong" and an "affront to democracy"." Well, democracy as practised by the Socialists is an affront to the people!

"There is a huge opportunity cost [associated with this project]," Turnbull said.

The "opportunity" he means is that for the mates of the government to feather their nests at taxpayers expense.

"Every billion [dollars] wasted on this project is money that cannot be spent on education, hospitals, roads. Take your pick. Gillard and her crop of Union idiots probably haven't heard of or received education for starters. To them the other two items are just words.
Bazwalt
Sep 16, 2010 2:39 PM
@advocate - If memory serves me correctly, you will notice that a few of the test sites were all built around Hospitals. The Tasmania network was, and I'm sure plenty more will start to be rolled out around hospitals as well.
Mordd
Sep 16, 2010 2:39 PM
Advocate wrote:
There is a urgent need for this facility is there? - it's amazing that all these justifications for the NBN are based on so called critical situations 'that are urgently needed', which makes the case for the NBN look artificially good - "How can you knock the NBN when it is needed for this"?
I suppose that means that countries overseas that do have FTTH have a higher level of medical care do they?


Yes in case you hadn't noticed doctors in regional areas has been suffering badly for the past decade or more, even in a city of 40,000 in Queanbeyan where I live availability of doctors is rubbish, and most ppl end up having to go over the border to Canberra. In more remote areas there are no doctors in many many cases.

So yes being able to put a practice nurse in place with specialist doctors available at a moments notice streamed directely from a capital city to allow better consulation in areas with insufficient medical personell is something I would consider pretty damm important and is what the NBN will deliver among other things.

Its not artificially inflating the case for the NBN at all, it is a fact that medical services in regional and remote areas have been at crisis point for many many years now, so what is your magical solution to it then? It takes a decade or more to train more doctors, and even then its hard to get them to work in the remote areas they are most needed. The NBN will allow us to take the expertise where its available and make it available everywhere, pull your head out of your arse and you would see the point I make is very valid.
advocate
Sep 16, 2010 4:29 PM
Mordd wrote:


Yes in case you hadn't noticed doctors in regional areas has been suffering badly for the past decade or more, even in a city of 40,000 in Queanbeyan where I live availability of doctors is rubbish, and most ppl end up having to go over the border to Canberra. In more remote areas there are no doctors in many many cases.

That is due to a shortage of GP's or a reluctance of qualified GP's to practice in regional and rural areas for any length of time, the NBN is not going to help that.

So yes being able to put a practice nurse in place with specialist doctors available at a moments notice streamed directly from a capital city to allow better consulation in areas with insufficient medical personell is something I would consider pretty damm important and is what the NBN will deliver among other things.

Oh really? that could happen now, it has nothing to do with waiting for fibre to the door to implement these systems.

Its not artificially inflating the case for the NBN at all,

Oh yes it is, you are artificially emphasing the minuscule use of FTTH when you know that the vast majority of the use of the NBN will be all about providing commercial products like IPTV from media companies and ISP's.

It easy to make an emotive 'health services' case for NBN when in reality what will actually happen is that the 99% use of the NBN will not be from this area, the Government could provide a on-line diagnostic health system as part of the general provision of health services, it should not be used as the emotive justification of a nation wide NBN.
deteego
Sep 16, 2010 6:28 PM
Bazwalt wrote:
@deteego - And I am saying (if you would read what I said properly) that the wireless networks (in Australia) are dropping half the time because they are not properly built (which is why there is a massive push for funding in that area). Russia for example, rolled out a massive 4G wireless plan, and it was hugely succesfull because they did it properly. Australias wireless in its current state is not that good, you cannot use that argument (in general) to say that wireless is shit.

Yes wireless does drop out, but if you have a properly built network that becomes a rarity (assuming you don't have massive population densities, which Australia and Russia don't). Obviously wireless is going to be more faulty then wired, bot how much that 'faultiness' is directly correlates to how well built the network is.

As I said earlier, most people don't mind if the wireless drops out a couple of times during the course of using it in a day and most people accept that drop in reliability for mobility. At my uni (which HAS a properly built wireless network) the dropouts are incredibly rare



Sure, the wireless networks might be dropping due to poor build. But no matter what, as you said, "Wireless is obviously going to be more faulty than wired" which is exactly the reason why it would not be a viable solution as a replacement for a fixed service.

A fixed, reliable, and future-proof service is what Australia needs and is currently talking about. You can't use the argument "Well this is easier to put in and does the job MOST of the time therefore it is better". Sorry, that just doesn't fly.

I'm not doubting that wireless is great and all, my argument is that it simply isn't a solution to replace Telstra fixed services.

"As I said earlier, most people don't mind if the wireless drops out a couple of times during the course of using it in a day and most people accept that drop in reliability for mobility."

You and a few people might be able to accept that - but I challenge you to ask the rest of Australia and get some good solid numbers of your support and come back to me. Then, I might just re-think my argument.


Could you place state where I said wireless should replace wired
umbria
Sep 16, 2010 8:23 PM
Ry, is this exchange as annoying to you as it is to me (and to Mordd, I think)?

Those who want to have wireless shall have it under the NBN, but as for me and my household we choose the fibre.

When a town is getting a sewage system installed, do we ask each householder whether or not they want a drain capable of number ones only, or a big standard pipe that can handle anything they will ever throw at it?

Wireless-only and fibre to the node both require tens of thousands of separate installations of expensive equipment that needs maintenance, replacement every three to five years, and an electricity supply, not to mention fibre backhaul.

FTTP runs a strand of fibre from the exchange to each premises and can handle the biggest number twos anyone can produce, now or ever. It will last as long as our copper network has done, never needs maintenance, and the devices in the home or small business could even comprise a telephone and/or laptop on solar power with battery backup, or six television sets - it doesn't matter, the fibre can deliver it.

Why spend six or ten billion every three to five years on maintaining flaky wireless that doesn't even have a standard settled yet, when you could be spending money at the same rate and getting a permanent solution, yes, including ubiquitous wireless that can cope with mobility demands because the bulk of data is on fibre?

Sheeesh!
anonymous
Sep 16, 2010 9:33 PM

It's probably being hopelessly optimistic, but if we take the politics, shareholdings and wishful thinking out of this discussion, we are left with a couple of facts:

Wireless will continue to be a very useful and valuable service alongside a national fibre network, but it can never replace it. Yes, there will be big improvements in wireless tech, but there is more capability for improvement in fibre to meet the almost unimaginable increases in bandwidth needed over coming decades.

And since it will take several years to finish the NBN buildout, we should be looking at what is needed from that point forward. Some people are still saying that their needs are being met with ~2000 tech, but that will be useless for what their children and grandchildren will require.
Ace
Sep 16, 2010 11:54 PM
You'll notice Turnbull says "Every billion [dollars] wasted on this project is money that cannot be spent on education, hospitals, roads. Take your pick.". Now I'm not sure if Turnbull understands that money borrowed for the NBN does not automatically become available for other infrastructure if it's not borrowed for the NBN. Or maybe he does, and he just thinks the average punter is too stupid to realise this?
Ace
Sep 17, 2010 12:03 AM
Also, if Turnbull really believes his "massive destruction of wealth" comment, then he also believes that the internet has had no business benefit in Australia. Facts seem to belie this impression that he is trying to impart. In 2001, business transacted on the Internet grew by 33 per cent, and now accounts for $43 billion, 6.4 per cent of Australia's GDP. Which bit was destroyed?

Once again it would seem that Turnbull believes the average punter is stupid enough to take these sound bites as fact and without falling over with disbelief.
deteego
Sep 17, 2010 7:59 AM
Ace wrote:
Also, if Turnbull really believes his "massive destruction of wealth" comment, then he also believes that the internet has had no business benefit in Australia. Facts seem to belie this impression that he is trying to impart. In 2001, business transacted on the Internet grew by 33 per cent, and now accounts for $43 billion, 6.4 per cent of Australia's GDP. Which bit was destroyed?

Once again it would seem that Turnbull believes the average punter is stupid enough to take these sound bites as fact and without falling over with disbelief.


No he is not saying Internet has no benefit. That argument would be correct assuming we don't have internet in the first place. Thing is, we DO have internet, and infrastructure wise its not so bad compared to other countries similar to our own (really only Singapore,Japan and South Korea and some European countries are the ones that are majority ahead of us).

What Turnbill is saying is that spending billions of dollars on something the extreme minority of population is a waste of money at that time, and this statement is completely correct. His example of the undersea cables to other countries is a good one, billions and billions and billions of dollars was spent on it. The added capacity that those cables gave only ended up being used significantly in 10 years time, so essentially all that money spent on those cables was a waste up until that point (because no significant amount of people ended up using the infrastructure).

People who are using this argument of "you can say this about rail hundreds of years ago". Well no you can't, because we didn't have any rail before that time (that and also ignoring a lot of other points which I won't go over now because it will fill out pages)

Edited by deteego: 17/9/2010 08:00:54 AM
johnpro2
Sep 17, 2010 9:47 AM
@bazwait downloading your porn

Who have you been talking too..?

Most computers I've looked at have slow speed often because of gummed up PC's that have not been serviced in years.
High speed is necessary for some ..but most certainly not all.

Selectivity is the key.

I & others even avoid the slightly faster toll roads/tunnels here in Brisbane because of cost. The gold plated standard offered is just a waste of good $$,esp since mobility is the key to the future. not tied to a desktop.
Jp
Ace
Sep 17, 2010 11:12 AM
@deteego, is it really necessary to quote the entire previous post? It's getting REALLY annoying.
Ace
Sep 17, 2010 11:14 AM
So @deteego, I think what you are trying to say is; it is recalcitrant of the government to build for the future. They should wait for the future to arrive, and then build for it?
deteego
Sep 17, 2010 12:26 PM
Ace wrote:
So @deteego, I think what you are trying to say is; it is recalcitrant of the government to build for the future. They should wait for the future to arrive, and then build for it?


That depends on how far your definition of future is. If its in the very near future then yes of course it should be built, but if its in a decade then it is a waste

So unless you are telling me that a majority of internet content will suddenly appear in Australia in 5 years (or other similar extreme assumptions) it is going to be a waste for a considerable amount of time

I mean using your logic we should build rocket ships for everyone for the future when we live in space colonies (an extreme example of such logic). You have to be realistic and not just aim for the moon
Maxxi2
Sep 17, 2010 1:13 PM
Using the example of waiting for better technology, Turnbull, Abbott, deteego et al would still be using sticks to scratch messages on cave walls, deteego would not be on this forum and the PMG would never ever have installed a copper network nationally...

We would not have mobile phones, or phones, or telephony, or electricity, or the printing press.

We would besitting in our caves waiting for the next dinosaur upgrade to improve our lives...

lol. utterly ridiculous scenario. As if anyone would take that codswallop serious??

Now getting back to the Turnbull / Abbott take on the NBN that we should wait for the next better technology before we build a FTTH infrastructure...

lol. utterly ridiculous scenario. As if anyone would take that codswallop serious??

This is obstructionist politics 101, and nothing else.

This is not and nevr was a technical argument or debate from the coalition.

This is a "oh crap we will be in opposition for another 6 years if the Conroy NBN is successful" deliberation.

Nothing more, nothing less.

The rest of the statements and discussions are all red herrings. Abbott asked the strategists: "how do I get back into govt the fastest??????"

The answer was: "destroy the NBN at any cost"...

He has already broken his promise and committment on parliamentary reform, do we really think he will be honest on judging the NBN on it's merits?

You bring in Turnbull when you need an attack dog, do another Wayne Gretsch type flailing of the opponents, whethher real facts exist or not. Main thing is, incessant attack, hoping xx% of the mud slung will cling.

Sub-sea cable examples from the early 90s?? That is Turnbull's comparison to the NBN? 15 infrastructure technology development stages later he wants to make a comparison to endeavours that merchant and investment bankers like himself fuelled?

lol. utterly ridiculous scenario. As if anyone would take that codswallop serious??

What he is saying is: "Prove to me that it is being used and I will build it for you."

Exactly what he did NOT do at Ozemail, in the glorious days of dial-up internet @ $5 per hour.

Malcolm, times have changed amigo, times have changed...
deteego
Sep 17, 2010 4:30 PM
@Maxxi2

It seems you have issues reading

All those examples you gave are new technologies which weren't implemented previously. Fibre Optic cabling is an upgrade, not a new technology. We already have internet, all Fibre Optic is doing is upgrading the speed of that internet. You are also still being highly emotive and making no sense

Turnbill is not saying we are going to wait for the next Technology till FTTH comes out, he said that he will let the market build FTTH on the backhaul that the coalition will provide, (seeing as FTTH is NOT something that everyone needs). Usually basic requirements are things that government should cater for (if the market fails), light speed internet is a want in 95% of cases, not a basic required, (i.e. not a NEED). Generic Internet is a NEED (especially to a larger population) and that is actually something that coalitions plan does better (since it, you know, covers 97% vs 93%), High Speed internet is a WANT. The case is even worse when most people will not even get those high speeds because 75%+ of the internet content that we receive is overseas (at the bare minimum, its probably closer to 90%). In fact no country is getting an average 100mb speeds, and even worse a 100mbit link is gonna do crap when you download at 12 megabits overseas (with those lovely undersea cables that ISP's are now paying for in congestion ratios because it was an asset that created debt for so long)

FTTH is an 'upgrade' to the internet, its nothing new. Implementing the printing press was new because it didn't exist before. Implementing rail was needed because we didn't have any form of rail previously. All those arguments are invalid for that reason (plus more). Its like upgrading a standard computer into a a high tier computer for gaming. Some people like it/need it, but the majority of the population don't and that is something the market should do

Also good to see you are blaming Turnbill for his past, mind showing me Conroy's Credentials? Oh wait, he doesn't even have any in the area that his portfolio is. Nevermind then (I guess he clearly knows what he is doing, implementing ineffective filters and whatnot)

Edited by deteego: 17/9/2010 04:34:48 PM
johnpro2
Sep 18, 2010 10:19 AM
@bazwait It is NOT a fixed service and has no way of remaining reliable and resilient.

Have you seen those small glass cables being laid just below the surface.

One back hoe disables thousands of customers for days ...It has already happened up here.
Not so reliable as you may think ..

Jp
johnpro2
Sep 18, 2010 10:41 AM
@bazwait It is NOT a fixed service and has no way of remaining reliable and resilient.

***************
extract:
Telstra's widespread problems with user login and email on its BigPond internet and Foxtel cable services continued into its third day, defying the telco's assurances that it would be back online yesterday.


I rest my case :)
Bazwalt
Sep 18, 2010 12:28 PM
@deteego - "That depends on how far your definition of future is. If its in the very near future then yes of course it should be built, but if its in a decade then it is a waste"

You do realise that the NBN alone will take 8-12 years (roughly 3 terms) to complete anyways right? You can't build something of this scale immediately for a "very near future". If that is the way you think this will work than you are sadly mistaken. You sir, need to be realistic.

"all Fibre Optic is doing is upgrading the speed of that internet"

Wrong, it's creating a more reliable infrastructure. Forget about speed for a moment and realise the other benefits of fibre.

"Have you seen those small glass cables being laid just below the surface.

One back hoe disables thousands of customers for days ...It has already happened up here.
Not so reliable as you may think .."

True, however, there will be fibre distribution nodes that will for the most part create a redundancy link between 2 or more nodes to ensure connectivity. If a backhoe makes a cut closer to the end-user than a fibre van rollout wont take long to re-splice.

Also, Fibre eliminates degradation issues, crosstalk, foreign battery, shorts, and other issues that plague the current copper infrastructure.

The fibre cuts are almost always easy to fix. The above issues with the copper create way too many Field Technician rollouts which means that the copper requires far too much maintenance.

Fibre fixes ALL of this. So yes, it is much more reliable.

"Turnbill is not saying we are going to wait for the next Technology till FTTH comes out, he said that he will let the market build FTTH on the backhaul that the coalition will provide"

Backhaul and Infrastructure that will utilize old technology. Not a fix, its a patching at best to suit another term.

"FTTH is NOT something that everyone needs"

That's your opinion. Again, present some evidence to support your argument and I will rethink my position on the matter.

"The case is even worse when most people will not even get those high speeds because 75%+ of the internet content that we receive is overseas (at the bare minimum, its probably closer to 90%)"

Take your head out of the sand for a moment and take some time to consider the benefits it will provide to local businesses (not necessarily corporations that can afford their own dark fibre or bonded DSL) that want to get a fast and reliable connection that they can use to run their businesses.

In my line of work I see far too many customers who run small businesses that have sites both local and interstate. Some of these businesses do a large amount of work via the internet and want to be able to perform data exchanges over their connections to other sites but have difficulty because both stability and speed are key limitations which cripple their business. These are small businesses who can't quite afford to roll out their own fibre.

It's not just about International transit mate...think locally.

"Telstra's widespread problems with user login and email on its BigPond internet and Foxtel cable services continued into its third day, defying the telco's assurances that it would be back online yesterday.


I rest my case :)"

Sorry, I don't quite see what your point is. Your quoting a reference to a Telstra based issue to prove why NBN isn't necessary and why a better wireless infrastructure is?

You didn't prove anything other than your lack of understanding on the matter.
johnpro2
Sep 18, 2010 12:49 PM
@bazwalt You didn't prove anything other than your lack of understanding on the matter.

******
Yes ..religious folk used that line on me for years.

I understand $$$ clear enough.

I realize that many infrastructure problems can be solved with $$$$. I believe that targeting the client is the key ...not one fit for all regardless of need or take up likelihood.

Even though cable has been available for years I have used ADSL simply because of cost. I don't go to the Flower Drum restaurant when I visit Melbourne ..simply because it costs too much.

Jp
deteego
Sep 18, 2010 3:31 PM
@Bazwalt

You are saying that everyone needs FTTH, this is a naive assumption at best, an ignorant statement at worst. You go around asking people if they will need 100mbit internet, when 70%+ if internet use is capped at around ~25 mbits due to the bottleneck being the underground see cables. Furthermore for generic browser, you tell me if people will notice any difference between a web page (if it happens to be Australian) loading in 0.3 or so seconds vs 0.03 (FTTH will make no difference on overseas websites as stated previously)

Making generic arguments, such as "everyone needs X" is the first stop in showing that you are not realistic at all. Your mixing up your needs with your wants. Everyone would want FTTH, but because its a WANT, you should only be giving it to everyone if its trivial in cost. The FTTH installations in Japan/Singapore/South Korea costed around $70-100 per head (all done by private companies too!). I am pretty damn sure if the NBN only cost around that amount, no one would be complaining. However its closer to $5000 per head (with some of that being private money). So that is around 40-66 times more expensive (whatever way you look at it)

Honestly using that logic, I can say everyone needs a new Ferrari (even though a minority of people would only ever require a Ferrari to be used at full capacity). The realistic statement is that everyone wants a Ferrari, and if you ended up giving everyone a Ferrari, only an extreme minority (<5% at least?) of people will actually require the extra features the Ferrari gives (and these are the people would, that would NEED the Ferrari, who would omg, purchase the product)

Edited by deteego: 18/9/2010 03:38:11 PM
HubertCumberdale
Sep 18, 2010 4:27 PM
deteego wrote:
High Speed internet is a WANT.


That right it is. Just like generic internet and everyone that wants it and can pay for a 100mbit service should be able to get it. But you can’t do that without building the network first. Everyone can get dialup. Everyone can get ADSL in some form. Building a FTTH network is about raising that standard.

deteego wrote:

The case is even worse when most people will not even get those high speeds because 75%+ of the internet content that we receive is overseas (at the bare minimum, its probably closer to 90%). In fact no country is getting an average 100mb speeds, and even worse a 100mbit link is gonna do crap when you download at 12 megabits overseas (with those lovely undersea cables that ISP's are now paying for in congestion ratios because it was an asset that created debt for so long)


Sounds like a whirlpool argument and it not a very good one. Is that what you think the internet is? Overseas websites? and It’s quite easy to saturate a 100mbit connection using overseas site you know, besides there are other applications you are ignoring here.

deteego wrote:

Honestly using that logic, I can say everyone needs a new Ferrari

Flawed logic.
deteego
Sep 18, 2010 6:04 PM
HubertCumberdale wrote:


That right it is. Just like generic internet and everyone that wants it and can pay for a 100mbit service should be able to get it. But you can’t do that without building the network first. Everyone can get dialup. Everyone can get ADSL in some form. Building a FTTH network is about raising that standard.


So is giving everyone a Ferrari (we are raising the standards, aren't we?). You are going to have to try harder then that

HubertCumberdale wrote:

Sounds like a whirlpool argument and it not a very good one. Is that what you think the internet is? Overseas websites? and It’s quite easy to saturate a 100mbit connection using overseas site you know, besides there are other applications you are ignoring here.


Thats a reality (whether you like it or not). The amount of internet content that Australia has you can put on a single digit as a percentage (if not less).

HubertCumberdale wrote:

Flawed logic.

Nah, I am just raising the standard for the automobile industry by giving everyone a Ferrari (if the logic is flawed you will have a point out why. Saying so doesn't make it true)

Edited by deteego: 18/9/2010 06:06:55 PM
HubertCumberdale
Sep 18, 2010 6:32 PM
deteego wrote:

So is giving everyone a Ferrari (we are raising the standards, aren't we?). You are going to have to try harder then that

Nah, I am just raising the standard for the automobile industry by giving everyone a Ferrari (if the logic is flawed you will have a point out why. Saying so doesn't make it true)


Like I said flawed logic. I'm just surprised you didn't come out with the Rolls Royce argument again.


deteego wrote:

Thats a reality (whether you like it or not). The amount of internet content that Australia has you can put on a single digit as a percentage (if not less).


