NBN Co builds for video, sharing

 
Page 1 of 2 | Single page

Retail service providers to approach customers with confidence for first time.

View larger image
AusNOG 4 conference in Sydney prepares to kick off.
View larger image
AusNOG chair David Hughes delivers an address to the conference.
View larger image
David Hughes AusNOG chair watches a packed house. Only the second time the event has sold out.

See all pictures here »

National Broadband Network architect NBN Co has opened a new front in the debate about the future of high-speed networks in Australia, asking service providers to consider the confidence the $43 billion network would bring to dealings with their customers.

Speaking at the annual Australian Network Operators Group conference in Sydney to a Who's Who of ISPs, NBN Co product engineer Tom Sykes (pictured) laid out plans to offer them greater confidence and control over their networks as they ran over the internet infrastructure under construction.

Sykes emphasised how the "best-efforts internet" was unsuitable for modern applications such as video and social media and how safeguards built into the network would give real-time status updates that providers could rely on with confidence when supporting or selling to customers.

Retail providers would have tools to tell them what was happening on the network and if, for instance, there was a fibre cut exactly where that was.

Related

"So you know exactly what's happened, which services were impacted so you can contact your end users," Sykes told delegates.

"If the end user unplugs their modem you'll get an alarm on your equipment. If there's a fibre cut that affects 3000 customers, you'll get alarms for each of those customers."

Although this was a long-term strategy, it was "really important for business services", he said.

What you pay is what you get

NBN Co product engineer Tom Sykes addresses delegates to AusNOG 4 conference in Sydney. photo: Nate Cochrane
NBN Co product engineer Tom Sykes addresses delegates to AusNOG 4 conference in Sydney. photo: Nate Cochrane
Gone will be the days when customers signed on to an expensive internet service only to find that their real-world mileage was far below what they were nominally entitled to, he said.

And providers would be able to market their services with surgical accuracy, knowing what products and services were offered down to the individual premises, instead of relying on inaccurate measures such as postcode or exchange location.

"[Today] you're trying to make a commitment to your customer and you can say, 'in theory, you could get DSL'."

"There's no real-world performance test of the line, it's really difficult to make, especially for a high-end service, an absolute commitment to a customer."

But with the NBN, he said, retailers "can make an absolute commitment" to their capabilities: "And these are real-time checks".

"From a customer expectations point of view we think this will help [sell services] quite a lot."

And although the network would work with today's internet protocol addresses that assigned unique numbers often only to whole networks, the NBN was geared to the next-generation IPv6 that would from next year provide a unique identifier to each of the internet-connected devices in an expected avalanche, he said.

Better YouTube experience and "jet packs" for Australians, next page.

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


"@singo79 Of course, but you are not asking the right question. Obviously you want the high speed Fibre Internet, but as you admitted, not EVERYONE needs it, and so not everyone should be given ..."
By deteego
 
 
 
Comments: 11
MerariSchroeder
Sep 16, 2010 5:52 PM
"Sykes emphasised how the "best-efforts internet" was unsuitable for modern applications such as video"
Well that must mean that YouTube is a dream - it's not really happening.

"and social media"
Free Facebook with mobile carriers must be a mirage

"So you know exactly what's happened, which services were impacted so you can contact your end users"
Ok, how will they contact them?... By carrier pidgeon?

"And providers would be able to market their services with surgical accuracy"
All for a premium

"Video would fuel the broadband revolution"
Precisely, it's only video that needs fast speeds. (Even a 10Mbps ADSL2+ connection can handle that)

"especially for those who wanted to upload to YouTube and Flickr high-definition streams"
What an admission. So the NBN is just to win over young voters? How productive...

"For instance, someone with a 100Mbps service at launch should be guaranteed 40Mbps upload speed, he said."
That's to the ISP, how about to the U.S.?

The NBN is a joke, you can achieve 100Mbps synchronous FTTN for a much lower cost, reaching more of Australia. LTE Advanced will be able to achieve (up to) 1Gbps. The Labor Government have been caught out, committing to the wrong plan and too proud to change to the better one. This isn't a visionary plan, it's embarrassing.