Your obsession with the amount of internet content that Australia has is irrelevant. It's called the WWW for a reason. I can download 2 dozen files in a download manger each with 4 connections. it's not hard to max out any connection so your argument about how much overseas sites can dish up is just flawed. It reminds me of another group of Luddites that think no one has a need for more than one CPU core.



deteego
Sep 18, 2010 8:19 PM
\
HubertCumberdale wrote:

Like I said flawed logic. I'm just surprised you didn't come out with the Rolls Royce argument again.

Like I said fine logic (see what I did there? Hint: If you didn't get it before, saying my logic is flawed doesn't make it so, you have to say why)

deteego wrote:

Your obsession with the amount of internet content that Australia has is irrelevant. It's called the WWW for a reason. I can download 2 dozen files in a download manger each with 4 connections. it's not hard to max out any connection so your argument about how much overseas sites can dish up is just flawed. It reminds me of another group of Luddites that think no one has a need for more than one CPU core.

So what, you are saying that the content we access on the internet is irrelevant now? And calling it WWW doesn't make it magically go faster.
Content being overseas -> Creates a bottlbeck -> Can't download overseas content faster then 25 mbits -> Means extra bandwith Fibre provides won't be used (for most content)

Downloading data concurrently will not max the 100mbit bandwith on the Fibre (assuming its overseas) the bottleneck is through the ISP downloading the content from overseas. There is limit for the amount of data at a single time when downloading content from overseas, it doesn't make a difference if its one file or hundreds of files

This is why download managers are a flawed concept, they only made downloads faster on files that happened to hosted on windows servers (which by default, used to cap a single download at a certain speed, this got changed some time later on). If the servers have no such limits on files, then you either download one file at max capacity (2 megs a second lets say), or 4 parts of the file at 500kb a second. You can't magically make files download faster by concurrently downloading pieces of the file if the server doesn't put any limit on how fast you can download a file at a time. If no such limit exists, then you just download as fast as the network/s allow.

And in this case with overseas content, you are downloading it as fast as the underseas cable allow, and they will not go faster then what I said earlier, regardless if you happen to be downloading multiple files at the same time.

The bottleneck for net searching is through your ISP. Downloading data concurrently doesn't magically remove the bottleneck (unless some data happens to be in Australia, and some overseas). You see when you get into technical details, you realise that this plan isn't thought through as well (even better, there is technology which allows copper to download at 100mbit if its 1km or less to the node, that covers the majority of the Australian population, and its multitudes cheaper then using FTTH)

Even in Japan, the average internet speed is 60 megabits. Thats only 3 times faster of what ADSL2+ can offer. Then when you look at other countries, you start seeing it drop down to 40 megabits (around 1.7 times faster) and finally the average for developed countries with internet is around 4-15 mbits

Edited by deteego: 18/9/2010 08:25:52 PM
HubertCumberdale
Sep 18, 2010 10:48 PM
deteego wrote:
Like I said fine logic (see what I did there? Hint: If you didn't get it before, saying my logic is flawed doesn't make it so, you have to say why)

Really? you cant see the glaring flaws in the logic of your Ferrari example? I'll give you a clue it is the word "giving"

deteego wrote:

So what, you are saying that the content we access on the internet is irrelevant now?

I think you are confused.

deteego wrote:

Can't download overseas content faster then 25 mbits

Wrong.

deteego wrote:

Downloading data concurrently will not max the 100mbit bandwith on the Fibre (assuming its overseas)

Yes you can max out a 100mbit connection even if content is overseas. See my previous example.

deteego wrote:

the bottleneck is through the ISP downloading the content from overseas.

Oh maybe they should by more bandwidth? no that's too obvious we cant expect them to do that...


deteego wrote:

This is why download managers are a flawed concept, they only made downloads faster on files that happened to hosted on windows servers (which by default, used to cap a single download at a certain speed, this got changed some time later on). If the servers have no such limits on files, then you either download one file at max capacity (2 megs a second lets say), or 4 parts of the file at 500kb a second. You can't magically make files download faster by concurrently downloading pieces of the file if the server doesn't put any limit on how fast you can download a file at a time. If no such limit exists, then you just download as fast as the network/s allow.

It really doesn't matter what limits are where. point is if you have a 100mbit connection you can make use of it. Bring on the fibre!

deteego wrote:

The bottleneck for net searching is through your ISP.

What? net searching? what?

deteego wrote:

Downloading data concurrently doesn't magically remove the bottleneck (unless some data happens to be in Australia, and some overseas). You see when you get into technical details, blah blah blah


Bottleneck? you say a 100mbit connection is pointless because content is all overseas. This argument has been destroyed and now you speak of bottlenecks? I've already said a 100mbit connection can be maxed out and that's just a one person example are you even considering households that have more than one person accessing content that is overseas?
deteego
Sep 18, 2010 11:40 PM
HubertCumberdale wrote:

Really? you cant see the glaring flaws in the logic of your Ferrari example? I'll give you a clue it is the word "giving"


Replace giving with "government spending tax payers money to give everyone a Ferrari (sorry I assumed I was talking to someone who had some basic deduction skills)

HubertCumberdale wrote:

Wrong.


I guess someone I know who has Fibre Optic internet is wrong when he states he cannot download faster then that (and I have seen it myself). And no, downloading multiple streams of data overseas doesn't make a difference. He can only get faster then 20 mbit speeds by downloading directly from ISP, or by some rare torrents with massive number of Australian peers. That or direct downloads from other clients (that also happen to have Fibre)

HubertCumberdale wrote:

Yes you can max out a 100mbit connection even if content is overseas. See my previous example.

Your example is invalid (try harder, I explained why previously)

HubertCumberdale wrote:

Oh maybe they should by more bandwidth? no that's too obvious we cant expect them to do that...

Guess who ends up paying for those costs (thats right, that cost will mean an increase in the amount you have to pay for that 100mbit connection, its basic business). Oh that extra cost in the first place was due to another infrastructure project deceivingly similar to this one (you know the one where billions of dollars was spent on underground sea cables, and that bandwidth never ended up being used up until recently, it was built in the 90's). The debt generated by that project (just like the debt that will be generated by this one) is being payed as contention ratios whenever ISP's download data from overseas, so you can thank such a project for making Fibre less useful then it should be (and us having such low quotas/speeds compared to the rest of the world as well)

HubertCumberdale wrote:

It really doesn't matter what limits are where. point is if you have a 100mbit connection you can make use of it. Bring on the fibre!

Being ignorant isn't helping your argument

HubertCumberdale wrote:

Bottleneck? you say a 100mbit connection is pointless because content is all overseas. This argument has been destroyed and now you speak of bottlenecks?


Your example is invalid (try again). If you still don't understand, take a reading of basic networking. If there is a 25 mbit bottleneck, you cannot surpass that 25 mbit bottleneck by downloading multiple streams of data concurrently (if all those streams of data is going through that bottleneck), it technically does not make any sense. The only thing that will make you surpass that 25mbit bottleneck from overseas content is increasing the bandwith of those undersea cables per customer, something you admitted the ISP's will have to pay for, which is something that will get brought down to the consumer.

The only way bottleneck that multiple streams of data will surpass is an artificial bottleneck placed on how fast a single stream of data is downloaded (i.e. a speed limit on a single file) which is the only case your example of Download Managers (and this isn't the case for what I am talking about). This is not the case for overseas content, a limit is placed on to every customer by ISP on how fast he can download any data from overseas. Its not bypassed by downloading multiple files

Of course you can max you 100mbit connection, but only on content that can be retrieved from within Australia, (which currently and for the foreseeable future, at most, file hosting mirrors, some game networks and TV streams from local TV channels)

Edited by deteego: 18/9/2010 11:51:25 PM
HubertCumberdale
Sep 19, 2010 12:16 AM
deteego wrote:

Replace giving with "government spending tax payers money to give everyone a Ferrari (sorry I assumed I was talking to someone who had some basic deduction skills)

And we are back to square one. Flawed logic.

deteego wrote:

I guess someone I know who has Fibre Optic internet is wrong when he states he cannot download faster then that (and I have seen it myself). And no, downloading multiple streams of data overseas doesn't make a difference. He can only get faster then 20 mbit speeds by downloading directly from ISP, or by some rare torrents with massive number of Australian peers. That or direct downloads from other clients (that also happen to have Fibre)

Make up your mind is this limit the ISP or the overseas site.

deteego wrote:

Your example is invalid (try harder, I explained why previously)

No. it really isn't.

deteego wrote:

Guess who ends up paying for those costs blah blah blah.

Yes. because prices cant come down. lol

deteego wrote:

Being ignorant isn't helping your argument

I'm sorry. I was just following your example.

deteego wrote:

Your example is invalid

It really isn't.

deteego wrote:

The only way bottleneck that multiple streams of data will surpass is an artificial bottleneck placed on how fast a single stream of data is downloaded (i.e. a speed limit on a single file) which is the only case your example of Download Managers (and this isn't the case for what I am talking about). This is not the case for overseas content, a limit is placed on to every customer by ISP on how fast he can download any data from overseas. Its not bypassed by downloading multiple files

Make up your mind is this limit the ISP or the overseas site.

deteego wrote:

Of course you can max you 100mbit connection, but only on content that can be retrieved from within Australia

Wrong.
deteego
Sep 19, 2010 1:01 AM
At this point you either have reading issues or you are trolling
HubertCumberdale
Sep 19, 2010 2:16 AM
deteego wrote:
At this point you either have reading issues or you are trolling

Is that what you say to everyone that proves you wrong? I noticed you used the same line on someone else in another thread. If you really want to resort to calling my replies "trolling" then whatever but I really dont see the point in wasting more time/effort than is actually necessary.
deteego
Sep 19, 2010 11:19 AM
HubertCumberdale wrote:
deteego wrote:
At this point you either have reading issues or you are trolling

Is that what you say to everyone that proves you wrong? I noticed you used the same line on someone else in another thread. If you really want to resort to calling my replies "trolling" then whatever but I really dont see the point in wasting more time/effort than is actually necessary.


You didn't prove anything, in fact you haven't said or added anything in general

You just said "no" all the time. The only thing you came up with (concurrent downloading) was an invalid example. Saying "no" isn't proof. You didn't comment on the fact that concurrent downloading doesn't magically remove bottlenecks (in fact you completely ignored it), so as I said, your trolling or you have serious issues reading
HubertCumberdale
Sep 19, 2010 12:02 PM
deteego wrote:

You didn't prove anything, in fact you haven't said or added anything in general

And what exactly have you added to all of this? a bunch of lines from the coalition's handbook that have been debunked time after time not only by me but everyone else to try to debate this with..

deteego wrote:

in fact you completely ignored it

I haven't ignored anything, that's something that you are quite good at though ignoring the facts.
deteego
Sep 19, 2010 12:34 PM
HubertCumberdale wrote:

And what exactly have you added to all of this? a bunch of lines from the coalition's handbook that have been debunked time after time not only by me but everyone else to try to debate this with.

I explained why you were incorrect (with technical details). You haven't explained anything. You haven't even explained how what I said was debunked. You just said it was "false" or "no". This isn't a bunch of lines from coalitions handbook, this is basic facts. Its even on the god damn wikipedia page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_Australia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_in_Australia#International

This has nothing to do with the coalition. Majority of our content is overseas. You cannot bypass non artifical bottlenecks by downloading multiple streams of data concurrently. Those are facts (whether you expect it or not). In reality, we deal with facts and not waving our magic wands expecting everything to go as the Labor party will say it will go

HubertCumberdale wrote:

I haven't ignored anything, that's something that you are quite good at though ignoring the facts.

You have ignored all the evidence and said its "wrong" without even stating why. The only thing (from what you say is the coalitions handbook) that coalition have said explicitly (that I am saying) is that the NBN is a waste of money. Malcom Turnbill hasn't said anything about overseas content, neither did Steven Smith

What facts have you said, you haven't said any facts at all. The only 'fact' you said was about concurrent downloading, and that wasn't applicable (incorrect example, explain why, by myself, at least 2 times)

Edited by deteego: 19/9/2010 12:49:31 PM
HubertCumberdale
Sep 19, 2010 3:20 PM
Oh dear I seemed to have made deteegos head explode with rage again. I dont know why you are so down on the whole NBN plan anyway, saying it is a waste of monies and what not, it's obvious you fancy yourself as an expert on this subject and you think the ones putting it all together have just got it wrong so really this is a perfect opportunity for you to get a job on the NBN team and advise them.
deteego
Sep 19, 2010 4:47 PM
To be honest, I think almost anyone that is not a 90 year old grandma would be more knowledgeable then Stephen Conroy in Telecommunications and Internet (and he is the one who came up with the plan and is in charge of it too!)

(Hint: Its rare to find a politician that actually knows anything in the area his portfolio is in, especially on the Labor side, hell have a look at what happened in the recent shuffle, Peter Garrot head of schools? lolz)

One thing is for sure, Malcom Turnbill and Stephen Smith both know a lot more then Stephen Conroy in regards to this area

Edited by deteego: 19/9/2010 04:51:39 PM
Mike_Sadler
Sep 20, 2010 11:29 AM
@deteego

You said:

"You have ignored all the evidence and said its "wrong" without even stating why".

OK. Evidence eh? Where - exactly - is yours?

Let's take it a step at a time. Backhaul. Contention ratios. Speed.

How do you think ISP's dimension 'the network'? How do they decide how much bandwidth to allocate across any link? Why might the 'mix' of customers impact this? When is peak Internet usage (including OS)? Please provide some evidence (just one fact would be a start) to back up your claim(s).
KarL
Sep 20, 2010 12:22 PM
Soon as HubertCumberdale used Download Managers as his example, it revealed his ignorance.

People from Asia (like Hong Kong, China, etc) can tell you that if you are in the local country, accessing web casts, IPTVs, even www.youku.com and www.tudou.com are "lightning fast". If you are accessing them from Australia, forget it. Lucky if you can get more than 30-40kbps (in the middle of the night). Would someone explain this please? (No, not you deteego, your answer was "rejected" - LOL)

Local ISPs would cache OS contents if they are popular. Download Managers would use local servers etc.

One thing for sure is if NBN is implemented, all the Net filter, anti-piracy measure would be meaningless. It doesn't take rocket science for anyone to set up a Linux box with SSL and "privately share" files among peers as long as if you can get an IP addresses.
deteego
Sep 20, 2010 12:37 PM
Mike_Sadler wrote:
@deteego

You said:

"You have ignored all the evidence and said its "wrong" without even stating why".

OK. Evidence eh? Where - exactly - is yours?

Let's take it a step at a time. Backhaul. Contention ratios. Speed.

How do you think ISP's dimension 'the network'? How do they decide how much bandwidth to allocate across any link? Why might the 'mix' of customers impact this? When is peak Internet usage (including OS)? Please provide some evidence (just one fact would be a start) to back up your claim(s).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_in_Australia#International

I said this before, whenever content is downloaded from overseas, ISP's have to pay for it as congestion ratios. The more (or faster) the data that is downloaded from overseas, the more it costs for the ISP to pull that data from overseas. This is the reason why Australian ISP's have not had succesfull proper unlimited internet usage plans, because most of our content is overseas and it would cost a ridiculous amount of money for the ISP (this is for example the same reason why iiNet has a freezone which is completely uncapped, because downloading that data from within Australia is almost completely free). Then there is the second problem of the backhaul (which both plans are upgrading to Fibre)

You can see in the link that I posted earlier, those underground sea pipes have a limited amount of bandwith that they can hold. If everyone gets high speed internet, that bandwith will get even more congested then it is currently. For example, we only have two direct links to America (one goes through Hawaii and New Zealand, the other Fiji and Hawaii). Those 2 link has a max capacity of 430 gb/s each. Thats something for the whole of Australia to use if they are downloading content from America (as fast as is possible, since its as the crow flies and you only hit 2 countries on the way). So assuming people were going to download 100mbits speed data, from America, at the same time, doing your maths would mean that if you have 8600 such people downloading at the same time, both those pipes get capped out on bandwidth. Now we also have 2 Australia -> Japan cables, both having 320gb/s (which are often used as backup when the direct American cables get congested). So if we assume those get taken up as well (this means we now have 1500 gig/sec amount of data through 4 pipes), that can take up to 15000 people (downloading 100mbits) all at the same time (remember this is COMPLETELY ignoring businesses such as Google, or research institutions or other such corporations/businesses that would take massive amounts of data).

So as you can tell, its easily possible to get 15000 downloading off these locations at the same time (especially during peak). If they were to all downloading at 100mbit a second, then they would fill up the pipes. Now if they get capped to 10mbits a second, that brings the amount up to 150000 which is better (7.5% of our population). That of course is taking into account these people downloading at full stream (and this is where we are now in terms of capping). So obviously that means that ISP's have to do things like prioritize which data goes through which pipes (as well as capping). This means that they both cap how fast you can download off those major pipes, and prioritize downloads through other (slower pipes).

Therefore you either get a capped download from a (as the crow flies) pipe to your destination, or you get a slower download that goes through a pipe which goes from Australia -> some other country/s -> America (or whatever the final destination is) and you are not going to get a 100mbit download speed from such a pipe in the first place (or a combination of above). This perfectly explains why...

1. Japan is the only country (out of the other 3 with a major FTTH adoptions) that has an average internet speed of above 40 mbit a second (they have average speed of around 60-70 mbits). This is because Japan (like America) have a massive amount of content and server farms in their own country, so they don't have to download that much from overseas. That means its fast, and its cheap (and if they do have to download from America, they can go straight through the pacific)
2. South Korea (average speed of around 40 mbit a second), who have their own national kind of digital economy (their own facebook, etc etc with all servers in South Korea), but South Korea being in the location it is geographically, if it has to download from America or Japan it is quite far (Japan at least can go straight through to pacific to US West coast)

Other countries barely hit 20mbit a second with a decent FTTH adoption rate for the reasons above. Now the amount of internet content that is actually hosted on Australia servers is (compared to those other countries) is considered pathetic. This is nothing against Australia, its perfectly expected on a country with such a small population as ours on the other side of the world. It isn't economically viable for a lot of companies to set up server farms here when hardly any people (because of our small population) would use it, and unfortunately we aren't close to any other largely populated countries which could use those servers

So as you can clearly see, even with FTTH adoptions everywhere we won't be getting overseas speeds of more then 30mbit a second (and that is being REALLY generous), regardless if you download multiple streams of data. In such a case, ISP's wouldn't be even able to charge more to the consumer to increase that amount (as HubertCumberdale suggested) because the bandwidth on the underground sea cables would immediately get congested. The only way we could get higher speeds (to at least somewhat utilize that extra speed that the FTTH connection gave us) is to build more underground sea cables. With the way the things are going (in regards to NBN), people using FTTH wont notice much a speed difference between ADSL2+ for majority of internet browsing, we would need to install more submarine cables, and those things, are freaking expensive (I think in total its easily in the billions of dollars for all the cables that Australia built, at least).

Of course with data inside Australia its a different story, but now (and realistically even by the time the NBN is built), that data is only going to be with P2P type programs (torrents etc) and media streams of Australia channels/radio (and the odd large files that are stored on servers, such as steam downloads or Linux distributions).

Even now, with barely any people using FTTH, the few people that do have FTTH download at an absolute max of around 20-25mbits overseas, imagine what would happen if our whole population with FTTH started congesting those underground sea cables

Edited by deteego: 20/9/2010 09:39:36 PM
Maxxi2
Sep 20, 2010 4:55 PM
deteego, your comment would have had some validity if internet content and servcies delivery systems would all of a sudden stop developing today and stay as they are.

This will not happen.

As a FTTH infrastructure will have a lifespan of 30-50 years, it is logical that maximisation of the delivery systems will increase to the point where the already tested Gbps systems will be required.

If you do not believe that, then let us know why the 28.8kbps modems and delivery systems of 1995 are still not in operation today? By your logic, today's content and delivery systems will suddenly stop being enhanced?

Australia has more than enough international link capacity, it is far more a question of resource management and margin optimisation of those links that creates our costs.

We will see a significant rise in nationally based services delivery over open access IP networks moving forward, as these have always increased as the infrastructure and access sytems became available.

There is no logical, physical, commercial or technical reason for that to suddenly stop now.

There are only political reasons from those pollies that live in abject fear of a successful NBN and the timespan they will spend in the political wilderness (opposition) as a result of that.

Those that cannot or will not comprehend the extend of IP services growth across publicly accessed IP network infrastructure demonstrate clearly their own unwillingness or inability to understand the market and technology dynamics of this time and our future.
deteego
Sep 20, 2010 5:10 PM
Maxxi2 wrote:
deteego, your comment would have had some validity if internet content and servcies delivery systems would all of a sudden stop developing today and stay as they are.

This will not happen.

As a FTTH infrastructure will have a lifespan of 30-50 years, it is logical that maximisation of the delivery systems will increase to the point where the already tested Gbps systems will be required.

If you do not believe that, then let us know why the 28.8kbps modems and delivery systems of 1995 are still not in operation today? By your logic, today's content and delivery systems will suddenly stop being enhanced?

Australia has more than enough international link capacity, it is far more a question of resource management and margin optimisation of those links that creates our costs.

We will see a significant rise in nationally based services delivery over open access IP networks moving forward, as these have always increased as the infrastructure and access sytems became available.

There is no logical, physical, commercial or technical reason for that to suddenly stop now.

There are only political reasons from those pollies that live in abject fear of a successful NBN and the timespan they will spend in the political wilderness (opposition) as a result of that.

Those that cannot or will not comprehend the extend of IP services growth across publicly accessed IP network infrastructure demonstrate clearly their own unwillingness or inability to understand the market and technology dynamics of this time and our future.


You realize you didn't disprove anything I said. America was the hub for internet content 30 years ago, they are still now. Internet content will always be in the countries with the largest populations in amidst (other) countries with large populations. So unless you are suggesting that Australia will quadruple its size in 50 years and attach a couple of quantum rocket boosters to sail into America, that is not gonna happen

Furthermore, Copper can deliver 100mbit internet to the node and even furthermore, coalitions plan doesn't stop private companies from putting their own fibre onto their network (which would be financially feasible with a backhaul in place). with roughly the same cost to the consumer as NBN

Finally spending 48 billion dollars for something that will only be used in 30-50+ years is one of the dumbest ideas I have heard of (unless whatever you are building takes 30-50 years to build). We are dealing with internet here, not climate change (which is actually a national threat and does need to be acted upon now). If you are saying that the improved services of FTTH will only be used in 50+ years, why not BUILD it in 40 years (where technology would have come out which would most likely allow to deploy FTTH at the fraction of the cost that its being deployed for now).

There is no indication (whatsoever) that suddenly 95% of the internet will move into Australia in the next 20 or so years.

I mean if Conroy had half a brain and wanted Fibre everywhere, he could have done what Sweden did and just install Dark Fibre (which only costs ~10% of deploying live Fibre) and whenever a consumer wanted Fibre, they would use just connect Dark Fibre (so that 43 billion dollars will be in a span of 0->30 years instead of 0->12) and would mean the FTTH network would expand as Australia does. But naaaaaah, Labor government clearly knows what its doing

Edited by deteego: 20/9/2010 05:21:42 PM
anonymous
Sep 20, 2010 6:46 PM

@deteego, suggest you and some others learn to copy only the reference you want to comment on. At the moment you are stuffing up the thread with endless content and verbose responses.

@Maxxi2, you said "As FTTH infrastructure will have a lifespan of 30-50 years, it is logical that maximisation of the delivery systems will increase to the point where the already tested Gbps systems will be required...

Those that cannot or will not comprehend the extent of IP services growth... demonstrate clearly their own unwillingness or inability to understand the market and technology dynamics of this time and our future."

You have gone straight to the guts of the issue. All the moaners saying "dial-up speeds are good enough for me and so they must be good enough for everybody else for decades to come" simply, literally, don't know what they are talking about and should stick to their politics/shareholdings.
deteego
Sep 20, 2010 8:58 PM
anonymous wrote:

@deteego, suggest you and some others learn to copy only the reference you want to comment on. At the moment you are stuffing up the thread with endless content and verbose responses.

He asked for an explanation, he got it

Quote:
You have gone straight to the guts of the issue. All the moaners saying "dial-up speeds are good enough for me and so they must be good enough for everybody else for decades to come" simply, literally, don't know what they are talking about and should stick to their politics/shareholdings.


Contrary to what Maxxi2 said, there is nothing suggesting that any kind of digital economy is growing in Australia at such a rate to justify that expenditure (in my view it would honestly have to be something close to exponential at least, and thats not close to what is happening). More precisely, there is no rapid rate of increase at all to server content in Australia. In fact the only noticable increase has been in the area of digital TV (through vendors such as iiNet or TPG). If there is any significant growth in the digital economy, it is in the wireless sector, and FTTH does diddly squat in contributing to that sector. FTTH is not going to give a reason for digital economy to expand enough to justify its cost for numerous reasons stated earlier

Whether Maxxi2 realises or not, what he is saying is not indicative of reality at all (or what could possibly be reality). Playing the oracle with tax payers money doesn't have a good history, unless you have (almost) empirical evidence to show what is going to happen (and this isn't the case).

Edited by deteego: 20/9/2010 09:08:13 PM
Ace
Sep 21, 2010 2:57 AM
So in one breath you 'notice' that some providers are offering digital TV over the network today, but cannot fathom this growing to more than the current customers and using more bandwidth over the next 15 years? Interesting.

@deteego, I only have to look at the way you respect the download requirements of others with respect to your over-quoting, highly verbose answers to realise that even the NBN is going to struggle to cope with the size of this page ;)
deteego
Sep 21, 2010 9:16 AM
Even IF FTTH was actually required everywhere in 10 years (and thats a big IF)
Then
1. The private sector can do this as well!! (It was noted numerous times previously why they haven't been able to due to regulations and no actual backhaul)
2. Why not just install Dark Fibre everywhere instead of hooking everyones house up to Fibre. That would spread the cost of 48 billion in a span of 8 years to something like 20+ years (and would allow the private sector to capatilize if the NBN gets cancelled or scrapped for w/e reason). This is what Sweden did (European country with highest FTTH adoption rate). More importantly, its NO WORSE, then having Fibre installed everywhere. It just means that if a user wants Fibre, they get it installed at that time (instead of forcefully installing Fibre everywhere as soon as its available according to the NBN plan). Furthermore this would mean that the Dark Fibre would cover much more of Australia in a much shorter amount of time then Fibre installations, so if you are that rural person who has winged about not getting proper internet, you would have gotten Fibre earlier ;). (You could probably dark Fibre all of Australia in 3-4 years if the complete Fibre installations are meant to take ~8 years)

So even if you do actually believe that Fibre is required everywhere, Labor is doing quite a bad job at doing it

So w/e you look at it, Labor is doing a bad job

Edited by deteego: 21/9/2010 09:18:15 AM
johnpro2
Sep 21, 2010 9:40 AM
Mobile phone is net tool of choice
THE mobile phone, which not long ago was mainly for talking and texting, is now replacing the PC as the preferred way to surf the internet
johnpro2
Sep 21, 2010 9:45 AM
yes..high speed is excellent if targeted at a sustainable customer base ..expensive blanket cover for those who are unlikely to ever use the service is a rapid burn of taxpayers $$$$$$$.



Jp
Bazwalt
Sep 21, 2010 10:05 AM
Deteego said: "You are saying that everyone needs FTTH, this is a naive assumption at best, an ignorant statement at worst."

Actually, I never said that at all. My argument has, and always will be, that Fibre is the next best technology to suit the continued existence of reliable and fast fixed telecommunications that trumps that of wireless and copper. Reliability is my key argument and not speed.

I suggest that if you're going to participate in a debate that you should at least understand what your opponents argument is about.

"The case is even worse when most people will not even get those high speeds because 75%+ of the internet content that we receive is overseas (at the bare minimum, its probably closer to 90%)."

To some degree I can agree, however, there are more and more mirroring providers showing up in Australia that are mirroring international content locally within the country. The goal being to reduce the amount of transit travelling overseas and keeping it within the country. Further supporting the need for faster and reliable speeds within Australia.

Your failure to understand the growth of IP services within Australia is what continually lets you down. Your continued ignorance of the benefits of fibre besides speed is also what proves that you have no understanding of the scope what fibre has to offer.

"Furthermore for generic browser, you tell me if people will notice any difference between a web page (if it happens to be Australian) loading in 0.3 or so seconds vs 0.03 (FTTH will make no difference on overseas websites as stated previously)"

If that is your understanding of what the internet is than you have a long way to go. There is more to it than just web pages and emails and your argument makes me perceive you as nothing more than a Internet Luddite.

"Making generic arguments, such as "everyone needs X" is the first stop in showing that you are not realistic at all."

Don't recall ever saying that everyone needs FTTH - I simply refused to accept your case that copper is still a viable option and that wireless is suitable for everyones needs.

"Downloading data concurrently will not max the 100mbit bandwith on the Fibre (assuming its overseas) the bottleneck is through the ISP downloading the content from overseas. There is limit for the amount of data at a single time when downloading content from overseas, it doesn't make a difference if its one file or hundreds of files"

I wouldn't go as far as to say that maxing out a 25mbit connection is impossible on international transit...rather...it's difficult.

And this is something that providers understand which is why they are peering with local providers who mirror content to provide locally thus making it possible to max out that 25Mbit link.

Again, all of this is simply national IP service growth that is continually expanding given our countries isolation from the rest of the world.

"One thing is for sure, Malcom Turnbill and Stephen Smith both know a lot more then Stephen Conroy in regards to this area"

Apparently so do you. Perhaps Gillard should do a swap and put you in the portfolio.

"This isn't a bunch of lines from coalitions handbook, this is basic facts. Its even on the god damn wikipedia page"

The fact that you're referencing Wikipedia for your information is really sad.

"Of course with data inside Australia its a different story, but now (and realistically even by the time the NBN is built), that data is only going to be with P2P type programs (torrents etc) and media streams of Australia channels/radio (and the odd large files that are stored on servers, such as steam downloads or Linux distributions)."

Again, there's more to the internet than just P2P, HTTP, and POP/SMTP.
There are plenty of other data intensive applications that are perfectly suitable on a fibre based network. There lots of small businesses out there that generate a large quantity of traffic that could benefit from the NBN. Get your head out of the sand.

"Contrary to what Maxxi2 said, there is nothing suggesting that any kind of digital economy is growing in Australia at such a rate to justify that expenditure"

That's not to say that we shouldn't try and push for it. If Digital TV is an added benefit of the NBN than all that does is provide room for growth for other providers to tap into a market where there was otherwise none. If other providers jump on the bandwagon than that again provides a competitive market for other providers to participate. Just because it isn't happening doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't. We cry about not having a choice..and this is our answer. Just because you're satisfied doesn't mean the rest of the country is.

"Playing the oracle with tax payers money doesn't have a good history, unless you have (almost) empirical evidence to show what is going to happen (and this isn't the case)."

If you're not satisfied with the way the govt is spending your money, move somewhere else.

"There is no indication (whatsoever) that suddenly 95% of the internet will move into Australia in the next 20 or so years."

There'e also no indication it wont. There IS strong indication that copper WILL degrade to a point where it's unusable. It's already a high maintenance asset and it's commonly believed that we need to rid ourselves of copper and replace it with a reliable asset to last us well into the future.

The problem is that when it comes to Technology... NONE of us know where we will be and when which is why all we can do is prepare for the future and progress as the technology is made available.

In all honesty, it wouldn't affect me if the NBN completed and the speeds were simply rate limited to 8Mbit. The key goal is reliability. If 1Gbps speeds are required later on...so be it.
Bazwalt
Sep 21, 2010 10:10 AM
"Mobile phone is net tool of choice
THE mobile phone, which not long ago was mainly for talking and texting, is now replacing the PC as the preferred way to surf the internet"

And your supporting evidence of this statement is where...?
Ace
Sep 21, 2010 11:26 AM
Presumably his mate Trevor, who bought a smart-phone last week.
deteego
Sep 21, 2010 12:06 PM
@Bazwalt im not going to reply to half of your statements because what I said wasn't aimed at you

Quote:
"Mobile phone is net tool of choice
THE mobile phone, which not long ago was mainly for talking and texting, is now replacing the PC as the preferred way to surf the internet"

And your supporting evidence of this statement is where...?


Our major telcos all upgrading wireless and 3G connectivity for one (and the ABA if you have a look). Thats a start (you can also look at many European countries, such as Russia). If you look at infrastructure upgrades of Telco's around the world, you will see that most are expending in wireless (4G now, and also LTE) at the expense of fixed line services

Quote:
Again, there's more to the internet than just P2P, HTTP, and POP/SMTP.
There are plenty of other data intensive applications that are perfectly suitable on a fibre based network. There lots of small businesses out there that generate a large quantity of traffic that could benefit from the NBN. Get your head out of the sand.

Lots of those small buisnesses would also be able to get Fibre under the coalitions plan as well (or even a national Dark Fibre plan). My statements was in context with general users, buisness's (under either plan) would get Fibre with an affordable price, and both plans have a FTTN backhaul

Quote:
I wouldn't go as far as to say that maxing out a 25mbit connection is impossible on international transit...rather...it's difficult.

If by difficult you mean there has to be less then 0.75% of Australians streaming the net at one time (to get that 100mbits) then sure...

Quote:

Don't recall ever saying that everyone needs FTTH - I simply refused to accept your case that copper is still a viable option and that wireless is suitable for everyones needs.

You didn't say it, other people did (or implied it)

There is nothing wrong with using copper (until the infrustructure runs out) and then replacing it with Fibre. Putting Fibre when replacing infrastructure that is past its use by date is not a dumb idea, putting Fibre everywhere when there is still copper that is perfectly usable (such as the majority of the population living in city areas) is a waste, especially with the majority of the population not even needing to use that extra bandwith (remember, the issue people have with Labor is they are doing NBN badly)

Quote:
That's not to say that we shouldn't try and push for it. If Digital TV is an added benefit of the NBN than all that does is provide room for growth for other providers to tap into a market where there was otherwise none. If other providers jump on the bandwagon than that again provides a competitive market for other providers to participate. Just because it isn't happening doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't. We cry about not having a choice..and this is our answer. Just because you're satisfied doesn't mean the rest of the country is.

We do have digital TV, its being broadcast by air, thats how the majority of the population watches it (furthermore the number of these DigitalTV channels has increased substantially in the past few years, it basically almost doubled). High Definition Digital TV through internet is a niche market currently (in other words very few people actually use it/need it). In Japan its a different story because (again) they have a ridiculous population intensity, so their spectrum would get killed if they needed to broadcast digital TV to everyone in the populous. Digital TV through internet will most likely stay a niche market in the future (and those that want it, again, can get Fibre themselves)

Quote:
To some degree I can agree, however, there are more and more mirroring providers showing up in Australia that are mirroring international content locally within the country. The goal being to reduce the amount of transit travelling overseas and keeping it within the country. Further supporting the need for faster and reliable speeds within Australia.

This is not true...(or provide evidence saying otherwise). Also its not just file mirrors, its gaming servers (we still only really have gaming servers for steam on games that are server side, not even Blizzard has servers located in Australia for WoW), and cloud computing (almost all cloud computing is in America/Europe/Japan)

Quote:
If that is your understanding of what the internet is than you have a long way to go. There is more to it than just web pages and emails and your argument makes me perceive you as nothing more than a Internet Luddite.

There is a thing called context, take note of it when you reply to my statements, never mentioned thats the only way internet could be used (I said in that situation it wouldn't make a difference). It is still however, how the majority of population uses the internet

Quote:
Again, there's more to the internet than just P2P, HTTP, and POP/SMTP.
There are plenty of other data intensive applications that are perfectly suitable on a fibre based network. There lots of small businesses out there that generate a large quantity of traffic that could benefit from the NBN. Get your head out of the sand.

And again, this is a minority.

BTW: if you still haven't realised it. A lot of arguments on the people that support the coalitions plan don't say we don't need Fibre at all, they say that currently we don't need the whole population using Fibre, and implementing a worldwide FTTH scheme is just going to generate waste for (little) benefit for at least the next decade after completion. As I said earlier (and this is being conveniently ignored by anyone supporting the NBN, I wonder why?), if Labor really wanted to do a worldwide FTTH scheme well, they would do it with Dark Fibre (spreading the cost of 43 billion over 20 or so years, if not more). Malcom Turnbill, with a very correct analogy, said the exact same thing happened with Underground Sea cables that were laid out in the 90's. Since the (rest) of Australia up until 5 years didn't even 'high' speed internet, the cables were hardly even used to the capacity they added. This means those cables generated debt (which some of ISP's have to pay for now, which is one of the reasons that our data limits on ISP plans have been so horrible up until lately). Long story short, we actually end up suffering because of the waste. There isn't a giant pot of gold that we can take as much money as possible, if there is waste, it has to be payed for, and its payed for in the area that generated the waste (in this case Internet).

Edited by deteego: 21/9/2010 12:09:16 PM
Bazwalt
Sep 21, 2010 3:47 PM
Deteego said: "If you look at infrastructure upgrades of Telco's around the world, you will see that most are expending in wireless (4G now, and also LTE) at the expense of fixed line services"

All that indicates is that the providers are adjusting with the cellular market to ensure that their products are still capable of providing quality service. If they didn't keep up their business would surely stagnate.
It certainly doesn't indicate that the a change in preference of fixed line vs wireless.

"Lots of those small buisnesses would also be able to get Fibre under the coalitions plan as well (or even a national Dark Fibre plan)."

Wrong. Coalitions *current* plan is to reuse old technology to bandaid the the network. And Dark Fibre you say? I would love to see ANY small business that can afford a Dark Fibre run. Larger companies? Probably, but not small businesses.

"If by difficult you mean there has to be less then 0.75% of Australians streaming the net at one time (to get that 100mbits) then sure..."

You must be on a RIM...

"You didn't say it, other people did (or implied it)"

Well your words targeted me directly so... *shrugs*

"There is nothing wrong with using copper (until the infrustructure runs out) and then replacing it with Fibre. Putting Fibre when replacing infrastructure that is past its use by date is not a dumb idea, putting Fibre everywhere when there is still copper that is perfectly usable"

You just put put contradictory statements together. Well done. Wish I was cool.

"We do have digital TV, its being broadcast by air, thats how the majority of the population watches it"

1) Another opinion of yours. Not saying you're wrong...but I'd love to see evidence to support your argument. 2) Ditching "Free to Air" in favour of IP Based Digital TV will be the preference in the future. Not fact, but it's a growing trend. For obvious reasons (if you have any kind of intellect). I won't bother pitching any features.

"This is not true...(or provide evidence saying otherwise). Also its not just file mirrors, its gaming servers (we still only really have gaming servers for steam on games that are server side, not even Blizzard has servers located in Australia for WoW), and cloud computing (almost all cloud computing is in America/Europe/Japan)"

This is a subject I will avoid. Gaming is completely different thing and it has its place.
There are far more important things in this world that trump gaming servers.

I am a gamer, but im more concerned about the small businesses in this country.

"There is a thing called context, take note of it when you reply to my statements, never mentioned thats the only way internet could be used (I said in that situation it wouldn't make a difference). It is still however, how the majority of population uses the internet"

Of course. Just because the majority of the population uses HTTP and SMTP does not in any way disprove that the doesn't meet our present and future demands.

Speed is not the pinnacle of our problems. Reliablity is. Like I mentioned in my last caase. Sure, 93% (or whatever number you quoted) of Australia PROBABLY doesn't need 1Gbps or 100Mbps. BUT, We do need a infrastructure that can reach those of Australia that cannot get a connection. We DO need a reliable network that can future-proof the country.

The govt can keep or restrict internet speeds to 25Mbit on a Fibre-based infrastructure. Then, as the market grows and a higher demand arrives they can bump the speeds as necessary.

Is this not making sense to you? Can you not get past the speed thing for a second and realise the stability the NBN can provide and growth it will be able to support in the future?

deteego
Sep 21, 2010 5:30 PM
Bazwalt wrote:

All that indicates is that the providers are adjusting with the cellular market to ensure that their products are still capable of providing quality service. If they didn't keep up their business would surely stagnate.
It certainly doesn't indicate that the a change in preference of fixed line vs wireless.


And its growing like that for a reason, more people are using wireless devices then 10 years ago (there is even more evidence, google helps!, I would like to point it out here but then people rage at me for providing evidence)

Bazwalt wrote:

Wrong. Coalitions *current* plan is to reuse old technology to bandaid the the network. And Dark Fibre you say? I would love to see ANY small business that can afford a Dark Fibre run. Larger companies? Probably, but not small businesses.

I think you have an issue understanding what I have said in regards to Dark Fibre. The point is, the NBN would place Dark Fibre everywhere (which would be owned by the government) and then install the Dark Fibre when a customer asks for it (paying the ~$4000 or the w/e rest of the cost is) at the time of the installation. I only said private buisness would only be granted access to the Dark Fibre if NBN gets shut down. The cost will still be the same, its just being installed at a later time. (again reading comprehension helps here). All this does is create a 'buffer', where if the NBN fails, the government only spent around 10% of the then it would have currently. If Fibre ends up being massively successful, then there is no difference (probably a slight overhead)

Bazwalt wrote:
"If by difficult you mean there has o be less then 0.75% of Australians streaming the net at one time (to get that 100mbits) then sure..."

You must be on a RIM...


Maybe you should read that apparent 'long' essay I wrote, and have a look at how much bandwith we can download from overseas

Bazwalt wrote:

You just put put contradictory statements together. Well done. Wish I was cool.

Nothing contradictory about them, the majority of copper in Australia is in good condition. The copper my house uses for ADSL2+ is in fine condition,as is a lot of other peoples (obviously people in rural Australia have it different, but thats not everyone)

Bazwalt wrote:

1) Another opinion of yours. Not saying you're wrong...but I'd love to see evidence to support your argument. 2) Ditching "Free to Air" in favour of IP Based Digital TV will be the preference in the future. Not fact, but it's a growing trend. For obvious reasons (if you have any kind of intellect). I won't bother pitching any features.

Have a look at the amount of figures of people using Internet TV set top boxes (Hint: its really low). Remember I am talking about HD streaming, since ADSL2+ is fine for any kind of other streaming

Bazwalt wrote:

This is a subject I will avoid. Gaming is completely different thing and it has its place.
There are far more important things in this world that trump gaming servers.


I am a gamer, but im more concerned about the small businesses in this country.

You are completely missing the relevance of the topic (and gaming, is an industry, its a buisness, believe it or not). The point is, if major companies with plenty of funds for infrustructure (microsoft, yahoo, google, blizzard, apple etc etc) are not setting their data centers in Australia, then there is a good reason why. Gaming moreso then other industries actually require latency free high bandwith servers, gaming on overseas servers is a pain (especially for any latency prone games such as FPS). Reading gmail on overseas servers isn't that much of an issue, playing games is. This means there is an even stronger demand for gaming servers to be located in Australia (which explains why we have steam servers for FPS games, yet we don't even have any significant cloud computing networks in Australia). The same reason Australia will always be in this position (in regards to internet content) is the same reason why any sane Australian company would not build a massive grocery outlet (for examle) in the middle of the desert, where barely anyone lives. Barely no one lives there, and the people in the major cities aren't going to go to the middle of Australia to buy groceries from that store (instead they will use the one in their local area). Its basic common sense, companies see no reason to set up such servers in Australia when Australians can get decent enough speed from halfway across the world (honestly 24mbit is not that bad)

You can't just ignore an example because it doesn't suit you

Bazwalt wrote:

Of course. Just because the majority of the population uses HTTP and SMTP does not in any way disprove that the doesn't meet our present and future demands.