Visit NBNOptions.org to see the real facts - not the hyper-extended rave.
singo79
Sep 16, 2010 7:39 PM
@MerariSchroeder - Always the naysayer!

You have mentioned many quotes above and have managed to take them all out of content, afterall he delivered a speech in which the author has quoted him on.

You quoted the fact that "Sykes emphasised how the "best-efforts internet" was unsuitable for modern applications such as video" and then you stated that YouTube must be a dream. If you cared to read the entire article and take his comments into account over the entire article, you would have realised that he was specifically talking about how current DSL technology hinders the likes of YouTube with its painfully slow upload speeds and ratios.

"and social media" you say that Free Facebook with mobile carriers must be a mirage. Again, take it in context with what point he is getting across. Afterall he isn't saying that current technologies don't provide access to social media, rather that current technology inhibits the full ability of social media.

Negative comment after negative comment based on assumptions without clearly reading the entire article. I won't bother quoting you on each topic, rather I will just respond without bothering to add in the quotes.

The RSP's would contact their customers the same way they currently do... by the contact telephone number that they supply when signing up. Afterall my ISP only has my mobile and my wife's mobile numbers as contacts, therefore they would most certainly be able to contact us about the outage!

There doesn't appear to be anything "premium" about the rates currently being charged by Internode and iiNet. We also have the likes of Dodo stating that they will offer true unlimited broadband via the NBN at the same or similar price to what they currently charge for ADSL/2+ access.

Video is most certainly one of the biggest aspects that the NBN will be able to cater for and not just "movies" but also user generated video, namely HD video calls and user video being sent to family members etc. Video is bigger then just movies, as it caters for a greater range of services. A 10Mbps ADSL2+ connection (if you can find one) would only allow you to download video at a moderate speed, but it is the uploading that is severely hindered. Not only that, you cannot download a Blu-ray quality movie and use other internet services all at the same time on the one connection, nor could you stream HD video content and use multiple services on the one connection at the same time on ADSL2+ 10Mbps.

Ahh! getting tired of this but I will go on further to prove your ignorance!

The NBN is essentially for the younger generation, afterall it is going to be the younger generation that will rely on this infrastructure in the future rather then the older generation. Though that is not to say that they won't take full advantage of what the NBN has to offer. You can't seriously expect Sykes to list every single benefit of the NBN's infrastructure. My family upload videos to YouTube in order for the family to see the kids growing and the like, so are they not going to benefit from having such a fast network with fast upload speeds?

Who cares about the US! There are already many companies preparing to store content locally in Australia as a result of the NBN. The likes of Google (who own YouTube) already store a lot of data in Australia, therefore why on earth do we need to worry about speeds to the US? Though there are already plans for another sub-sea cable to the US to cater for increased demand, though they are assuming that data will continue to be stored in the US and not here in Australia.

LTE, why not WiMax2? Why not any form of wireless instead of the NBN? Because wireless has gone nowhere, apart from Mobile carriers offering mobile broadband to go along with people's smart phones. The data limits are pathetic, the speeds are ordinary, the latency is far too high and the infrastructure required to deliver the claimed speeds would require towers on every street corner rather then based centrally in a suburban area.

Telstra was pretty quick to back down on their claims after realising that their 21Mbps wireless service just couldn't deliver anywhere near the speeds that they claimed they could. In fact I have friends on the 21Mbps service and claim that their peak download rate is more like 8Mbps and during peak times 3Mbps.

If wireless was the end all and be all why aren't the South Korean's and Japanese rolling it out at a great rate then they are fibre-optic? South Korea are upgrading their fibre network to 1Gbps, so they must be wrong according to you, afterall what would the leaders in this area know.

If it were up to people like you we wouldn't even have a national telephone network! If it weren't for governments' past willing to take a gamble on investing in infrastructure we wouldn't have the telephone network we have today. Look at how long the network has lasted and is continuing to go, but it cannot sustain our demand any longer.