No it proves there is no significant demand for such internet to warrant the cost in NBN

Bazwalt wrote:

Speed is not the pinnacle of our problems. Reliablity is. Like I mentioned in my last caase. Sure, 93% (or whatever number you quoted) of Australia PROBABLY doesn't need 1Gbps or 100Mbps. BUT, We do need a infrastructure that can reach those of Australia that cannot get a connection. We DO need a reliable network that can future-proof the country.

Unfortunately incompetence by the government implementing the plan would probably kill any reliability it could have provided. Also speed is the only defense that Conroy is touting about in defending his NBN (like personally insulting Turnbill saying that he uses dialup)

Quote:

The govt can keep or restrict internet speeds to 25Mbit on a Fibre-based infrastructure. Then, as the market grows and a higher demand arrives they can bump the speeds as necessary.

The market (this being the digital economy) will end up growing slower if NBN creates a massive debt, because that market will have to pay for it (indirectly or indirectly) and that extra bandwith supplied by NBN isn't even going to be used by a non trivial amount

Bazwalt wrote:
Is this not making sense to you? Can you not get past the speed thing for a second and realise the stability the NBN can provide and growth it will be able to support in the future?


Is this not making sense to you? Building a nationwide FTTH network in the next 10 years is a waste. It will create deficit. This will slow down the market more (in the area its supposed to be stimulating), or it will slow then other sectors (just as bad). There are plenty of ways to provide a reliable network in a competent way, Labor is doing about everything it can in an incompetent way regarding the NBN. I gather you don't care about speed, but thats about the only positive thing that FTTH will bring (in regards to it being installed the way it is). Its only going to be provide a more 'reliable' service to the extreme minority of people (i.e. the people in outreach locations). Just like a Ferrari, all it brings is speed. A normal car will do everything else a Ferrari needs to do (and obviously a new Ferrari is more reliable then a run down car that hasn't been repaired)

BTW: Could you define what you mean by reliable? Its definitely not speed, and a (good) copper connection is just as reliable as an Optic Fibre connection (albeit slower). I don't think anyone (apart from the few unfortunate people in rural areas) would say their current wired internet is 'unreliable' at all if they have a proper copper connection. I desync about once a month, thats pretty damn reliable in my opinion. In fact if anything, Labor is creating greater unreliability (not technological unreliability, but political/market one) by creating a monopoly, selling it to a private company, wasting the money of all the private companies that have already bought Optic networks (such as TPG just acquiring PIPE) among other things.

Edited by deteego: 21/9/2010 06:09:37 PM
Bazwalt
Sep 21, 2010 7:50 PM
"And its growing like that for a reason, more people are using wireless devices then 10 years ago (there is even more evidence, google helps!, I would like to point it out here but then people rage at me for providing evidence)"

Of course, as the devices evolve and people become more accustomed to the convenience of a mobile device you will see a growth. But not because people prefer it over a fixed service.

"Maybe you should read that apparent 'long' essay I wrote, and have a look at how much bandwith we can download from overseas"

The bandwidth overseas has nothing to do with it. You can easily max out a connection whether it be nationally or internationally. If you can't than you're doing it wrong.

"Nothing contradictory about them, the majority of copper in Australia is in good condition. The copper my house uses for ADSL2+ is in fine condition,as is a lot of other peoples (obviously people in rural Australia have it different, but thats not everyone)"

Re-read your statement from before and then confirm for me if you miss the screaming contradiction within it. I had a few of my colleagues clarify for me whether I was seeing things :P

"Have a look at the amount of figures of people using Internet TV set top boxes (Hint: its really low)"

Of course it is. It's a new and barely touched market within Australia. Doesn't mean it doesn't have potential growth. Once you show people the benefits of digital tv via fixed service rather than free-to-air than I guarantee there will be a burst.

"You can't just ignore an example because it doesn't suit you"

I can and I did. But if you must know, I chose to ignore it because when it comes to gaming debates I just grow tired of it.

But, since you seem to want to press on the matter I actually agree with you. Any sane company would never setup shop here because Australia is a terrible place to put gaming servers. The speed does suck, our international transit isn't exactly "exciting", and there really just isn't any incentive to come here.

The NBN could fix this. I say could because I don't have enough expertise to really give any real insight further into the matter.

"No it proves there is no significant demand for such internet to warrant the cost in NBN"

Another statement without any actual evidence to support it. I'll take it as your own opinion.

"Unfortunately incompetence by the government implementing the plan would probably kill any reliability it could have provided. Also speed is the only defense that Conroy is touting about in defending his NBN (like personally insulting Turnbill saying that he uses dialup)"

Well, whether you like it or not, the NBN is going ahead and with Fibre comes reliability so incompetence really has nothing to do with it now. I really don't see the govt being able to screw up so much that they can render a technology completely useless.

What Conroy does or does not like to tout around is pretty irrelevent. Anyone with significant experience in the area knows that speed isn't the only thing fibre is good for :)

"The market (this being the digital economy) will end up growing slower if NBN creates a massive debt, because that market will have to pay for it (indirectly or indirectly) and that extra bandwith supplied by NBN isn't even going to be used by a non trivial amount"

Guess this is one of those situations where we "wait and see". I can't say that your right or wrong because in all honesty it could go both ways.

"Is this not making sense to you? Building a nationwide FTTH network in the next 10 years is a waste. It will create deficit."

In your opinion.

"This will slow down the market more (in the area its supposed to be stimulating), or it will slow then other sectors (just as bad)."

The market is already stagnating mate. Lol. Can't get much worse.

" There are plenty of ways to provide a reliable network in a competent way, Labor is doing about everything it can in an incompetent way regarding the NBN."

In your opinion. But please, if you have something far greater that has potential than please let us all in.

"I gather you don't care about speed, but thats about the only positive thing that FTTH will bring (in regards to it being installed the way it is)."

Wrong. The aroma of your ignorance is really setting in.

" Its only going to be provide a more 'reliable' service to the extreme minority of people (i.e. the people in outreach locations)."

Wrong. There are plenty of homes across Australia that are connected to poor distribution mains that now sit on a CNI (Customer Network Improvement) queue because the cables are too badly damaged. There are also countless homes affected everyday by poor pits that let moisture in, crosstalk, copper degradation, lack of ports, and the list goes on. For you to even make that statement is borderline madness.

But what irks me the most is "a (good) copper connection is just as reliable as an Optic Fibre connection (albeit slower)."

That sir, takes the cake, hell...that's a home run for you. Your ignorance has become so overwhelming that I really cannot stand you anymore. This is my cue to leave you simmering in your own demise. I feel sorry for Australia to have you in it.

johnpro2
Sep 21, 2010 9:58 PM
@Bazwalt
Mobile phone is net tool of choice.

And your supporting evidence of this statement is where...?

******
With Google it is ever so hard to plagiarize...I should have ack source ..next time maybe..

Jp

johnpro2
Sep 21, 2010 10:05 PM
@Bazwalt The fact that you're referencing Wikipedia for your information is really sad.

****
Feel free to correct it then. Peer review stuff is the best way to keep folk honest.

Jp
deteego
Sep 21, 2010 10:32 PM
Only thing worth quoting

Quote:
Wrong. There are plenty of homes across Australia that are connected to poor distribution mains that now sit on a CNI (Customer Network Improvement) queue because the cables are too badly damaged. There are also countless homes affected everyday by poor pits that let moisture in, crosstalk, copper degradation, lack of ports, and the list goes on. For you to even make that statement is borderline madness.


Where is YOUR evidence that is anything but a minority. It seems you have some vendetta against copper (even though its the most widely used type of infrastructure for internet, especially in European countries and America)

Are are you saying that we are all behind and ignorant?

Edited by deteego: 21/9/2010 10:34:19 PM
Mike_Sadler
Sep 22, 2010 2:09 AM
@deteego

You said:

"Are are you saying that we are all behind and ignorant?"

Nah deteego - just you.

I said we should take it one step at a time - you really wasted a lot of your own time going into such 'detail' for little old me and you still provided not one shred of evidence for everything you claimed.

I did call you 'dangerously stupid' once; I regret I was not aware you were also delusional.

Baby steps. For starters, your numbers are all, well, wrong. Apart from the Wikipedia link being dated, you weren't aware that Pipe's PPC-1 was around 2 Tbps? That Pacnet's new 5Gbps link to the US will be here in 2013 timeframe? They're claiming 80% price reductions on today's rates BTW, so that 'ISP's can afford to buy much more'; such generous souls they are! See: http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/354826/pacnet_new_australia-us_fibre_link_bigger_than_nbn/

Now, please remember, it was YOU who referred to Southern Cross first.

Check out:
http://www.southerncrosscables.com/public/home/whatsnewdetail.cfm?WhatsNewID=69

...and other sections of the SX site. Spend a bit of time getting to know it. BTW, in 1999-2000 when we were setting up Southern Cross the plan was for up to 120Gbps(eventually) assuming it was required. By 2003, the owners decided to go with newer gear to 240Gbps. It now looks likely the next upgrade could be straight to 100 Gbps fibre technology (instead of 40Gbps) so that'd be well over 10Tbps (protected) capacity. The upgrade history for most submarine fibre has followed a similar path, which as a side-bar, makes me wonder just why you think demand will stagnate at this convenient point in history? It was increasing on a yearly basis before Malcolm stumped up the dough to buy into Southern Cross, it certainly helped the sale of OzEmail to MCI which netted him $62.5M (cash - not stock) and then MCI (now Verizon) and OzEmail (now iiNet) made quite a few bucks out of that original tenancy on SX.

Meanwhile, I'm sure Malcolm isn't still using that 33.6 Kbps dialup modem I installed in his office back in the '90's, so obviously HIS needs have certainly increased (in more ways than one).

Southern Cross currently has a (protected) capacity of 430 Gbit/s, of which only 295 Gbps is in use. They have also announced a 44% (or better) drop in prices. Doesn't much sound like a pipe that's chockers to me. Southern Cross hasn't ever been, to my knowledge, 'full'. You see, if it ever got close, you'd just stop taking wholesale customer orders and favour (higher value) retail ones. At least that's what we did back then with our 10% of SX. We didn't need to saturate the link and they don't now... I think only 3% of SX is on 'best efforts' (not/can't be protected).

For all your claims and counter claims, you have no idea. No credability. You are wrong. How would I know? Well I've been in the (Internet) game for 20 years. You are... a Uni student? I've actually done all these things you claim to understand and patently don't.

My job was, apart from other things, dimensioning, predicting, adjusting capacity at OzEmail. I was across the capacity of all networks assets for all of my 11.5 years at there. Sometimes it was my direct responsibility and my predictive model had a <2% error rate. Sometimes I was developing new products (reckon we might have studied latency when we did VoIP - commercially - in 1999?) so network capability was important to me. After OzEmail, I was Verizon's local loop PM for ASPAC... I rarely looked at capacity because we had plenty spare. I now work for a vendor selling IP networking kit back into Telco. No one contemplates running any part of their link in a saturated state.

You have absolutely no clue about how dimensioning is done, how contention is calculated, how products are finessed to maximise the margin from network, nothing. That folk don't 'want' to access content from Australian websites will be news to the data centre operators who keep filling up their space, despite machine sizes plummeting in the last 10 years. Its not even about bandwidth in those web farms anymore, it power these days.

Do you just make this all up, or are you getting it from somewhere (bad)? You are just so totally full of it I couldn't begin to pick apart your nonsense... there's barely a single remotely accurate statement in anything you've said, ever, that one can use as the basis for discussion. You are, seriously the worst poster to a message board I've encountered in over 20 years. I don't hide my identity, but nor do I usually make a song and dance about it. This is the first time in 20 odd years I've decided to point out my bona fides, because you must be exposed as the sort of IT Walter Mitty. Intriguing. Please respond dweeb, but have some facts ready... cite some references, heck include a URL or two to something supporting your outlandish claims. You could start with the predicted life of the copper CAN, with some references to your 'facts'. Nah? Thought so. You're all 'tip' and no 'iceberg'. Just piss off then.
PS: Please quit Uni! For the sake of the country. I'm serious.
Bazwalt
Sep 22, 2010 9:29 AM
"Where is YOUR evidence that is anything but a minority. It seems you have some vendetta against copper (even though its the most widely used type of infrastructure for internet, especially in European countries and America)

Are are you saying that we are all behind and ignorant?"

If you really wanted to I could call virtually every ISP and/or Telstra and ask their Field Techs what their most common callout types are and I would guarantee you that nearly every one of their cases would be one of the above issues that I mentioned.

BUT, if you actually knew what you were talking about than you would would know that if copper is exposed long enough to the elements it will degrade. Also, if you knew enough about cabling you would know that copper (without adequate shielding) will indeed experience crosstalk.

So the technology itself is proof enough. Add to that, the fact that you mention that it's the most widely used type of infrastructure and OMG would you look at that...you have a country full of copper that is or will degrade.

I'm simply pointing out that you are both backwards and ignorant. You cannot sit there and tell me that Copper is just as reliable as Optic Fibre when the 2 technologies are totally different. Not to mention that on top of that you have a country full of degrading copper. Go back to school and learn your science.
deteego
Sep 22, 2010 9:40 AM
Bazwalt wrote:
So the technology itself is proof enough. Add to that, the fact that you mention that it's the most widely used type of infrastructure and OMG would you look at that...you have a country full of copper that is or will degrade.

I'm simply pointing out that you are both backwards and ignorant. You cannot sit there and tell me that Copper is just as reliable as Optic Fibre when the 2 technologies are totally different. Not to mention that on top of that you have a country full of degrading copper. Go back to school and learn your science.


And that happens over decades.This means you install the Fibre once the copper degrades to a point where its not usable. You still havent explained how copper is still the majority (hell I can say even >90%) of cabling using for wired internet in developed countries. You have no proof that suddenly all the copper in this country will suddenly go kaput on itself in 8 years. The same copper has been used in various places for hundreds of years.

I know copper degrades (a lot of this can be prevented with indirect/direct measures btw), but copper that ISN'T degraded is still perfectly usable and the MAJORITY of copper in Australia is not degraded. We literally have ~20 million people using copper, Telstra does have problems with people calling up on Copper degradation issues, a lot of those problems come from people that live in more rural areas and a lot of those issues are also non copper related

Also if copper had the same insulation as Fibre, it wouldn't degrade at all. The only reason that Fibre doesn't degrade as much as copper does is because its insulated much better then copper, and is often below ground. If you knew anything about science, you would know that. Copper itself, as an element, can last hundreds and thousands of years before fully degrading. Its because a lot of copper is distributed cheaply with less insulation

I never said copper doesn't degrade, your making an assumption that like half of our population is using unusable copper that drops our internet out every 5 minutes. It honestly seems like you have some personal issues with internet due to copper, and assume that almost every Australian has this problem

I laughed for example when Stephen Conroy said that copper is pointless because for example, in Armidale, the copper networks get hit by lightning all the time. Probably never occurred to him that is what you have lightning rods for, or other various measures to protect copper against the elements. Or you could just build the copper underground in the first place (pretty sure if you put Fibre up there as well, it would receive the same issues)

And Fibre does have reliability issues as well. Fibre can get Fibre Fused (essentially destroying the Fibre cabling as well as the core) and is vulnerable to certain types of radiation (alpha beta)

Edited by deteego: 22/9/2010 09:54:52 AM
Sir Lancalot
Sep 22, 2010 10:13 AM
Hehe if copper was so great, why don't they use it for back-haul?? Sure we can run a bundle of 0.64mm (Above standard) insulated copper cable between each exchange via a rim/booster every 4-6kms OR we could run a fiber cable? Perhaps two for redundancy?

Plus why do you think they install Rims? Rim's are there for a reason... not just to save money. Rim + 4km fibre to exchange + 2kms of copper = 2kms of Loss ~10MBPS. Far greater then 6kms of straight copper = ~1-2MBPS or possible fail + dropouts.
Bazwalt
Sep 22, 2010 10:13 AM
"And that happens over decades.This means you install the Fibre once the copper degrades to a point where its not usable."

It's already pretty much at that point. Sure there are some areas that have fresh runs but most areas have just been patched up.

" You have no proof that suddenly all the copper in this country will suddenly go kaput on itself in 8 years."

Im not saying it will all just go kaput. I'm saying that a majority of areas are just patched up. Why continue spending money to patch up areas when you can invest in a longer lasting resilient infrastructure. Fibre will most likely cut maintenance costs in half. Allowing more money to be spent in end to end upgrades.

"the MAJORITY of copper in Australia is not degraded."
So now you are an expert on the status of the copper infrastructure? Do you have some evidence to support this? A collective survey from ISP to ISP would prove your statement wrong.

"Telstra does have problems with people calling up on Copper degradation issues, a lot of those problems come from people that live in more rural areas and a lot of those issues are also non copper related"

You obviously don't live in the city. The city suffers quite a severe amount of copper degradation. It doesn't magically just stop once you leave the city limits. The copper degradation would you fairly equal no matter where you go. The only other issue they would have is lack of ports.

"Also if copper had the same insulation as Fibre, it wouldn't degrade at all. The only reason that Fibre doesn't degrade as much as copper does is because its insulated much better then copper, and is often below ground."

Ummm dude, Fibre is glass and plastic. That's why it doesn't degrade. Do you know anything about fibre at all? Above ground or below ground it doesnt matter...the fibre won't degrade. If YOU knew anything about science.

Also, just an FYI. You will find that alot of copper is also mixed Aluminium so..That blows your whole "Copper itself, as an element, can last hundreds and thousands of years before fully degrading." out of the water.

"your making an assumption that like half of our population is using unusable copper that drops our internet out every 5 minutes."

True, but it's heavily supported by both my experience in the industry as well as evidence that could be obtained from the general public as well as ISPs and people who work in the field day to day.

"It honestly seems like you have some personal issues with internet due to copper, and assume that almost every Australian has this problem"

I have an issue with you making baseless statements that have no supporting evidence to disprove why the NBN shouldn't go ahead.

"I laughed for example when Stephen Conroy said that copper is pointless because for example, in Armidale, the copper networks get hit by lightning all the time. Probably never occurred to him that is what you have lightning rods for, or other various measures to protect copper against the elements. Or you could just build the copper underground in the first place (pretty sure if you put Fibre up there as well, it would receive the same issues)"

Lolwut....dude...Fibre is glass...it doesn't conduct electricity. At best, a lightening strike would melt the above ground fibre. However the chance of that occurring is astronomical. Regardless, a majority of the fibre will be unground anyways.

Really mate, Go back and learn some science and while you at it gather some evidence to support your statements. I will happily rethink my stance if you can disprove me with better evidence but I don't forsee that happening any time soon.
johnpro2
Sep 22, 2010 1:07 PM
@bazwaltno supporting evidence to disprove why the NBN shouldn't go ahead.

Technically, of course fibre cable is superior to wireless and copper alloys.

It is more an economic argument than one about superior technology ..

With little study done on the likely take up rate ...the initial Tasmanian experience is not looking good so far.
Jp
Bitto
Sep 22, 2010 1:11 PM
@deteego: you wrote:
Yes wireless does drop out, but if you have a properly built network that becomes a rarity (assuming you don't have massive population densities, which Australia and Russia don't). Obviously wireless is going to be more faulty then wired, bot how much that 'faultiness' is directly correlates to how well built the network is.

As I said earlier, most people don't mind if the wireless drops out a couple of times during the course of using it in a day and most people accept that drop in reliability for mobility. At my uni (which HAS a properly built wireless network) the dropouts are incredibly rare



mate ive for some time been reading these forums about the NBN and normally you have some ok things you say, but this one, mate PLEASE!!!!

Ok from the start, i work for a wireless and comms company!! we focus in microwave technology, radio etc, i see the both extremes. we work for the mines, out in the middle of no where!!!!

now why do they use wireless, price is one thing, but also they aint aloud to rip up old mates farmer Joe's back yard!! so no choice, but you know what, if they could, wired would be their choice!! why, RELIABILITY!!! what is the use of a network if it isnt available to be used??

also lets go the other side, into the city and suburbs. this estate my partner lives in is approx. 10 yrs old, and at that point telstra was being cheap and doing pair gain expansions in their exchanges. now 10 yrs on lets look at the effect of that choice of cost cutting 10yrs ago......
the entire area cannot get ADSL!!! or any wired services, except land line. Mobile phones work like tits on a bull there as well. ie they dont work!!, im with optus and on GSM (OLD technolohy!!!) im lucky to get 1 or 2 bars of service!! and telstra 1 or 2 bars or 3g. now as for internet.
telstra says "yes you can get it, but only wireless" so i ask will it work??
"ohhh ofcourse it will, here at telstra we have a coverage area of 97% of Aust."
HAHAHAHAHAHA here in the suburbs, wireless internet WILL NOT WORK!!!! DROP OUTS my friend!!!
it drops out like no tomorrow!!!
it is pretty much unseable!!!

so here we stand with a choice of wireless or wired. lets forget everything else about them, ie speed and cost!!
and lets ask yourselves, (now come-on everyone, as you read this!!!)
what is the better choice?? what has more pros to it??(cause everything has pros and cons) what is more reliable?? do we want to spend $x on a network that is only sometimes, some areas, useable?? or a network, that will connect the whole of Aust. and will have a reliability of 99%(excluding ISP issues etc) but the media itself, will be 99% reliable.

So now that the question firing has finished, whats the answer??
for me, wired. what about you??


deteego
Sep 22, 2010 1:14 PM
Sir Lancalot wrote:
Hehe if copper was so great, why don't they use it for back-haul?? Sure we can run a bundle of 0.64mm (Above standard) insulated copper cable between each exchange via a rim/booster every 4-6kms OR we could run a fiber cable? Perhaps two for redundancy?

Plus why do you think they install Rims? Rim's are there for a reason... not just to save money. Rim + 4km fibre to exchange + 2kms of copper = 2kms of Loss ~10MBPS. Far greater then 6kms of straight copper = ~1-2MBPS or possible fail + dropouts.


I recommend you read the conversation before jumping in

We are talking about how reliable copper is, not how much bandwith it can take. Its a well known fact that copper can send less information, thats not even what the argument is about

Quote:
You obviously don't live in the city. The city suffers quite a severe amount of copper degradation. It doesn't magically just stop once you leave the city limits. The copper degradation would you fairly equal no matter where you go. The only other issue they would have is lack of ports.

I live in the heart of Sydney in a building that is 70 years old with its original copper infrastructure (nice try though)

Quote:
So now you are an expert on the status of the copper infrastructure? Do you have some evidence to support this? A collective survey from ISP to ISP would prove your statement wrong.

This argument can go both ways, where is your evidence that the majority of copper is degraded to a point where its reliability is non negligible (Hint: this is not the first time in history when an extreme minority have made a very vocal point about an issue. You hear about the people that complain about copper, you don't hear about the people that have no issues about copper at all. Its called availability heuristics, look it up)

Quote:
Ummm dude, Fibre is glass and plastic. That's why it doesn't degrade. Do you know anything about fibre at all? Above ground or below ground it doesnt matter...the fibre won't degrade. If YOU knew anything about science.

Copper is a metal alloy, there are still copper structures around that are thousands of years old. Glass and plastic does degrade (and the plastic is insulation, so that doesn't really account). Copper cables degrade more because they are built above ground (almost all of the time) and have less insulation. In fact the material of the cable (regardless if its copper or glass) is irrelevant if you have proper insulation. If the insulation has degraded to such a point where you see the naked cable, then degradation is probably the least of your concerns

Quote:
Lolwut....dude...Fibre is glass...it doesn't conduct electricity. At best, a lightening strike would melt the above ground fibre. However the chance of that occurring is astronomical. Regardless, a majority of the fibre will be unground anyways.


Do you know what a Fibre Fuse even is, its very well documented (here is a wiki entry on it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_fiber#Fiber_fuse). Here is a scientific paper on it http://www.toddulmer.com/work/lee_ulmerCLEO2006.pdf. I would recommend you do your research before you talk about something, electric shocks to an Optical Fibre network can destroy the whole cabling and even the node

Of course, there are systems to prevent it, that adds to the cost of maintaining Fibre, just as copper needs to be maintained. If either copper or Fibre aren't maintained, they degrade.

(and at this point I would recommend you go back and learn science, your knowledge of it at least, is elementary high school level, if you want to start throwing around personal insults and you don't even take into account that all cabling, regardless if its copper or Fibre, is insulated).

@Bitto
Coalitions plan covers more of Australia with their backhaul, so if anything it is more reliable then Labors NBN, for which the areas it doesn't cover, you have to use Satellite (and if you think wireless is bad, you should see Satellite). The coalitions plan had a baseline for speed and connectivity for their 97% of Australia they are covering.

Furthermore the wireless is dropping out NOW because there is hardly any money being put into maintaining. That is why the coalitions plan (and even Telcos) have started massively investing in wireless technology. Its like claiming that wired technology is horrible because everyone is using dialup on an unmaintained network

Edited by deteego: 22/9/2010 02:21:09 PM
realitybites
Sep 22, 2010 2:38 PM
@deteego - "Furthermore the wireless is dropping out NOW because there is hardly any money being put into maintaining. That is why the coalitions plan (and even Telcos) have started massively investing in wireless technology"

Now I'm confused.. Which is it, they are not maintaining it or they are massively investing in it?

That paragraph seems contradictory to me.
deteego
Sep 22, 2010 2:41 PM
realitybites wrote:
@deteego - "Furthermore the wireless is dropping out NOW because there is hardly any money being put into maintaining. That is why the coalitions plan (and even Telcos) have started massively investing in wireless technology"

Now I'm confused.. Which is it, they are not maintaining it or they are massively investing in it?

That paragraph seems contradictory to me.


@realitybites
They started massively investing in it very recently (like only a couple of years ago). Before that, wireless was hardly maintained. Wireless currently needs maintenance, and like many things, the investments in wireless wont be seen immediately (like the effects of NBN aren't seen immediately right now)
realitybites
Sep 22, 2010 3:32 PM
Thank you.. Confusion now removed.
Sir Lancalot
Sep 22, 2010 3:37 PM
@deteego - "We are talking about how reliable copper is, not how much bandwith it can take. "

You do know that reliability is a pre-requisite for speed right? ADSL speeds over copper = dB noise loss. Most ISP's will push a 4.5dB noise margin to facilitate bad/noisy/unreliable copper and somethings this isn't even enough. All I'm trying to say is the more copper you got, the more chance of drops/degradation. They tie in with each other.
Sir Lancalot
Sep 22, 2010 3:42 PM
**As opposed to Fiber which can operate at greater distances with less degradation of both bandwidth/speed and reliability
Bazwalt
Sep 22, 2010 4:09 PM
Deteego wrote:
@realitybites
They started massively investing in it very recently (like only a couple of years ago). Before that, wireless was hardly maintained. Wireless currently needs maintenance, and like many things, the investments in wireless wont be seen immediately (like the effects of NBN aren't seen immediately right now)

So let me ask you this, hypothetically, lets say that you have 2 cars to choose from. On one hand you have a car that that looks really nice, it's small, cute, and convenient to take around everywhere. Its one of those cars everyone likes to look at and drive. The downside is that this car requires a huge amount of work done to it before it's good enough to take anywhere and it regularly needs maintenance. And lastly, it's cheap to buy initially.

On the other hand, you have this nice and flashy looking car that is significantly larger, can carry more people and has a much larger and powerful engine in it. This car can travel further because it has a bigger tank and is much more fuel efficient. This car comes off the factory line in pristine condition and requires little to no maintenance. The downside is that the initial purchase price on this car is pretty high.

Which car would you choose?

If that little tiny and cute car wasn't so costly to maintain than sure...i'd probably buy it. But the larger flashy car that carries more people, is faster and lasts a hell of a lot longer seems well worth it's initial purchase cost considering I won't be paying for it later with maintenance costs.
Bazwalt
Sep 22, 2010 4:22 PM
"They started massively investing in it very recently (like only a couple of years ago). Before that, wireless was hardly maintained. Wireless currently needs maintenance, and like many things, the investments in wireless wont be seen immediately (like the effects of NBN aren't seen immediately right now)"

Well, that's what I've been saying. The effects of wireless won't be seen until more time and money is invested into it. Same for the NBN, money and time needs to be invested into it before we see the effects. Sure, Australians might not need 100Mbit/s right now which is fine. But by the time the NBN is complete that might change completely. Keep in mind that the estimated completion for the NBN isn't for 8-12 years which is approx 2-3 terms of govt. So, that's plenty of time for the network to build and growth to come. We can't use the NBN right now anyways so it's no point arguing what we do and don't use NOW because none of that even matters. The NBN is meant to be flexible and tailored to our needs.

If you can't see that than all hope is lost...
deteego
Sep 22, 2010 4:28 PM
Sir Lancalot wrote:
@deteego - "We are talking about how reliable copper is, not how much bandwith it can take. "

You do know that reliability is a pre-requisite for speed right? ADSL speeds over copper = dB noise loss. Most ISP's will push a 4.5dB noise margin to facilitate bad/noisy/unreliable copper and somethings this isn't even enough. All I'm trying to say is the more copper you got, the more chance of drops/degradation. They tie in with each other.


I assume that Bazwalt was talking about unreliability in terms of physical degradation of the cables, and not to do with Noise Error Correction
Mike_Sadler
Sep 22, 2010 4:31 PM
@deteego said:

"Furthermore the wireless is dropping out NOW because there is hardly any money being put into maintaining. That is why the coalitions plan (and even Telcos) have started massively investing in wireless technology"

You are really are a clueless twerp. If anyone cares to ask I'm happy to explain just how ridiculous this trite little version of 2/3/4G history is.

@deteego; there are folks here, trying to have a conversation, a number of whom are actually in the industry about which you claim to know so much. You, clearly are not one of them. Please, there's grown-ups speaking, be quiet. You've been found out as a clueless wannabe and liar, time and time and time again.

I suggest everyone (almost) ignores deteego, but just respond to every remark he makes with:

"@deteego, you have been found out as a clueless wannabe. Please go away"

Cheers,

msadler@dlink.com.au
deteego
Sep 22, 2010 4:35 PM
@Mike Sadler
umad bro?

Seems like you seem to be taking things a bit too personally/seriously

Mike_Sadler wrote:

You are really are a clueless twerp. If anyone cares to ask I'm happy to explain just how ridiculous this trite little version of 2/3/4G history is.


Then go ahead, personally insulting people makes you look like a giant douche over the internet

Bazwalt wrote:
The NBN is meant to be flexible and tailored to our needs.

NBN by definition is anything but flexible. The coalitions plan is a flexible one, (investing in numerous technologies with both government and primary sector). The NBN is an all in all out plan

Edited by deteego: 22/9/2010 04:57:38 PM
Mike_Sadler
Sep 22, 2010 6:03 PM
@deteego:
You have been found out as a clueless wannabe.
Please go away.
Mike_Sadler
Sep 22, 2010 6:04 PM
@johnpro2 said:

"With little study done on the likely take up rate ...the initial Tasmanian experience is not looking good so far"

*WRONG*

We've moved w-a-y past any 'study' on 'likely' take-up. For you and any others too lazy to google, read news, or surf around the NBNCo website for, you know, the actual facts, please check out:

http://www.nbnco.com.au/wps/wcm/connect/main/site-base/main-areas/publications-and-announcements/latest-announcements/nbn-co-and-telstra-reach-heads-of-agreement

While we're at it, you also replied to one post thus:

"With Google it is ever so hard to plagiarize...I should have ack source ..next time maybe.."

Or 'never' maybe. Still not one scrap of evidence, no links, facts, examples, nothing to substantiate any one of your claims. Nada. I mean, I know you can't because its all nonsense, but please have the courtesy to at least go through the motions and cite something from the Murdoch press that appears to support your position; else we'll think of you as a lazy idiot, when you may not be that lazy at all.

You also said:

"yes..high speed is excellent if targeted at a sustainable customer base ..expensive blanket cover for those who are unlikely to ever use the service is a rapid burn of taxpayers $$$$$$$".

*WRONG*
Again, no evidence that any of these 'views' are anything other than just luddite FUD. As it happens though, EVERYONE in an FSA, currently on the copper CAN with any product from any provider will be using NBNCo's GPON FTTP network, even those who only have a POTS connection. That's what a monopoly is John! So "those who are unlikely to ever use the service" will more likely be those with more complex needs than NBNCo or its resellers can/want to address, not less complex (than POTS?). A very small number indeed.

Finallly, these two absolute GEMS, which prove you have NFI.

"Telstra's widespread problems with user login and email on its BigPond internet and Foxtel cable services continued into its third day, defying the telco's assurances that it would be back online yesterday.
I rest my case :)"

*WRONG*

This was (obviously) a centralised 'authentication' issue, probably at the RADIUS/LDAP level. The alternative; that multiple BRAS's on multiple (FTTP/HFC/xDSL) access networks spontanously failed, seems a little too far fetched to be possible, let alone likely.

and (my absolute favourite so far):

"Have you seen those small glass cables being laid just below the surface.

One back hoe disables thousands of customers for days ...It has already happened up here.
Not so reliable as you may think ."

Yeah... right... those 'big yellow fibre finders' as we know them, are incredibly selective in that they ONLY dig up fibre... right? Copper sensing guidence or somthing where you live, eh? Like ALL your claims, no facts, figures, data, no substantiation and this time, not even a basic undertstanding of the incredibly complex technology of 'digging holes'. Give me a break!

I can clearly recall instances where multi 500 pair telstra cable has been 'found'... guess how many weeks they take to marry up and splice? Meanwhile, all the folks on fibre were fine. The reality is, if said BYFF goes anywhere it shouldn't go - subscriber loop, CAN, FTTP, cell tower backhaul, gas, electricity, water, sewerage - anything - its going to break it. Which brings us to NBNCo and 'ubiquity'. See, when you have a monopoly carrier with virtually every network endpoint as its customer via retailers, you can start doing some pretty clever things WRT divergent paths and fibre redundancy that simply isn't possible on a hetrogenous network or managable with thousands of copper pairs. So, whilst one should plan to NOT have BYFF's as a day-to-day maintenence factor, of all technologies, fibre is the easist with which to create physical redundancy that is easy to fail over to/back from in a hurry/automatically.

The fact you would think an authentication outage was a transmission/carriage service issue and that fibre is somehow less resistant to being violated with a big steel shovel than copper, air, water, gas, effluent and other 'stuff' in the ground simply hunderscores your lack of understanding from you and others in this whole comms discussion. Which is fine if you've come to participate, question, learn... not so good when you try to pretend you have a clue about what we're discussing.
deteego
Sep 22, 2010 6:19 PM
Mike_Sadler wrote:
@deteego:
You have been found out as a clueless wannabe.
Please go away.

aww you don't like me diddums

Seems like spending 90% of the budget in only reaching half the amount of expected people doesn't sound too good (thats NBN's own figures)

All I hear from you is rabble and propaganda (and I don't think anyone here is listening to you with that attitude)

Edited by deteego: 22/9/2010 06:21:27 PM
Bazwalt
Sep 22, 2010 10:21 PM
"I assume that Bazwalt was talking about unreliability in terms of physical degradation of the cables, and not to do with Noise Error Correction"

It's one in the same. The only reason for the noise error correction in the first place is because of distance of the cable and/or noise generated on the line. Meaning the modem has to perform multiple bit rate adjustments before it finds a suitable and stable connection.

"NBN by definition is anything but flexible. The coalitions plan is a flexible one, (investing in numerous technologies with both government and primary sector). The NBN is an all in all out plan"

Can you please elaborate? I don't quite understand how you can consider patching up a degrading network flexible. But more importantly, I don't see how this debunks the NBN. How is the NBN any less flexible?

Because of the fibre, the distance limitation is vastly greater than that of copper. Most connections outside of ~4kms can't get a reliable connection much less any connection at all in contrast to Fibre which can provide a connection for as far as..lets say...100Kms and probably more. The bandwidth capacity of fibre is much higher than copper (any experts out there have a good estimation to fill me in).

More Speed, More Distance, More Reliability. I don't see where copper (or wireless) can be any better...or even on par.

If ISPs are able to provide faster speeds (or speeds of their choice) at a greater distance while at the same time working with a reliable infrastructure than that would seem pretty flexible to me.

They can tailor their plans to the market they want to cater for that suits their end to end hardware and reach greater areas for which they previously would not have had business. Sounds pretty flexible to me.

In comparison to say, a market that is build on an unreliable infrastructure that has a physical distance limitation of ~4kms on mostly Telstra based ports that cost an arm and a leg to wholesale. Then you have to deal with Telstra Wholesale Faults that take (on a good day) 48 hours to fix a fault. ISPs are virtually unable to compete with Telstra on ports that are wholesaled (for obvious reasons). An ISP with their own equipment in the DSLAMS only get the benefit of distributing and managing their own ports and greater control over the data across their network. They're still held back by the speed limitations and of course the huge copper cable that they can't touch.
johnpro2
Sep 22, 2010 11:12 PM
@from MS :when you may not be that lazy at all.

Thanx ..I appreciate the heads up.

johnpro2
Sep 22, 2010 11:17 PM
@deetego: aww you don't like me diddums.

Actually I got that impression MS was not a paid up member of your fan club...still others enjoy your input ..which is what debate is all about.

Jp
deteego
Sep 22, 2010 11:43 PM
Bazwalt wrote:
"Can you please elaborate? I don't quite understand how you can consider patching up a degrading network flexible. But more importantly, I don't see how this debunks the NBN. How is the NBN any less flexible?

Because of the fibre, the distance limitation is vastly greater than that of copper. Most connections outside of ~4kms can't get a reliable connection much less any connection at all in contrast to Fibre which can provide a connection for as far as..lets say...100Kms and probably more. The bandwidth capacity of fibre is much higher than copper (any experts out there have a good estimation to fill me in).

More Speed, More Distance, More Reliability. I don't see where copper (or wireless) can be any better...or even on par.

If ISPs are able to provide faster speeds (or speeds of their choice) at a greater distance while at the same time working with a reliable infrastructure than that would seem pretty flexible to me.

They can tailor their plans to the market they want to cater for that suits their end to end hardware and reach greater areas for which they previously would not have had business. Sounds pretty flexible to me.

In comparison to say, a market that is build on an unreliable infrastructure that has a physical distance limitation of ~4kms on mostly Telstra based ports that cost an arm and a leg to wholesale. Then you have to deal with Telstra Wholesale Faults that take (on a good day) 48 hours to fix a fault. ISPs are virtually unable to compete with Telstra on ports that are wholesaled (for obvious reasons). An ISP with their own equipment in the DSLAMS only get the benefit of distributing and managing their own ports and greater control over the data across their network. They're still held back by the speed limitations and of course the huge copper cable that they can't touch.


By infexible, I mean the NBN is just building one technology (Fibre) by one company/organisation (the government) and only one way (installing FTTH to EVERYWHERE) when there are numerous technologies (Fibre/4G/LTE/Coppe that still can be reused), numerous ways this technology can be installed (government/private sector) and can be installed at different times (instead of just all at once which is what the NBN)

For a comparison, the flexible version of NBN would be something along the lines of installing Dark Fibre instead of normal Fibre, if the NBN goes through expetected (and doesn't get cancelled) they would install the Fibre as customers would adopt the technology, making it more flexible as the cost is spread out over a long amount of time. Furthermore, should the (current) NBN can get cancelled (if you look at the politics, its starting to look more likely) then at least there will be Dark Fibre around the country which can be used by any company (instead of just Fibre stuck in some remote location like Tasmania which hardly any people will use and everyone else still using ADSL2+)

The problem is you are arguing with your perspective in a bubble. Obviously you have to take into account the technology, but you also have to take into account the market and the government. You can have fantastic technology, but if you have a government that doesn't know what they are doing, it means close to nothing. The fact that the plan is inflexible is generating quite a bit of uncertainty, especially among ISP's. TPG for example probably feels like jumping in a hole, considering they bought a whole FIbre network just before NBN was announced. Then you have the ABA which was created (by ISP's) because they felt the NBN was too narrow minded (and other uncertainties), the ABA focusing on different technologies. The biggest uncertainty is also going ahead in a hung parliament, Labor could even possibly lose a majority due to what is happening with Rob Oakshot. There is further uncertainty about the fact that this is creating a monopoly (every other country with FTTH schemes was all done by the private sector, they built their own infrastructure for it), so what Mike Sadler was saying earlier doesn't even apply). The only countries with a nation wide FTTH government plan I believe are Spain and Portugal, both are in heavy debt (and Spain almost bankrupt). Not saying that is due to them doing FTTH, but that money could have definitely been spent elsewhere during such times

If you are arguing this from a "fibre is great and reliable" standpoint, thats fine. The problem that myself (and others) have is that people like you are totally ignoring everything else that goes into building such a network, which includes money, government, spending, planning, politics and the other things that are all involved. Im tired at this point, but I believe there is technology about to be *ready to use* which allows the deployment of Fibre much more cheaply then how the NBN is doing it. And on the whole cost thing, countries like Singapore/Japan and South Korea, FTTH cost around $70-100 dollars a head, here its around $5000. If you are spending that much more money, you should be god damn certain that almost not a single cent of it will get wasted

This is what an ALL in ALL miss plan means, if NBN (for whatever unlikely reason) goes ahead flawlessly, then great. However if NBN fails (or even goes ahead mediocre) it will actually be a server detriment to Australia. And the latter (if you actually have a look at Labors history of doing such plans) is much much much much more common

Edited by deteego: 22/9/2010 11:47:04 PM
HubertCumberdale
Sep 23, 2010 12:17 AM
KarL wrote:
Soon as HubertCumberdale used Download Managers as his example, it revealed his ignorance.

People from Asia (like Hong Kong, China, etc) can tell you that if you are in the local country, accessing web casts, IPTVs, even www.youku.com and www.tudou.com are "lightning fast". If you are accessing them from Australia, forget it. Lucky if you can get more than 30-40kbps (in the middle of the night). Would someone explain this please? (No, not you deteego, your answer was "rejected" - LOL)

You use Asian web casts as an example and you call me ignorant? Apples and oranges. Please get a clue.
HubertCumberdale
Sep 23, 2010 12:24 AM
Maxxi2 wrote:
deteego, your comment would have had some validity if internet content and servcies delivery systems would all of a sudden stop developing today and stay as they are.

Australia has more than enough international link capacity, it is far more a question of resource management and margin optimisation of those links that creates our costs.

We will see a significant rise in nationally based services delivery over open access IP networks moving forward, as these have always increased as the infrastructure and access sytems became available.

There is no logical, physical, commercial or technical reason for that to suddenly stop now.


Finally. Someone who gets it.
deteego
Sep 23, 2010 1:19 AM
Yes, of course, the internet is going to "move forward"

Think the Labor government came up with that when when looking at a progress bar

HubertCumberdale wrote:

Finally. Someone who gets it.


Yeah, getting half the story (notice how him, like you and others, are completely ignoring everything apart from the technological aspect of the plan)

Edited by deteego: 23/9/2010 01:25:49 AM
Mark D
Sep 23, 2010 10:51 AM
@deteego:

So far your arguments have been nothing but challenges for the validity of the choice of technology. This is (as Mike quite plainly put it) luddite FUD. What is left for argument is how the nation is going to achieve this and at what cost.
deteego
Sep 23, 2010 12:00 PM
Mark D wrote:
@deteego:

So far your arguments have been nothing but challenges for the validity of the choice of technology. This is (as Mike quite plainly put it) luddite FUD. What is left for argument is how the nation is going to achieve this and at what cost.