Fibre-optic is the future and will provide us with speeds we require as time goes by. There is more research going on with fibre-optic technology then there is wireless, as it is a proven technology that has failed to be superseded. Scientists have found ways to speed up the routing of data by inventing optical routers 1000 times faster then electronic routers.

Fibre-optic can continue to get faster and will get faster, much faster and reliable then wireless will ever be. Afterall, if we didn't have fibre-optic we wouldn't have mobile phone networks and wireless broadband providers!

The only embarrassing information on this page is your close minded and ignorant opinion.
ITnovice
Sep 16, 2010 11:04 PM
I am glad the upload speeds will be much better than they are currently, otherwise there would be little point building the new network. Smart grids and things like home health monitoring and reporting equipment rely on higher capacity uploads to work effectively.

As for the network termination box, i would prefer it be just inside the house, as that leaves less room for tampering and unsanctioned free internet for strangers should they plug in or connect while you are out.

And as for concerns over obsolete technology, the current network is almost obsolete, not the new one. Exactly where is this new tech that might make the NBN tech obsolete (other than in the minds of naysayers) - and wireless does not count! (it will be used as a part of the NBN anyway).
ITnovice
Sep 16, 2010 11:11 PM
@MerariSchroeder 'Visit NBNOptions.org to see the real facts - not the hyper-extended rave.'

Your dictator-esque rant is the only 'hyper-extended rave' around here. The Libs lost the election, face up to the fact the NBN is needed and will be built. The claims you make about alternate options doing the same job equally as well or better for less cost have already been scrutinised and failed to hold water technically.
HubertCumberdale
Sep 16, 2010 11:32 PM
I can see the whole wireless thing is going to persist for a while now. In one corner you have a bunch of Luddites that cant stand progress, you know the whole "copper is fine fibre is a waste" guys. Then in the other corner you have a bunch of pie in the sky dreamers waiting for that great wireless breakthrough because "fibre is old technology" no doubt thinking of quantum entanglement or subspace Star Trek stuff. Both of these groups opinions can safely be disregard as far as I'm concerned. ITnovice is right we had an election Libs lost but Australia wins.
deteego
Sep 17, 2010 8:04 AM
HubertCumberdale wrote:
I can see the whole wireless thing is going to persist for a while now. In one corner you have a bunch of Luddites that cant stand progress, you know the whole "copper is fine fibre is a waste" guys. Then in the other corner you have a bunch of pie in the sky dreamers waiting for that great wireless breakthrough because "fibre is old technology" no doubt thinking of quantum entanglement or subspace Star Trek stuff. Both of these groups opinions can safely be disregard as far as I'm concerned. ITnovice is right we had an election Libs lost but Australia wins.


Right, so using your logic I apparently think FTTN is a waste of money (and I say the opposite, we do need FTTN). Im not opposed to Fibre (and that goes for a lot of people in the forum). I am opposed to Fibre being wasted on people that don't use it. Fibre backhaul is what matters, and thats being built by both parties (still seems a lot of people like you are completely ignoring this)

Hint: Stop generalising, it doesn't help your argument. The difference between a 'smart' government and government that doesn't know what its doing, is a government which knows which technology to give in different areas.
HubertCumberdale
Sep 17, 2010 11:00 AM
deteego wrote:
I am opposed to Fibre being wasted on people that don't use it.

Yes it's true. You still dont get it... I've got a better idea let's build a FTTH network and connect every house then if you dont want/need 100mbit you can stick to ADSL/Dialup/Wireless or whatever. that way if you move out the new owners can make use of the faster connection.

deteego wrote:

Fibre backhaul is what matters, and thats being built by both parties

Is that what really matters? is that what you really think? So once we have all this fibre backhaul that'll automatically improve my 16mbit connection on ADSL2+, I should be able to get 100mbit once the backhaul is upgraded and get a 1gbit connection in 15 years because of the backhaul.


deteego wrote:

Hint: Stop generalising, it doesn't help your argument. The difference between a 'smart' government and government that doesn't know what its doing, is a government which knows which technology to give in different areas.


Hint: You've already proven you have no credibility when discussing this topic, maybe it's time you stopped resorting to using the same tired arguments.




singo79
Sep 17, 2010 11:09 AM
@deteego "Right, so using your logic I apparently think FTTN is a waste of money..."

Are you talking about FTTN or FTTH, for the government is delivering an FTTH network. If you are arguing for an FTTN network I would say that is a waste of money, but if you are advocating for an FTTH network I would say that you are correct.

FTTN was basically the first version of the NBN, that was until the Australian public and industry shot it down for being the wrong decision. I too agree that FTTN was the wrong decision as it still relied on copper for the last mile and we all agree that copper is no longer the answer, in any length.

Ultimately the vast majority here agree that Fibre-optic is the best option in terms of speeds, up and down, that fibre-optic has yet to be superseded and that it will be in use for as long, if not longer then our current copper network.
deteego
Sep 17, 2010 12:10 PM
No I am saying that FTTN is not a waste where as FTTH is a waste. The bottleneck is at the node, not at the home. barely any people will use FTTH to anywhere near its capacity, the opposite is for backhaul which will be under heavy congestion
singo79
Sep 17, 2010 7:13 PM
@deteego - Well either way I respect what you are saying, but I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

The federal government are currently deploying 1,000's of kms of fibre backhaul around the country to open up competition and to increase backhaul around the country.

I will most certainly be taking up a 100Mbit connection once it becomes available to me. It will resolve so many issues we have at home with everyone wanting to access the net at the same time.

Not to mention all of the devices that are constantly linked to the net like my server for one.

I agree that not everyone will take full advantage of the 100Mbit speeds initially, but there is certainly demand for it. Plus it is kind of a good thing that everyone won't be taking up 100Mbit initially as it means more backhaul for those with higher bandwidth plans.

I just can't wait for it to get hooked up to my address. I am at my wits end with Telstra, their prices, the lack of speed from the network and their constant billing errors. Bring on the NBN!
deteego
Sep 17, 2010 10:29 PM
@singo79

Of course, but you are not asking the right question. Obviously you want the high speed Fibre Internet, but as you admitted, not EVERYONE needs it, and so not everyone should be given the internet when they don't require it.

I myself have no use for Fibre Optic Internet, there are just 2 people living in my household and the second person barely uses any internet. Since the bottleneck is on most content overseas (caps around 25 mbits) I am not going to be downloading anything faster (that I actually need to be downloaded faster). This is the case for many other people.

I also said in another news topic, that if not many people end up using the 100 megabit link (because as you said not many people take it initially) then its a massive waste of money, because we now have billions of dollars of fibre that is being used to the same potential that normal copper can be

You have to realize that the reason why Fibre is expensive now is because of over regulation of telecommunications industry means there is no incentive for ISP's to build/upgrade a new backhaul (which is why ISP's have been hesitant to install Fibre backhauls because they have to allow that backhaul for use with other ISP's). Coalitions plan would also fix this (they would build the backhaul for the telecommunications companies so they can connect to the node, this isn't over regulated at all (this is why you wont have any issues connecting to ADSL2+ services if the infrastructure there). Its the fact that there isn't a proper backhaul for ISP's to install fibre to.

Furthermore, guess who the NBN is going to be sold to (you got it, most likely Telstra!). So the problems you are complaining about with Telstra are issues with the actual company, don't expect billing issues to be solved by the NBN

Also

singo79 wrote:
The federal government are currently deploying 1,000's of kms of fibre backhaul around the country to open up competition and to increase backhaul around the country.


What competition? If anything this will kill a competition. This is creating a monopolistic network which is going to be sold to a private company (which will have a backhaul considerably better then everyone else)

In other words, there is nothing stopping you from getting Fibre Optic internet from the coalitions plan, it would cost around the same, you would just give the money to a private company that would connect Fibre from your house to the node for you

Edited by deteego: 19/9/2010 09:35:42 PM
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