Ok fine then, lets give everyone a government funded supercomputers. I am pretty damn sure the Technology is very valid, I am also pretty damn sure its going to be a giant waste since an extreme minority of people will actually need such power

In the real world, the 'best' technology is not the main factor about whether it should be adopted or not, only if it can be done affordable and/or gives its return. I have never criticized Fibre as being worse then copper, its obviously a much better technology at a much more expensive cost, it also has to be maintained (like copper), in fact Fibre is more expensive to maintain then copper.

In other words, get a reality check. There is a reason why we are not all flying in space cars or every user doesn't have a super computer, and it has nothing to do with the 'validity' of the Technology and everything to do with common sense

Edited by deteego: 23/9/2010 12:02:57 PM
Bazwalt
Sep 23, 2010 1:14 PM
"By infexible, I mean the NBN is just building one technology (Fibre) by one company/organisation (the government) and only one way (installing FTTH to EVERYWHERE) when there are numerous technologies (Fibre/4G/LTE/Coppe that still can be reused), numerous ways this technology can be installed (government/private sector) and can be installed at different times (instead of just all at once which is what the NBN)"

Wrong. The govt has time and time again indicated that it plans to use fibre as it's primary deployment while still making use of alternative technologies to server those where even a fibre deployment would be difficult. They are fully aware.

"instead of just Fibre stuck in some remote location like Tasmania which hardly any people will use and everyone else still using ADSL2+)"

The reason that Tasmania was chosen is because it is (or was) the worst place in the country to even have or try to get internet connectivity.

Telstra was not doing ANYTHING for Tasmania. Friends of mine in the industry reported clients of theirs were coming in left, right, and center complaining that there was insufficient backhaul and not enough maintenance. Given the size of Tasmania and it's remote location it was the perfect place for a trial.

"The problem is you are arguing with your perspective in a bubble. Obviously you have to take into account the technology, but you also have to take into account the market and the government."

And I am taking the market and the govt into account. I believe that the NBN will provide choice, flexibility, and a level playing field for ISPs and their customers. By removing the monopoly in a peaceful arrangement and providing Australia with a newer, reliable and efficient infrastructure I believe that the future of Australian telecommunications will evolve and improve.

I do agree that the govt is taking quite a large leap of faith and investing a considerable amount into the project. But, in my opinion, I believe it will pay itself off and it will change the way we operate. It has the potential to give us so much more.

"The fact that the plan is inflexible is generating quite a bit of uncertainty, especially among ISP's. TPG for example probably feels like jumping in a hole, considering they bought a whole FIbre network just before NBN was announced. "

Not from what I'm reading just recently....(see below)

"The NBN will provide a level playing field in those areas so it will be another growth area for TPG because we will be extremely competitive from day one."http://www.smartcompany.com.au/information-technology/20100922-digital-entrepreneurs-back-nbn-cost-benefits-study.html

ISPs are being cautious due to the supposed lack of a cost-benefit study. TPG still support the NBN and believe it can do alot for us and from what I read most ISPs feel the same way but are still being careful.

"If you are arguing this from a "fibre is great and reliable" standpoint, thats fine. The problem that myself (and others) have is that people like you are totally ignoring everything else that goes into building such a network, which includes money, government, spending, planning, politics and the other things that are all involved. "

I'm not ignoring it and "great and reliable" is not my only argument. You would know that from my previous posts.

I know that the NBN is a big risk. I know that the NBN costs a significant amount. I know what fibre is, how it works and how it surpasses copper (under most circumstances). I believe it's a risk worth taking and I feel that it will, in time, pay itself off and give us room for innovation. Not to mention, it will be servicing areas where broadband was previously not possible.
deteego
Sep 23, 2010 1:56 PM
Bazwalt wrote:

Wrong. The govt has time and time again indicated that it plans to use fibre as it's primary deployment while still making use of alternative technologies to server those where even a fibre deployment would be difficult. They are fully aware.

They are only using alternative technologies where Fibre will fail, try again
Bazwalt wrote:

"instead of just Fibre stuck in some remote location like Tasmania which hardly any people will use and everyone else still using ADSL2+)"

You are missing the point, it didn't have to be Tasmania. The point is, if NBN gets shot down, then all it has done is installed Fibre in one small location in Australia

Bazwalt wrote:

Telstra was not doing ANYTHING for Tasmania. Friends of mine in the industry reported clients of theirs were coming in left, right, and center complaining that there was insufficient backhaul and not enough maintenance. Given the size of Tasmania and it's remote location it was the perfect place for a trial.

Again, missing the point

Bazwalt wrote:

And I am taking the market and the govt into account. I believe that the NBN will provide choice, flexibility, and a level playing field for ISPs and their customers. By removing the monopoly in a peaceful arrangement and providing Australia with a newer, reliable and efficient infrastructure I believe that the future of Australian telecommunications will evolve and improve.

You haven't taken the government into account at all, and the NBN CREATES a monopoly. Currently there isn't any monopoly in ISP's, for ADSL2+ (what almost everyone uses) there are numerous providers. Telstra has in fact lost massive amount of its stock and market share to the likes of iiNet and Internode and TPG. The NBN is, BY DEFINITION a monopoly. A monopoly is being created by the government

Bazwalt wrote:

I do agree that the govt is taking quite a large leap of faith and investing a considerable amount into the project. But, in my opinion, I believe it will pay itself off and it will change the way we operate. It has the potential to give us so much more.

I have heard that many times from this government (every time it ends up "moving us backward" because it puts the country into debt, and everything else suffers)

Bazwalt wrote:

"The NBN will provide a level playing field in those areas so it will be another growth area for TPG because we will be extremely competitive from day one."http://www.smartcompany.com.au/information-technology/20100922-digital-entrepreneurs-back-nbn-cost-benefits-study.html

Stop quoting stuff from NBN's site, it has obvious bias (and they conveniently ignore information which undermines the plan. Stephen Conroy has done this many times before with the filter. Stephen Conroy has even been caught outright lying)

Bazwalt wrote:
I'm not ignoring it and "great and reliable" is not my only argument. You would know that from my previous posts.
I know that the NBN is a big risk. I know that the NBN costs a significant amount. I know what fibre is, how it works and how it surpasses copper (under most circumstances). I believe it's a risk worth taking and I feel that it will, in time, pay itself off and give us room for innovation. Not to mention, it will be servicing areas where broadband was previously not possible.

You are turning a massive blind eye then, and you haven't again taking into account that coalitions plan covers more then the NBN in providing internet to areas where it wasn't possible. You still haven't said how installing Dark Fibre by the government is any worse (because it isn't) and you still haven't stated in response to the fact that a worldwide FTTH plan could have been done in magnitudes better then the way Labor is doing it

All I am getting from you is that "Labor is doing an NBN in the worst way possible, but its all ok, since it is Fibre"

Edited by deteego: 23/9/2010 02:02:48 PM
thor
Sep 23, 2010 3:31 PM
@deteego

I know where you are coming from but unfortunately you are just plain wrong and to prove this I would like you to do the following to prove otherwise.

Grab a wireless router & laptop with whatever internet speed and go to speedtest.net and first test LAN connection then test Wireless connection. As the speed for internet total speed is far less than both LAN and wireless there is no counter to say this is unfair.

When I tested this exact setup on an 8 mb connection the results were as followed.

Cable- 800kbps
Wireless- 300 kbps

Now this shows that wireless when running in a test environment without anything else running on the laptop (HP 8740p, Win XP), now you add an extra couple of users on each and it starts to make a big different.

You say wireless is dropping out NOW due to lack of maintainence. WHERE do you get your information from and who do you think you are fooling. Wireless internet is on the way up but is no way a substitute for cable. It is best used in sync with fibre.

With regards to copper, it is fast becoming outdated and expensive to maintain. The reason I know this is due to family involvement working at Telstra for 35+ years. No other major countries which I have read about are looking at extending the use of copper rather than going over to Fibre. Why the most recent support for VDSL2+ stipulates speeds of 200mbs for 1 km.

I dont know whether you have notice but Australia not as densely populated thus mean as what happens with ADSL 2, speeds will greatly reduce after the 1 km.

I could go on but I really cant be bother, the evidence is there. If you can produce evident 9relevant and not some beauro\wiki case report, then I might be swayed but from my own personal experience.

Happy hunting. see you in 20 years.
deteego
Sep 23, 2010 3:57 PM
@Thor
I would recommend you read the thread, because you clearly haven't (or you have bad habit of selective reading). Either that or you are trolling (Hint: I never claimed wireless was as fast as Fibre, well actually it can be but the technology just came out, but thats besides the point, the point of wireless is mobility not speed)

Honestly the number of people that are doing this is astonishing

Edited by deteego: 23/9/2010 04:00:41 PM
HubertCumberdale
Sep 23, 2010 4:09 PM
deteego wrote:
@Thor
I would recommend you read the thread, because you clearly haven't (or you have bad habit of selective reading). Either that or you are trolling

Didn't you use this very same line on me a few pages back?

deteego wrote:
Honestly the number of people that are doing this is astonishing

Or it could be just you... you know in your head... just saying.
deteego
Sep 23, 2010 4:16 PM
Quote:

Or it could be just you... you know in your head... just saying.


Right, because making a strawman to prove a point is in my head (Hint: I never argued wireless was faster then Fibre)

Also why are you still replying, you made quite a fool out of yourself earlier and showed you didn't know what you were talking about (at all)

Edited by deteego: 23/9/2010 04:31:06 PM
thor
Sep 23, 2010 4:19 PM
@deteego Previously you have said that wireless should be used instead of fibre e.g the Liberals policy you were in favor of which was proved unsatisfactory by the majority of the people on the web. I actually been reading all the post and no you are missing the point that Maxxi2 and the other have been made. Speed is crucial to the operation of business, country business also need that quality/speed if they are to survive.

You said the point of wireless is mobility not speed). True but dropouts are a pain especially when you are trying to communicate with a friend in the country (via face book and it cuts out every 2 minutes, I dont know about you but that is extremely frustrating. Living in Sydney (if i remember previously) you dont get this issues. I am also guessing you have adsl 2+ speeds for around $50 a month for 120gb with hardly any dropouts. Now the farmers are getting $50 for 2 gb with constant dropouts hardly the same now isnt. Maybe they should install a microwave link or get satellite. Wireless is to unreliable. Once they can fix that up and then boost speeds, it may well be a good choice, but for the next 10 years, I wouldnt be expecting much from wirelss mobile as it is or not. Fibre all the way :)

PS Selective reading is fantastic, you do that a fair bit yourself. Once again you need to show evident to back it up people will agree with you. People are only doing it because to make unreasonable statement and try and make people believe when they know better. I do enjoy the conversation we have. Nothing personal is aimed at you directly, just your arguments. :)
deteego
Sep 23, 2010 4:23 PM
thor wrote:
@deteego Previously you have said that wireless should be used instead of fibre e.g the Liberals policy you were in favor of which was proved unsatisfactory by the majority of the people on the web. I actually been reading all the post and no you are missing the point that Maxxi2 and the other have been made. Speed is crucial to the operation of business, country business also need that quality/speed if they are to survive.

Where did I say that, you have 'instead' confused with 'supplement'

Quote:

You said the point of wireless is mobility not speed). True but dropouts are a pain especially when you are trying to communicate with a friend in the country (via face book and it cuts out every 2 minutes, I dont know about you but that is extremely frustrating. Living in Sydney (if i remember previously) you dont get this issues. I am also guessing you have adsl 2+ speeds for around $50 a month for 120gb with hardly any dropouts. Now the farmers are getting $50 for 2 gb with constant dropouts hardly the same now isnt. Maybe they should install a microwave link or get satellite. Wireless is to unreliable. Once they can fix that up and then boost speeds, it may well be a good choice, but for the next 10 years, I wouldnt be expecting much from wirelss mobile as it is or not. Fibre all the way :)

Thats why you build a proper wireless network (Hint: our current wireless network is not very good, especially compared to America or European countries. In several countries in Europe people use wireless more then wired internet, such as Russia, because drop outs happen rarely and not commonly)

Quote:
PS Selective reading is fantastic, you do that a fair bit yourself. Once again you need to show evident to back it up people will agree with you. People are only doing it because to make unreasonable statement and try and make people believe when they know better. I do enjoy the conversation we have. Nothing personal is aimed at you directly, just your arguments. :)


No you did selectively read what I say (and made strawmans too). If you dont know what a strawman is, read it here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman), because that is what you are doing

Edited by deteego: 23/9/2010 04:31:43 PM
HubertCumberdale
Sep 23, 2010 4:50 PM
deteego wrote:
[quote]
Also why are you still replying, you made quite a fool out of yourself earlier and showed you didn't know what you were talking about (at all)

I see delusions are also part of your condition. Really this isn't the first thread where you've been proven wrong and I'm sure it wont be the last.
deteego
Sep 23, 2010 4:52 PM
HubertCumberdale wrote:
deteego wrote:
[quote]
Also why are you still replying, you made quite a fool out of yourself earlier and showed you didn't know what you were talking about (at all)

I see delusions are also part of your condition. Really this isn't the first thread where you've been proven wrong and I'm sure it wont be the last.


Really point out where (proving something wrong that is a distorted version of my point doesn't count)

On the other hand, your suggestion of download managers showed how you little you understand of what you are arguing about (as pointed out by others)

Edited by deteego: 23/9/2010 04:54:44 PM
HubertCumberdale
Sep 23, 2010 5:01 PM
deteego wrote:
[quote=HubertCumberdale]
On the other hand, your suggestion of download managers showed how you little you understand of what you are arguing about (as pointed out by others)

Edited by deteego: 23/9/2010 04:54:44 PM

Yes. Because Asian web casts are a very good example. Shows how little you and your cohorts understand it. Really you expect the whole world to stand still for you? Give it up dude, defeat has made you crazy but maybe the coalition will get back in power next time and you can be happy when they "demolish" the NBN.

Why do you edit your posts so much btw? just curious.
thor
Sep 23, 2010 5:05 PM
@deteego- nar I preferred when you said ad-hominem before you edited , you brought out your true colours.

But once again we get to the point of disagreement. Mobile phones are fine on wireless 3g but using computers/laptop (e.g heavier networking equipment) this simply will not work. Why simple the logistic. What you dont mention is the in America, Russia, Europe,

Alot of their city are built in closely together thus the benefits of both (not just fibre or wireless) can be fully utilise. Living over in Europe for more than a year, I can tell you all about the technologies they use and the main reason Wireless over there so much faster then over here is for a couple of reason. 1.Amount of people per wireless connection is smaller. 2. Radius of people within a city/town is significantly smaller 3. used in conjunction with cable.

Though the current consensus from my friends in European countries are saying they are also going down the same path as Labor NBN.

And no I didnt miss the point, you said you wanted mobility, where as I want speed and reliability. To most people that pretty to the point and not confusing not is it changing the subject or non answering the question which you have been trying to (and failing to) portray by your strawman link.
deteego
Sep 23, 2010 5:10 PM
thor wrote:
@deteego- nar I preferred when you said ad-hominem before you edited , you brought out your true colours.

It was an accident, I meant a strawman instead of ad hominom (got the 2 mixed up, Mike Schaedler is the one that is fond of ad hominoms)

Quote:
But once again we get to the point of disagreement. Mobile phones are fine on wireless 3g but using computers/laptop (e.g heavier networking equipment) this simply will not work. Why simple the logistic. What you dont mention is the in America, Russia, Europe,

Alot of their city are built in closely together thus the benefits of both (not just fibre or wireless) can be fully utilise. Living over in Europe for more than a year, I can tell you all about the technologies they use and the main reason Wireless over there so much faster then over here is for a couple of reason. 1.Amount of people per wireless connection is smaller. 2. Radius of people within a city/town is significantly smaller 3. used in conjunction with cable.

The population density of Australia is actually lower or an par with those European cities. In fact, Australia has one of the lowest population densities out of any of the developed countries. Thats even more of a reason to adopt wireless. If we had the population density of a country like Japan, I wouldn't be arguing for wireless at all

Quote:

Though the current consensus from my friends in European countries are saying they are also going down the same path as Labor NBN.

Through private companies, not through a government scheme (big difference). The two European countries that are having government funded FTTH are spain and portugal (iirc), both of which are having financial difficulties currently (to say the least)

Quote:

And no I didnt miss the point, you said you wanted mobility, where as I want speed and reliability. To most people that pretty to the point and not confusing not is it changing the subject or non answering the question which you have been trying to (and failing to) portray by your strawman link.

Another strawman

I never said that everyone wanted wireless, I said that there are some people that want wireless, some that want Fibre, and some that are happy with just ADSL2+ and dont need a FTTH connection (again, stop coming up with strawmans, its not helping your case). The NBN is just fibre, its not providing anything else (well Satellite to the 7% of the country it can't reach), completely irrelevant of the fact that wireless technology is going through a massive surge in Australia. Thats why ISP's made the ABA

Edited by deteego: 23/9/2010 05:14:16 PM
thor
Sep 23, 2010 5:15 PM
Download managers- A great way to make sure your download doesnt get lost each time because of wireless Dropouts.
deteego
Sep 23, 2010 5:16 PM
thor wrote:
Download managers- A great way to make sure your download doesnt get lost each time because of wireless Dropouts.


Go to page 4 and read what HubertCumberdale said about download managers, again reading all the comments said here would help you tremendously in not looking ignorant
HubertCumberdale
Sep 23, 2010 5:19 PM
I like this article on CommsDay btw. iTnews hasn't reported it yet so this thread seems like a good place to mention it.

Western Qld shires say satellite “disastrous,” will part-fund fibre to last 3%

Sounds like a good plan, I imagine many Australian towns will go down this path sooner or later.
thor
Sep 23, 2010 5:26 PM
@deteego
Through private companies, not through a government scheme (big difference). Look at Telstra, Optus, Private companies in Australia building the network = Fail. Private companies are only interested in there shareholders, which is fair enough but it wont work for everybody, the NBN is a community requirement. This is hence why the government has had to step in and build the network. But thanks for makin that nice and clear :)

Another Quote
completely irrelevant of the fact that wireless technology is going through a massive surge in Australia.

Wow did you ever think it is because Mobiles now access the internet, with most people now using mobiles and the internet feature standardise, no wonder the wireless technology needs the surge. People were happy with dialup, would you be willing to go back to dialup. No you wouldnt. Maxxi2 has explained this in greater detail as per previous post and other post on similar topics.

You are so concern with trying to prove something, but really you have proved nothing, you might want to take you own advice. I am still yet to see any credible events besides you ability to look up strawman on wiki.
thor
Sep 23, 2010 5:28 PM
HubertCumberdale- Absolutely agree, I sure many remote community would rather fibre and be willing to pay to get it.

@deteego- The download manager was a punt which confirms you got no sense of humour. hahaah that time I was stirring.
deteego
Sep 23, 2010 5:32 PM
thor wrote:
@deteego
Through private companies, not through a government scheme (big difference). Look at Telstra, Optus, Private companies in Australia building the network = Fail. Private companies are only interested in there shareholders, which is fair enough but it wont work for everybody, the NBN is a community requirement. This is hence why the government has had to step in and build the network. But thanks for makin that nice and clear :)


Press the numbers at the bottom of the page, so you can read a little bit of history =D (already explained why earlier, around 4 times, I could try to explain it again, but then I get raged at)

Quote:

Wow did you ever think it is because Mobiles now access the internet, with most people now using mobiles and the internet feature standardise, no wonder the wireless technology needs the surge. People were happy with dialup, would you be willing to go back to dialup. No you wouldnt. Maxxi2 has explained this in greater detail as per previous post and other post on similar topics.

No shit shirlock (again read previous pages, the difference between net speeds on Fibre vs ADSL2+ is 3 times maximum, difference between ADSL and dialup is 10 times, difference between ADSL2+ and ADSL is around 5 times). Japan only has an average speed of 60mbit with Fibre, ADSL2+ can hit 25 mbits, and we dont even download offshore net content faster then 25 mbits a second. Saying this for around the seventh time now. EDIT: Oh crap, I explained myself (again). Think I am getting a bit cynical in assuming that people don't know how to press different pages in this thread (but hell, it seems I am right)

Quote:
You are so concern with trying to prove something, but really you have proved nothing, you might want to take you own advice. I am still yet to see any credible events besides you ability to look up strawman on wiki.

You are making it too easy for me, you are the one coming up with strawmans. Its also pretty pointless to prove a point incorrect which I myself didn't make

Edited by deteego: 23/9/2010 05:39:34 PM
thor
Sep 23, 2010 6:05 PM
Only got 2 pages, not 4 :)

Really all to easy, name one thing that you can prove besides you dont know what you are talking about.

So far the discussion has been about the benefits of using both fibre and wireless used in conjunction. You have said you old technology as well = waste of time.

You also agree that we need to work to move forward, hence the "No shit shirlock" attitude.

You are saying I come up with Strawman when I have produced the evidences.
Speed Test on a 8mb line
Cable- 800kbps
Wireless- 300 kbps

European countries are saying they are also going down the same path as Labor NBN
Older Technology like Copper are been phased out due to high maintenance cost and quality decrease.
-The NBN should be built with fibre and that the Liberal NBN is a flawed plan, otherwise they wouldnt be thinking about changing it.

Now we look at your side.
-Build wireless 3g or 4 g network.
-Use existing technology
-Use Liberal NBN plan.

If anybody is coming up with Strawmans, it is YOU, not once have I seen you come up with anything particular interesting or worthwhile, you try to tell everybody else they are wrong.

Mike_Sadler, HubertCumberdale, Bazwalt, Sir Lancalot have all proved you wrong and they all seem to have a better idea about what is reality when it comes to the NBN.

I agree in the sense that I dont think the NBN will be profitable but I do believe (as do most industry experts) that fibre is the best way to go.

One last quota:
You are making it too easy for me, you are the one coming up with strawmans


Sorry but you are wrong, you got it around the wrong way. But i keep going back to the evidence which I will wait for you to show, when and only when you can prove then I will gladly join the deteego fan band but until then, tunnel vision and lack of evidence for a case is simply not cool.
deteego
Sep 23, 2010 6:16 PM
Quote:

Only got 2 pages, not 4 :)

Read the rest, I provide evidence on pages 4-7

Do you know what a Strawman is? Its proving twisted versions of my points that were never my original point
I never argued that Wireless is faster then Fibre, that is what you are proving. <- Strawman
European Countries replacing Fibre with Copper <- Again I never said that fibre shouldn't be used on copper that is already degraded. However Australia has plenty of copper which is not degraded. It doesn't need to be replaced with Fibre all at once

Quote:
Now we look at your side.
-Build wireless 3g or 4 g network.
-Use existing technology
-Use Liberal NBN plan.

Liberal plans also includes (did you even read what the plan is, fully in detail?)
- Creating a FIBRE (yes I bolded that, might help against your selective reading) backhaul throughout 97% of the country (thats higher then Labors 93%!!!!)
- Also includes rebates for rural areas to faciliate in creating internet services
- Also rebates for wireless technology
- Liberals plan just wont connect every house with Fibre up to the node, probably because every house doesn't need to be be connected with Fibre up to the node

Quote:
-The NBN should be built with fibre and that the Liberal NBN is a flawed plan, otherwise they wouldnt be thinking about changing it.

Right because governments NEVER change policies. There is a difference between 'flawed' and making tweaks. The biggest issue with the Liberals was their minister, not their plan. Their (old) communications minister never even talked about it, or debated it, or sold. Things are gonna change with Malcom Turnbill, who actually knows something about the Internet (something that Conroy doesn't), and who, lets say is a lot more passionate

EDIT: Oh, and I forgot to mention that lovely filter that Stephen Conroy proposed, which got changed like 3 times because of its massive failure in design, and he had to withdraw the legislation because NO ONE would vote for it (apart from Labor ofc)

I will not repeat evidence, its already written there. Don't make another post until you read all 8 pages

Edited by deteego: 23/9/2010 06:23:38 PM
thor
Sep 23, 2010 6:31 PM
Made another post- ops oh no my bad

I have read the plan in full, so did the Independents and they all say through the deception. of thoses 97% how many will have constant dropout. Any person connecting outside of the city will have crap internet. Also when will the wireless be ready, if I remember correctly, the spectrum hasnt been implemented. 5 years time is the timeline set.

Dont get me wrong, Conroy is not on my christmas list (e.g because of the filter) but once thing he has got right is the NBN.

You said "Australia has plenty of copper which is not degraded". Where is your source of information coming from.


PS: Government only ever change policies when they have been caught out or wrong. e.g children overboard, Iraq war (WMD) all good examples of policy change. And I dont ever believe the govenment, just pointing out the flawed methods which the Liberals used and failed to win over the public.
deteego
Sep 23, 2010 6:47 PM
thor wrote:
Made another post- ops oh no my bad

I have read the plan in full, so did the Independents and they all say through the deception. of thoses 97% how many will have constant dropout. Any person connecting outside of the city will have crap internet. Also when will the wireless be ready, if I remember correctly, the spectrum hasnt been implemented. 5 years time is the timeline set.

Where is your evidence of this?

Most of the dropouts are caused because a lot of people on rural areas are forced to use wireless because there isn't any wired option due to no back haul being available in the area (this would be fixed by either plan). Its great that they are angry about not having internet, but being ignorant isn't helping anyone. Its either that or they are forced to use ADSL over copper for over 10 kilometers (which is something its not designed for). Likewise the wireless is being stretched to the limits for similar reasons

Quote:

You said "Australia has plenty of copper which is not degraded". Where is your source of information coming from.

Lots of Australia running ADSL2+ without any issues? If the copper is degraded, you start getting very common desyncs on your line among other things. If you want an example of a country with a huge amount of degraded copper that is having issues with ADSL/ADSL2+, look at Czech Republic. ISP's such as TPG, iiNet and Internode fully run on ADSL/ADSL2+ and have the majority of their customer base using copper infrastructure

Quote:

PS: Government only ever change policies when they have been caught out or wrong. e.g children overboard, Iraq war (WMD) all good examples of policy change. And I dont ever believe the govenment, just pointing out the flawed methods which the Liberals used and failed to win over the public.

Liberals plan wasn't even caught out to be wrong. It wasn't even debated at all. No one even talked about (either plan) apart from the couple of forums. The independents (Oakshot and Windsor at least) had a clear Labor bias, even before the meetings (it was leaked for example that Oakshot wanted to be a minister for state government under Morris Lemma which put him in a very awkward position currently where Labor can even lose its majority and not have a technical government)

HubertCumberdale doesn't even know what hes talking about, and no one listens to Mike because he sounds like a little kid who can't keep his temper (and again ignores half the debate)

Edited by deteego: 23/9/2010 06:50:12 PM
thor
Sep 23, 2010 7:05 PM
With regards to your quote "Where is your evidence of this?" Thats been my quote, maybe sydney not bad when it comes to dropouts, WA is notorious for losing connectivity. You also didnt answer my question regarding where your source of information came from, you simply deflected the topic to talk about the Czech.

iiNet if I remember correctly are looking forward to the NBN, cheaper cost as well as breaking Telstra monopoly, win-win situation and wish I had iinet in our area.

I also dont think the Independent would be that silly to get elected out of office after the first term, they came in with a plan and they doing what is best for there area. True a bias may have been evident, but the NBN was the only real differences between the parties.

I do understand where you are coming fromwith regards to Turnball and I hope he keeps the government to account, which can only benefit us. with regards to the other users HubertCumberdale & Mike, they may not agree with you, but to say they dont know what they are talking about, is a bit harsh, they do make some very good & relevant points.
deteego
Sep 23, 2010 7:13 PM
thor wrote:
With regards to your quote "Where is your evidence of this?" Thats been my quote, maybe sydney not bad when it comes to dropouts, WA is notorious for losing connectivity. You also didnt answer my question regarding where your source of information came from, you simply deflected the topic to talk about the Czech.

I never said all of Australia is completely fine, I said earlier that rural areas (and WA) like you said have issues. But the majority of the population is on the east/south coast, and they have little if any issues with copper. Also a lot of people are quick to blame copper for the problem, when there can be other reasons why they are getting bad speeds or dropping out. On of my friends in WA changed from Bigpond to iiNet, with bigpond he had ADSL2+ and horrific speeds, with iiNet he got only ADSL but was able to download at full speed without any desyncs.

Quote:
iiNet if I remember correctly are looking forward to the NBN, cheaper cost as well as breaking Telstra monopoly, win-win situation and wish I had iinet in our area.

Telstra has no monopoly. They lost a massive amount of market share to iiNet,TPG and internode. They only have a monopoly over phone exchanges and thats about it (this is infrastructure and not actual Internet Service), and ACCC is always hot on their ass these days whenever they do something wrong. Also when the NBN is by definition a monopoly, and is going to be sold to Telstra (well there is still discussion about what exactly is going to happen after NBN is going to be built)

Quote:

I also dont think the Independent would be that silly to get elected out of office after the first term, they came in with a plan and they doing what is best for there area. True a bias may have been evident, but the NBN was the only real differences between the parties.

Its actually pretty likely they will get voted out next election (if you watch 24 hour news channels like sky news that do proper coverage of the politics, things actually look quite grim for Labor in general)

Quote:
I do understand where you are coming fromwith regards to Turnball and I hope he keeps the government to account, which can only benefit us. with regards to the other users HubertCumberdale & Mike, they may not agree with you, but to say they dont know what they are talking about, is a bit harsh, they do make some very good & relevant points.

I never said Mike doesn't know what he is talking about, he is just (ridiculously heavily) biased and ignores half of the argument (him, like you, still think that my point of view is that Fibre is inferior, and he spent 3 pages showing how great Fibre is). He also has the attitude of a 5 year old kid who doesn't get his candy. Hubert on the other hand doesn't know what hes talking about, and he showed why on page 4

Edited by deteego: 23/9/2010 07:23:43 PM
thor
Sep 23, 2010 7:26 PM
@ deteego says :
ignores half of the argument (him, like you, still think that my point of view is that Fibre is inferior)

Wow going to personal jibes are we. why are you going back to fibre, i just saying that the Liberal NBN which you support is flawed, wireless is a bit part of that and currently is majorly flawed, you might want to read over the comments previously.

PS; Newspaper coverage is biased (even ITNews, sorry guys), I go by what I have learnt from my time in the industry and by what happens in real life scenarios.

I cant say what other people over east are getting but the results speak for themselves. If i remember correctly Australia was ranked 45th in the world with regards to internet. Dont you think thats Pretty bad when developing nations are getting better internet access then why are.

Like I said before in 10 years time, Wireless may be the way to go but until the get the spectrum all sorted out and increase the speed 10 fold with less errors and dropouts, my views on Fibre and the NBN will not change.
As you said before, it is a new technology going through a spurt, when everything settles down and reliable then by all means implement it.
deteego
Sep 23, 2010 7:33 PM
thor wrote:
@ deteego says :
ignores half of the argument (him, like you, still think that my point of view is that Fibre is inferior)

Wow going to personal jibes are we. why are you going back to fibre, i just saying that the Liberal NBN which you support is flawed, wireless is a bit part of that and currently is majorly flawed, you might want to read over the comments previously.

Well at least you are getting (he still isn't)

Quote:
I cant say what other people over east are getting but the results speak for themselves. If i remember correctly Australia was ranked 45th in the world with regards to internet. Dont you think thats Pretty bad when developing nations are getting better internet access then why are.

http://www.itif.org/files/BroadbandRankings.pdf
We actually are not that bad in regards to speed. Americas average speed for example is 4.1, ours is 1.1. There is japan (average speed of ~60mbps), then there is singapore/south korea (~30 to 40), then Netherlands/Sweden (~10/20) and then the rest is in the band from 1-10 mbits

EDIT: Czech republic for example, has a slightly faster average speed (1.8) then Australia but their state of copper is horrible compared to Australia, so it doesn't take Einstein to figure out something isn't adding up (i.e. Czech's low speeds are actually because of copper and other factors, our low speeds are mainly due to being down south away from where the internet content is)

You have to realise that one main reason our speeds are so bad is we almost grab all internet content from halfway across the world (japan or america). Fibre is not going to fix that problem (said why on page 4)

EDIT: Unfortunately (and this is what we have to accept for living in Australia), Australia will never be in the 'top10' for Internet, we are a country with massive size, small population on the other side of the world. Unless the majority of internet content decides to move into Australia (this is ridiculously unlikely) we are never gonna get those beautiful speeds we see hapenning in Japan. Its just something we have to accept as a fact. We are always gonna be capped by those underground speed cables, and the fast direct cables to Japan/America (of which there are 4) share 1.5 terrabits of bandwidth for all of Australia

Quote:
Like I said before in 10 years time, Wireless may be the way to go but until the get the spectrum all sorted out and increase the speed 10 fold with less errors and dropouts, my views on Fibre and the NBN will not change.
As you said before, it is a new technology going through a spurt, when everything settles down and reliable then by all means implement it.


Australia isn't going to have spectrum problems because our density is not that high. The problem with wireless in Australia is simply put there isn't any money going into providing the infrustructure

Edited by deteego: 23/9/2010 08:07:02 PM
HubertCumberdale
Sep 24, 2010 12:04 AM
Well this thread sure has gotten long but I'll just add another 2 cents anyway. I find this opposition to the NBN to be quite puzzling. Here we (Australia) have a chance and a golden opportunity to lead in one area instead of dragging our feet like we usually do. The whole world is basically looking at us right now to see what we are going to do next.

My philosophy is that basically every house should have fibre, if you can get electricity, if you have a phone you should get fibre. Of course that may not be possible but that should be the goal. This is an important infrastructure, nobody thinks twice about roads, sewerage or electricity. All of these services are essential to our quality of living in Australia. Some (unenlightened) people may say that internet doesn't or shouldn't fit in this category I would argue that it does, this is about information and everyone having access to the same standard so as not to create a divide. It's all very well to leave it up to the private sector to do something like this but quite frankly they haven't been too inspiring in the past and I doubt that would change anytime soon.

And another thing I said this before but I think it's worth reiterating the point. I really dont want to have to worry about whether the person at the other end of my file transfers has fibre, adsl or dialup, I shouldn't have to. That should be part of the service as far as I'm concerned. In fact I say upload speeds should be faster than download speeds but that is another story, point is to truly make this network useful you have to connect a large majority of the population not just the capital cities.

As for FTTN I'm glad this was dropped. This would have eventually become one of the biggest telecommunications fuckups in history if it had gone ahead.

Wireless. No, just no, I'm not even going to bother discussing this one anymore. It's like ordering a steak and getting a salad with bugs in it instead. I ordered a steak medium rare, bugs in a salad are not viable protein as far as I'm concerned and as for that green stuff feed it to some hippies.
deteego
Sep 24, 2010 9:56 AM
HubertCumberdale wrote:
Well this thread sure has gotten long but I'll just add another 2 cents anyway. I find this opposition to the NBN to be quite puzzling. Here we (Australia) have a chance and a golden opportunity to lead in one area instead of dragging our feet like we usually do. The whole world is basically looking at us right now to see what we are going to do next.


If you actually understood what you were talking about, you would realise why there is opposition. thor acknowledges this, that even though he supports NBN that its good to have its accountability taken into account into Turnbill

If you don't think how anyone could oppose NBN, then you are living in your own bubble world and not in reality. The point of a democracy is to comment on, and criticise plans that are put forth

Quote:
And another thing I said this before but I think it's worth reiterating the point. I really dont want to have to worry about whether the person at the other end of my file transfers has fibre, adsl or dialup, I shouldn't have to. That should be part of the service as far as I'm concerned. In fact I say upload speeds should be faster than download speeds but that is another story, point is to truly make this network useful you have to connect a large majority of the population not just the capital cities.

Unfortunately the Internet, being the Internet, relies on the bandwith in perspective of the whole world, not just in Australia. This is why (you) don't understand what you are talking about. Any other country apart from Antarctica, Africa and South America and some pacific Islands, they already have a massive reason over Australia why they should FTTH, they can actually use the Technology to full potential, Australia can't.

Its good to understand the fundamentals of the Internet instead of blindly saying "oooh, that country has Fibre everywhere, I think we should have the same!!!!"

Edited by deteego: 24/9/2010 09:58:38 AM
realitybites
Sep 24, 2010 10:59 AM
@deteego - I live in regional QLD with a regional population of just over 100K (off the top of my head). I can say from experience when I was providing dialup access that the copper in our region is not good at all. We only need to have a decent shower pass over and lines start to get noisy and there is a major dropout increase.

The copper network may not be in such good shape as you might think.
HubertCumberdale
Sep 24, 2010 12:31 PM
deteego wrote:
If you don't think how anyone could oppose NBN, then you are living in your own bubble world and not in reality. The point of a democracy is to comment on, and criticise plans that are put forth

Who is living in a bubble? The electorate has spoken and it wants the NBN, that is democracy that is reality. Time to build yourself a bridge and get over it chump.

deteego wrote:
they can actually use the Technology to full potential, Australia can't.

Wrong.

deteego wrote:

Its good to understand the fundamentals of the Internet instead of blindly saying "oooh, that country has Fibre everywhere, I think we should have the same!!!!"

If you understood anything in my post you'd know that I'm actually arguing for the exact opposite. Really I'd like to recommend you read my post but I feel this line has already been exhausted by yourself. But one thing is for sure if anyone doesn't understand the fundamentals of the internet here it's you.

deteego wrote:

Edited by deteego: 24/9/2010 09:58:38 AM

Editing your posts again? why? just curious. I noticed someone on another site had a penchant for numerous post edits too.
deteego
Sep 24, 2010 1:07 PM
I see no proof in your statements at all. No government was voted in, so no democracy voted for NBN over Libs plan

Saying that download accelerators magically increase bandwith is like saying 1 + 1 = 3 (in other words, you are blatantly incorrect)

Note that saying Wrong isnt proof, its denial on you part (until you actually prove what you are saying, you haven't proven a single thing you have said. No links, no explanations, nothing. Just download accelerators waving magic wands)

realitybites wrote:
@deteego - I live in regional QLD with a regional population of just over 100K (off the top of my head). I can say from experience when I was providing dialup access that the copper in our region is not good at all. We only need to have a decent shower pass over and lines start to get noisy and there is a major dropout increase.

The copper network may not in such good shape as you might think.


Australia has a population of 22 million. The point is you have to look at the bigger picture. Even if we assume 10x that figure is the number of people having issues with Copper lines (1 million), that is still around 4.8% population of the country. The rest don't have issues with copper/cable

So obviously giving Fibre to those people isn't a bad idea (in fact it should be done) however does that mean we need to give Fibre to the rest of the people that have no issues with their copper line (lets be under-generous and say its 50 or 60%) and don't really have a user for Fibre. This is the point I am getting at. I would have zero issues if the Labor government just did FTTH in the areas that are having issues with copper, but they aren't, they are doing it EVERYWHERE

Edited by deteego: 24/9/2010 01:22:06 PM
thor
Sep 24, 2010 1:58 PM
@deteego said:

Australia has a population of 22 million. The point is you have to look at the bigger picture. Even if we assume 10x that figure is the number of people having issues with Copper lines (1 million), that is still around 4.8% population of the country. The rest don't have issues with copper/cable

So obviously giving Fibre to those people isn't a bad idea (in fact it should be done) however does that mean we need to give Fibre to the rest of the people that have no issues with their copper line (lets be under-generous and say its 50 or 60%) and don't really have a user for Fibre. This is the point I am getting at.

Sorry but what you said are purely personal assumptions. Please provide the proof to your claim before making assumptions. But I am glad you agree fibre is required :) even if you believe it should be limited

Anybody more than 2 kms away from the exchange really needs fibre if they have multiple devices on the network, though it might not be feasible presently, will be in the future.

Going off topic, I am sick of government (federal, state and local) only looking in the short term with regards to future. Look at the conditions of the state roads(good example of this.
realitybites
Sep 24, 2010 1:59 PM
Is it not logical to assume that if my region is having issues with copper, that other regions would be as well? Why would my region be any different?

"But the majority of the population is on the east/south coast, and they have little if any issues with copper."

The point of my post was to say that you cant make blanket statements like that quoted above and NOT expect people to argue with you. How do you quantify the quote above? Do you have a source you can point me to?
I cant speak for other regions as I don't live there. Unless you have some sort of insider knowledge on the state of the copper network, neither can you.
HubertCumberdale
Sep 24, 2010 2:09 PM
deteego wrote:
No government was voted in, so no democracy voted for NBN over Libs plan

We have a government. Don't you watch the news?

deteego wrote:
I see no proof in your statements at all.

Here we go again...

deteego wrote:

Note that saying Wrong isnt proof, its denial on you part (until you actually prove what you are saying, you haven't proven a single thing you have said. No links, no explanations, nothing. Just download accelerators waving magic wands)


I hate to be the one to point this out but you haven't actually provided any proof to qualify your statements, the only thing you've really done is come up with random lines without any proof whatsoever, you say "Australia can't use the technology to full potential" prove it and where is your study for this? You might fool others with this sort of crap but you wont fool me and I am not about to waste time on these spurious arguments, a simple "wrong" or "you are really wrong" will suffice in these cases.

thor wrote:

Going off topic, I am sick of government (federal, state and local) only looking in the short term with regards to future. Look at the conditions of the state roads(good example of this.

I agree. and look at the state of our High Speed Rail... we don't even have one! :-)

Edited by HubertCumberdale: 24/9/2010 02:09:44 PM
HubertCumberdale
Sep 24, 2010 4:12 PM
Interesting poll results today btw.

Quote:

How fast do you need the internet?

12Mbps 11%
24/12Mbps 19%
100/40Mbps 29%
1000/400Mbps 42%


I think this is fairly logical, more people need faster speeds. I chose 100/40Mbps only because there is no 100/100Mbps option but 1gbit for me would be needed eventually as file sizes increase.

Bazwalt
Sep 24, 2010 4:41 PM
"They are only using alternative technologies where Fibre will fail, try again"

Of course because that's the point. Why lay fibre in only select areas and do wireless everywhere else?

Just because 1 person can't use fibre in home/apartment/building is no excuse no to lay fibre.

What if a tenant moves out and then decides he wants fibre? He then has to go and get council permission to rip up roads and concrete and then go and find a provider who will lay the fibre and it ends up costing him time and money.

By your logic, perhaps copper shouldn't have been laid everywhere because some people might not want a phone or even internet. Food for thought.

"You are missing the point, it didn't have to be Tasmania. The point is, if NBN gets shot down, then all it has done is installed Fibre in one small location in Australia"

True. Didn't HAVE to be but it was a good choice. And a logical one.
Feel free to deploy your own FTTx infrastructure and prove NBNco wrong.

"Again, missing the point"
Ok - So are you going to respond with some kind of rebuttal or is that scope of your ability to debate.

"NBN CREATES a monopoly"
Owned by the Govt. And therefore owned by the people.

"Currently there isn't any monopoly in ISP's, for ADSL2+ (what almost everyone uses) there are numerous providers."

A majority of which are via Telstra Wholesale ports. Try again.

"Telstra has in fact lost massive amount of its stock and market share to the likes of iiNet and Internode and TPG."

It still owns the copper infrastructure that is hindering the advances of our telecommunications.

"Stop quoting stuff from NBN's site, it has obvious bias (and they conveniently ignore information which undermines the plan"

I guess your selective reading kicked in again..I provided you the link of my source (which was not NBNs site). You'd know that if you stopped reading selectively.

"You are turning a massive blind eye then, and you haven't again taking into account that coalitions plan covers more then the NBN in providing internet to areas where it wasn't possible."

I'm not turning a blind eye at all. I've taken a substantial amount of my information from sources on both sides of the fence. I've developed my own opinion on the matter with consideration of the implications from both policies.

Fact is, my opinion is supported by a large majority of the industry (no I can't back this up so i don't expect you to believe me) and the only thing that's being questioned (even by myself) is the countries ability to survive the funding going towards this project.

Even I am skeptical of it. BUT, I've looked at the projects plans and I've considered the information presented to me and I am placing my faith in the govt. Of course I will smack myself if this project falls over face first.

"All I am getting from you is that "Labor is doing an NBN in the worst way possible, but its all ok, since it is Fibre"

If that's what your getting from me than that is your own doing. I've never stated that I feel Labour is leading the NBN in the worst way. That is you..putting words in my mouth. I am saying that I am confident that Fibre is the right technology for the project.

"Deteego said to HubertCumberdale: Also why are you still replying, you made quite a fool out of yourself earlier and showed you didn't know what you were talking about (at all)"

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Quite an immature response.

Thor said: "Selective reading is fantastic, you do that a fair bit yourself."

I know. He's very skilled at it.

"Thats why you build a proper wireless network (Hint: our current wireless network is not very good, especially compared to America or European countries. In several countries in Europe people use wireless more then wired internet, such as Russia, because drop outs happen rarely and not commonly)"

You can build that wireless network as "proper" as you want. It doesn't eliminate the fact that you're relying on a signal spectrum to travel through air (past weather/environment and microwave interference) and reach the end-user. Sorry mate…the laws of science don't agree with you.

"I never said that everyone wanted wireless, I said that there are some people that want wireless, some that want Fibre, and some that are happy with just ADSL2+ and dont need a FTTH connection (again, stop coming up with strawmans, its not helping your case). The NBN is just fibre, its not providing anything else (well Satellite to the 7% of the country it can't reach), completely irrelevant of the fact that wireless technology is going through a massive surge in Australia. Thats why ISP's made the ABA"

Actually I'm fairly sure you did say that everyone wants wireless. Either way, there's a big difference between what you said and what you meant and the I'm sure that multiple participants in this debate will agree that you meant one thing but said something else.

And yes, wireless technology is soaring because of cellular devices. It's an example of natural progression in technology. Not technological preference.

"- Creating a FIBRE (yes I bolded that, might help against your selective reading) backhaul throughout 97% of the country (thats higher then Labors 93%!!!!)"

Let me stop you there. The Fibre backhaul is a key *component* of the NBN. It isn't the actual NBN…it's just part of the NBN.

"Liberals plan just wont connect every house with Fibre up to the node, probably because every house doesn't need to be be connected with Fibre up to the node"

Like I said before, not everyone may want a landline telephone or even an internet connection but regardless of that we have been graced with a copper landline :P Same will be for Fibre. It's a backwards move to expect every consumer to obtain council permission then pay for a contractor to come and lay you a fibre. You'd have contractors ripping up concrete, roads, and soil over and over again which is pointless when you can do it all in one move (and yes I know you suggested Dark Fibre but all thats doing is leaving it unlit which in the end still costs the consumer an arm and a leg).

"But the majority of the population is on the east/south coast, and they have little if any issues with copper."

Do you have statistical evidence to support this? If not than please be quiet.

"Also a lot of people are quick to blame copper for the problem, when there can be other reasons why they are getting bad speeds or dropping out."

And what are these other reasons you speak of?

"On of my friends in WA changed from Bigpond to iiNet, with bigpond he had ADSL2+ and horrific speeds, with iiNet he got only ADSL but was able to download at full speed without any desyncs."

Probably a port change.

"Telstra has no monopoly. They lost a massive amount of market share to iiNet,TPG and internode."

Wrong. They own the copper infrastructure which dominates our market. So long as they have the majority share they maintain complete control.

HubertCumberdale said:"As for FTTN I'm glad this was dropped. This would have eventually become one of the biggest telecommunications fuckups in history if it had gone ahead."

Actually, FTTN probably would be have a good move. If FTTN was implemented it would mean that the copper cable runs would have been shorter and easier to maintain and would have made laying Fibre to businesses and corporations a lot easier. It would have been a great move as an alternative to the NBN but meh…they scrapped it for some other reason im not sure of.
thor
Sep 24, 2010 5:17 PM
And that my friends is game, set and match.

-Well played everybody. Now we are all the wiser (or not) after this discussion.

marcusg
Sep 24, 2010 6:48 PM
Oh dear, it's all getting rather nasty...

Simply put there are existing technologies that work well today. What's available tomorrow? No one really knows, but the best today is the NBN approach. However, it is interesting that since the announcement of the NBN rollout the 'big two' telcos, Optus and Telstra, can't help themselves by dropping prices and upping speed using current technologies. Other smaller operators have jumped on the speed bandwagon (bandwidth??) Mmmmm??...me confused.

The NBN is now addressing speed and connection issues in country Oz. Good for country dwellers (and those thinking of moving to a country town). Imagine city Internet speeds in the country!!

It is silly to compare the Oz experience to other countries. Ours is a vast land with its own problems of distance and isolation. Fix these issues first then address the city folk. But fast, inexpensive Internet access is available to the bulk of us now on the Eastern seaboard.
deteego
Sep 25, 2010 11:27 AM
Bazwalt wrote:
Actually, FTTN probably would be have a good move. If FTTN was implemented it would mean that the copper cable runs would have been shorter and easier to maintain and would have made laying Fibre to businesses and corporations a lot easier. It would have been a great move as an alternative to the NBN but meh…they scrapped it for some other reason im not sure of.


At least you know what you are talking about

Just saying that was the Liberals plan........(you know,complete Fibre backhaul, up to the node). They said it would be done in 2013 iirc (according to the plan). It also would have cost around 12% of what the NBN did (same reason why Dark Fibre for FTTH would have been much smarter)

Im not sure if people realize (here is reference since ppl like evidence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_fibre), the massive cost in installing Fibre is not the cabling (although that is quite expansive), its actually the labor involved in installing that Fibre Cabling. The reason why FTTH is so ridiculously expensive is as you can imagine, it requires a lot of man hours in labor (which costs $$$$) to get Fibre up to every house in Australia. That is why the difference (in cost) between FTTH and FTTN is so massive, with FTTN you don't install Fibre up to everyones house (you are just building, like a highway) where as FTTH is a highway to everyones house.

This is also the reason why people in rural areas (WA/QLD) have such issues with copper, its not that the copper is necessarily degenerated (it certainly can be) but the other major reason is that people are using copper over 10km for ADSL up the node. The recommended distance for Copper on ADSL is up to 3 km, its simply not being used as its designed to, and the FTTN would fix that (since it would build the backhaul in those areas)

HubertCumberdale wrote:
Interesting poll results today btw.

Quote:

How fast do you need the internet?

12Mbps 11%
24/12Mbps 19%
100/40Mbps 29%
1000/400Mbps 42%


I think this is fairly logical, more people need faster speeds. I chose 100/40Mbps only because there is no 100/100Mbps option but 1gbit for me would be needed eventually as file sizes increase.



Please get a degree (or a basic understanding) in statistics before posting crap like that. The people that read itNews are in no way indicative of the Australian population in general. Using botched samples I can also prove that everyone would wan't a Ferrari by doing a survey of people in a Cars Magazine.

Its like asking everyone in a Church "do you believe religious studies should be removed from schools"

Quote:

If that's what your getting from me than that is your own doing. I've never stated that I feel Labour is leading the NBN in the worst way. That is you..putting words in my mouth. I am saying that I am confident that Fibre is the right technology for the project.

No I am stating that MY opinion of you is you don't care about the logistics or even the workings behind the NBN, all you care about is the fact that it is Fibre, and such a view is a very naive one in my opinion (but at least you are not completely narrow minded as others around here)

Quote:
Wrong. They own the copper infrastructure which dominates our market. So long as they have the majority share they maintain complete control.

This is 2010, not 1990's. They are forced by government to lease copper network as a national infrastructure.(much the same way NBN will be, NBN is not going to be totally owned by the government). If they break any regulations they get sued by ACCC and lose millions of dollars (its already happened many times. If Telstra had a monopoly over copper lines and exchanges, companies such as TPG/Internode and iiNet wouldn't exist and would not be as large as they are now, and we would just have one ISP that is usable, being Telstra. Telstra technically does not have a monopoly, even ACCC stated this. They have been accused for making monopolistic practicses, but they do not hold a monopoly. You are using the exact same logic as the people going around saying that Apple has a monopoly, when they don't. Telstra and Optus both share around 60% of the market, that is no monopoly (taking into account TPG has ~11%, iiNet ~12 and the rest). If they had a monopoly, then ACCC would have blocked Telstra's latest move in increasing their data bandwith

Quote:
Do you have statistical evidence to support this? If not than please be quiet.

Where is the statistical evidence to prove your point (if so be quite, you cannot claim that copper degradation is a major problem in Australia. .I have logical evidence as to why thats not the case (that the fact our speeds are limited because all of Australia is sharing 1.5gigabit/s connection for overseas traffic). If you haven't gotten it already, you can't prove the majority of Australia is using degraded copper, I can't prove that the majority of Australia doesn't have degraded copper. My basis of information is from Whirlpool, where people that specifically live in city areas (such as myself), having degraded copper is basically a rarity in cities such as Sydney and Melbourne. Its such cities where the majority of people live. I agree that people in rural and 'outer' areas have issues with copper (although in a lot of cases its copper being used improperly, i.e. connections to node over 5 km's) but its indisputable that the amount of people living in rural Australia is an extreme minority compared to the cities (it also doesn't help that companies such as TPG always blame copper for issues that are on their end. iiNet has probably the most stable and best connection for ADSL/ADSL2+ and they also use the same copper)

Edited by deteego: 25/9/2010 12:40:50 PM
HubertCumberdale
Sep 25, 2010 1:08 PM
deteego wrote:

Please get a degree (or a basic understanding) in statistics before posting crap like that.

You think someone needs a degree to understand a few numbers in a poll? statistics? it's just a few numbers dude, your view of the world seems rather distorted if that is what you think. More to the point are you calling the 168 (now) people that participated in this poll liars? the question is simple "How fast do you need the internet?" pick an answer... not complicated at all... but should we make sure everyone that participated in it is has a degree first before we count their vote?
deteego
Sep 25, 2010 10:36 PM
HubertCumberdale wrote:
deteego wrote:

Please get a degree (or a basic understanding) in statistics before posting crap like that.

You think someone needs a degree to understand a few numbers in a poll? statistics? it's just a few numbers dude, your view of the world seems rather distorted if that is what you think. More to the point are you calling the 168 (now) people that participated in this poll liars? the question is simple "How fast do you need the internet?" pick an answer... not complicated at all... but should we make sure everyone that participated in it is has a degree first before we count their vote?


You don't need a degree to understand the basics of statistics when they are given to you, you do actually need a degree to take a realistic statistical sample of whatever it is you are trying to prove (something clearly you didn't). A poll on itNews is not indicative of the population in general, so you cannot take a poll from itNews and say "oh, the whole population of the Australia also thinks the same way these people do, thus everyone needs 100mbit internet"

All that poll says is that people interested in computing, IT and the internet like fast internet (geez, what a surprise)

To take proper and realistic statistical samples (to prove something generally) you do need a uni degree for (at they very least). Otherwise you make a horribly inaccurate assumption (and creating such samples in the first place is a very fine art, seeing in history how polls for elections can swing easily shows this).

marcusg wrote:
It is silly to compare the Oz experience to other countries. Ours is a vast land with its own problems of distance and isolation. Fix these issues first then address the city folk. But fast, inexpensive Internet access is available to the bulk of us now on the Eastern seaboard.


Yeah this is why giving Fibre to everyone is kinda silleh (giving it to the remote areas that need FTTH or an extended Fibre backhaul is obviously common sense, but giving to people that already have cheap internet and decent speed with little/no connection issues is a stretch to say the least)

Edited by deteego: 25/9/2010 10:54:06 PM
HubertCumberdale
Sep 26, 2010 2:23 PM
deteego wrote:

You don't need a degree to understand the basics of statistics when they blah blah blah

All that poll says is that people interested in computing, IT and the internet like fast internet (geez, what a surprise)

To take proper and realistic statistical samples more blah blah blah


Really you should just go with these poll results, if you ask the majority of people they will more than likely pick the fastest speeds and the poll would end up looking like this:

Quote:
How fast do you need the internet?

12Mbps 0%
24/12Mbps 0%
100/40Mbps 40%
1000/400Mbps 60%


I see no reason to argue these hypothetical results either, we are all eventually going to need 1gbit.



deteego wrote:

cheap internet and decent speed with little/no connection issues is a stretch to say the least

In what world is 16mbit decent? that is all I can get, I think Australia can do better or are you one of those people that thinks no one should have a better internet connection than your own?

deteego wrote:

Edited by deteego: 25/9/2010 10:54:06 PM

???
deteego
Sep 26, 2010 3:04 PM
HubertCumberdale wrote:

Really you should just go with these poll results, if you ask the majority of people they will more than likely pick the fastest speeds and the poll would end up looking like this


No I really shouldn't, and its blatantly obvious why

EDIT: especially if people are not going to be getting those speeds

Edited by deteego: 26/9/2010 03:08:27 PM
HubertCumberdale
Sep 26, 2010 5:06 PM
deteego wrote:
No I really shouldn't, and its blatantly obvious why

EDIT: especially if people are not going to be getting those speeds


Check this thread to see why you are wrong: http://www.itnews.com.au/forums/yaf_postst41159_Turnbull-blasts-NBN-waste-internet-filter.aspx

deteego wrote:
Edited by deteego: 26/9/2010 03:08:27 PM


Thanks for stopping by!
deteego
Sep 26, 2010 5:12 PM
HubertCumberdale wrote:
deteego wrote:
No I really shouldn't, and its blatantly obvious why

EDIT: especially if people are not going to be getting those speeds


Check this thread to see why you are wrong: http://www.itnews.com.au/forums/yaf_postst41159_Turnbull-blasts-NBN-waste-internet-filter.aspx


All I read was, HubertCumberdale doesn't understand what he is talking about. But no, even when ISP representatives from Internode say the same thing from Whirlpool forums, it doesn't count. Because HubertCumberdale clearly has credentials and knows 100% what he is talking about. Do you even do any study or any work related to this area at all (because it appears you are technologically oblivious)
deteego
Sep 26, 2010 5:57 PM
http://www.cnet.com.au/fast-broadband-hands-on-at-100mbps-339305905.htm?omnRef=http://www.google.com.au/search%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Doptus%2B100mbit%2Boffshore%26aq%3Df%26aqi%3D%26aql%3D%26oq%3D%26gs_rfai%3D

This is also a good read for people expecting anything above 20 mbits
HubertCumberdale
Sep 26, 2010 9:16 PM
deteego wrote:
All I read was, HubertCumberdale doesn't understand what he is talking about. But no, even when ISP representatives from Internode say the same thing from Whirlpool forums, it doesn't count. Because HubertCumberdale clearly has credentials and knows 100% what he is talking about. Do you even do any study or any work related to this area at all (because it appears you are technologically oblivious)

Well apparently you do fancy yourself as an expert in this area and like I said before maybe you should get a job at NBN co and tell the ones who are doing it all wrong the right way to do it. You can call me "technologically oblivious" all you want (I'd actually just call you plain oblivious) but I have yet to say anything in this thread that was factually incorrect unlike yourself.
deteego
Sep 26, 2010 9:40 PM
HubertCumberdale wrote:

Well apparently you do fancy yourself as an expert in this area and like I said before maybe you should get a job at NBN co and tell the ones who are doing it all wrong the right way to do it. You can call me "technologically oblivious" all you want (I'd actually just call you plain oblivious) but I have yet to say anything in this thread that was factually incorrect unlike yourself.


Your statement about Download Accelerators is still factually incorrect, you are putting the same stress on the network

You also haven't said how anything I said was factually incorrect, you are just stating "that I am wrong"

I don't need to work for the NBN, Malcom Turnbull will do a good enough job, and he easily has enough ammunition to do so (especially considering the treasury is now pissed off at NBN for not providing a CBA)
HubertCumberdale
Sep 26, 2010 9:56 PM
deteego wrote:

Your statement about Download Accelerators is still factually incorrect, you are putting the same stress on the network

It really wasn't at all. You only think it is because of your own faulty premises.

deteego wrote:

You also haven't said how anything I said was factually incorrect, you are just stating "that I am wrong"

Like I said I haven't said anything in this thread that was factually incorrect you are wrong that is a fact.

deteego wrote:

I don't need to work for the NBN, Malcom Turnbull will do a good enough job, and he easily has enough ammunition to do so (especially considering the treasury is now pissed off at NBN for not providing a CBA)

yay?
deteego
Sep 26, 2010 10:00 PM
Quote:

It really wasn't at all. You only think it is because of your own faulty premises.

Which are what, yours seem to defy the laws of physics?

Edited by deteego: 26/9/2010 10:01:02 PM
HubertCumberdale
Sep 26, 2010 10:08 PM
deteego wrote:
Quote:

It really wasn't at all. You only think it is because of your own faulty premises.

Which are what, yours seem to defy the laws of physics?

Edited by deteego: 26/9/2010 10:01:02 PM

eh? my faulty premises defy the laws of physics? That makes no sense. edit and try again I got something in the microwave...
Bazwalt
Sep 27, 2010 9:20 AM
"This is also the reason why people in rural areas (WA/QLD) have such issues with copper, its not that the copper is necessarily degenerated (it certainly can be) but the other major reason is that people are using copper over 10km for ADSL up the node"

It's actually against Telstra's Provisioning procedures to connect anything beyond a 4km run. Most I've seen is 6km copper runs. So 10km is blow out of the water and if they are getting that kind of copper run and being accepted for DSL than those people should be bashing at Telstra's door for a refund.

"No I am stating that MY opinion of you is you don't care about the logistics or even the workings behind the NBN"

This another example of where you have said one thing and meant another. Your last statement was declaring that I was fully aware of the NBNs bad approach (to which I disagree) but was confident in it regardless.

And this would also be where you are wrong. It's not that I don't care about the logistics or the workings of the NBN. Rather, that I disagree with you and I feel that they are going about things the right way.

Just because someone doesn't feel or believe the same way as you do doesn't make them wrong.

"Where is the statistical evidence to prove your point (if so be quite, you cannot claim that copper degradation is a major problem in Australia."

Well it seems that neither of us have hard evidence to support both our arguments so perhaps we should both be quiet. That being said though, I'm quite certain that a national survey poll on the state of broadband would lay waste to your argument.
Pilotyoda
Dec 4, 2010 5:39 PM
Hey guys.
Seems like everyone is sledging each other for no net gain. Has anyone read the other post on IT news? There are no comments so maybe not.

"Stanton: High-speed internet could be worth $182bn".
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/240502,stanton-high-speed-internet-could-be-worth-182bn.aspx

In a nutshell, the only country to try to do a Cost benefit analysis was Japan and they got to a figure of $900Billion. Using their numbers Stanton gets $182B for Oz
As for Mobile access, how much bandwidth does a phone need. The best phones only have a 1/4 resolution of a medium laptop and most have 1/10th the resolution. Given, apart from data intensive stuff, the Graphics data uses the bulk of the bandwidth, their needs are relatively modest. Most phone portals deliberately use a lower bandwidth and resolution than regular web pages. And the Telcos are still getting bandwidth congestion and speed problems with all the phones now using the mobile net. The only way many Telcos can overcome user bandwidth issues is to step up to multi-channelling. That is multiple connections in the one dongle.

Most desktop machines and many portables (laptops) now use Full-HD screens (1920x1080) If large numbers of these owners wanted to connect to the web using full screen resolution apps via a mobile service the system would be creamed. For example Myspace/Facebook with un-resised images, of various photo only sites. With each hi-res image being 2-4MB in size (JPEG) or 10MB or bigger in RAW format then the wireless system would collapse.

I certainly don't want 10 times the number of towers and radiation bathing every street. Given the hue and cry every time a Telco tries to put up a mobile tower every Km or so, what will the reaction be when a tower is needed every couple of hundred meters or so?

@Bitto noted the problems of an estate using pair-gain. These estates (and there are many, all around the fringe metro suburbs in this country) are rarely within cooee of an exchange, so it would be pointless ripping everything up to replace it with more copper when at most they will only get about 1 or 2 Mb speeds because of the distance from the exchange! Fibre would solve it once and for all and these days is cheaper than copper.

The only reason this problem arose in the first place is because Telstra was privatised (and this was flagged 14 years ago when Howard got in) so Telstra STOPPED installing fibre Nearly 20 years ago, they were putting in fibre between exchanges and were rolling it out for nodes, etc. Along came Johnny and there was no more incentive to upgrade unless they had to.

BTW. I can think of a very good reason for upgrading to fibre: with the increased bandwidth, and the potential for symmetrical speeds, ANY device attached to the Net could be a server. Want to host your own (or others' site, and do it from home? Gonna be real easy. (Hey, anyone, (or a group using Torrent technology) could host Wikileaks from anywhere. Oh my; so that's why the powers-that-be don't want fibre!
Comments have been disabled for this article.
 
 
 
Top Stories
Australian miners send drones to work
In-depth: Unmanned aerial vehicles in the resources sector.
 
The New Zealand telco problem
Opinion: Could Telstra save Kiwi telcos?
 
IT price probe to 'name and shame' gougers
Industry ducking the issue, committee claims.
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...

Latest VideosSee all videos »

Latest Comments
Polls
Should the Government enact new legislation to protect copyright holders in the digital age?

   |   View results
Yes
  20%
 
No
  80%
TOTAL VOTES: 507

Vote