Turnbull backtracks on NBN demolition

 

Tries to poke holes in justification instead.

Shadow Communications spokesman Malcolm Turnbull has backtracked from a Coalition commitment to "demolish" the NBN in a televised debate with Communications Minister Stephen Conroy last night.

"The fact is that - look, I'm not interested in demolishing the NBN," Turnbull told the ABC's Lateline program.

"I'm interested in exposing the hollowness of the Government's justification for the NBN, and that, I suppose, will demolish their shabby and empty argument."

Coalition leader Tony Abbott had urged Turnbull to demolish the project when he announced the new shadow communications minister a fortnight ago.

Turnbull towed the Coalition's cost-benefit analysis line. Conroy rebuffed it by referring to the implementation study, cost-benefit analyses conducted overseas - and by comments made by Turnbull to iTnews' sister site CRN last week that he wouldn't commit to the NBN even if an analysis greenlighted the project.

Most people can get ADSL2

Turnbull told the program that "most Australians were connected to exchanges that were ADSL2-enabled.

"We can get the same broadband speeds that are available in Potts Point [my electorate]... right through metropolitan Australia, right through the regional cities and towns in Australia," he said.

"And, of course in the more remote parts of Australia - everyone acknowledges, both sides of politics, the answer there is wireless and satellite."

Reef out backhaul, submarine cables

Conroy attacked Turnbull over the life of fibre infrastructure.

"If [Malcolm's] a real techhead and is going to be honest, [he] will admit that fibre is the best future-proof technology going around," Conroy said.

"It's not going to run out in ten years, otherwise Malcolm's going to be claiming next that all those submarine cables built of fibre, all those interstate routes built of fibre are going to have to be dug up and replaced by wireless.

"Fibre is the best future-proof technology. It works undersea, it works in the trunk roots and it will work to people's homes," he said.

NBN info due within weeks

Conroy also hinted that a revised NBN model and plans would be made available to the Government within weeks.

"We're about to recieve in the next few weeks... information from [the] National Broadband Network [Co], and I'm sure there's a whole range of information that we'll be making available very, very shortly," he said.

"We'll be very, very happy to put it out into the public domain".

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


Turnbull backtracks on NBN demolition
"Please forgive me if I am not word perfect, but Tony Windsor said "Lets do it right, lets do it Fibre". The only thing he left out is that it should be underground out of harms way and not at the ..."
By Francis
 
 
 
Comments: 94
cyberknutt
Sep 30, 2010 12:06 PM
To say that most Australians have access to ADSL2 shows his lack of knowledge on the subject.
deteego
Sep 30, 2010 12:21 PM
cyberknutt wrote:
To say that most Australians have access to ADSL2 shows his lack of knowledge on the subject.


He is correct?

Majority of population does have access to ADSL2, its the few rural areas that don't (and believe it or not, majority of Australia does not live in the country)
LukeH
Sep 30, 2010 12:26 PM
Sounds like a fair comment to me.

Exactly what percentage of the population would you say doesn't have access to adsl2 cyberknutt? I'm willing to bet my house of the fact that at least 51% of the population (ie. the majority) have access to adsl2.
Ace
Sep 30, 2010 12:46 PM
I may well be correct. But it's the same as claiming we don't need an NBN because possums have clawed feet. ie: It's hard to see the relevance.

Unless he's claiming that nothing ever changes, and that ADSL2 is actually the same thing as the 28Kb modems we used in 1995, and that we'd be completely happy with today.
deteego
Sep 30, 2010 1:23 PM
Ace wrote:
I may well be correct. But it's the same as claiming we don't need an NBN because possums have clawed feet. ie: It's hard to see the relevance.

Yes, because one way of providing internet (ADSL2+) is not related AT ALL to another way of providing the internet (Fibre)

He is claiming that a lot of people already have availability to ADSL2+ and a lot of those people are fine with ADSL2+ (implying that installing the NBN would scrap a lot of infrastructure that people are perfectly happy with, this being copper)
Bazwalt
Sep 30, 2010 1:25 PM
Deteego said:
"He is correct?

Majority of population does have access to ADSL2, its the few rural areas that don't (and believe it or not, majority of Australia does not live in the country)"

Wrong, Almost every Australian (and im referring to non-rural Australians) DO have access to ADSL2+ Enabled DSLAMS.

The problem, is that there are so many areas with cable runs that exceed 2.5Kms, there are PLENTY of areas that are connected via RIMs (only some of which are upgraded to support ADSL2+), and then you have areas with copper degradation that make it pointless to have ADSL2+ anyways.

So on one hand, Turnbull is right. Almost all of us have access to ADSL2+ Enabled Exchanges. It's the RIMs and the crappy copper that makes ADSL2+ impossible to get or pointless to have even if you can get it.

There's a big difference and this is what people like Deteego and the Politicians either fail to realise or choose to ignore. One way or another, failure on their behalf.
HubertCumberdale
Sep 30, 2010 1:33 PM
I watched this debate last night. Quite hilarious. Mr Turnbull was totally destroyed. You know something is wrong when someone like Conroy defeats you.
deteego
Sep 30, 2010 2:52 PM
I honestly think what was hilarious was when Conroy was asked why he didn't do a CBA, he said because other countries (with completely different social, economic, population and geographic features then Australia) did a CBA and it showed great effects.

At this point he was asked (paraphrasing), "well if you are so sure that the NBN can't fail and its effects are obvious, why don't you just do a CBA to silence the issue almost all critics have with the CBA"

At this point he dodged the question and didn't even answer it (well he referred to the McKinley report, which later on Turnbill directly quoted the report where it said "THIS IS NOT A CBA, DON'T USE IT AS ONE". It means (most likely) that the Government is hiding something, because after all, if the NBN is so fantastic and great, whats the issue with the CBA?
Bazwalt
Sep 30, 2010 3:11 PM
"This doesn't prove anything that what I said (or what Turnbull said) was incorrect. You are referring to an issue with an underdeveloped backhaul (copper being forced to run over longer distances then it should). Please stop trying to twist the argument"

Actually it does, if your too ignorant to it than that's your problem not mine.
Im not twisting the argument, im pulling the factually wrong segments of your reply and throwing them at you. You just don't like it.

The fact of the matter is, most (most being the keyword) Australians DO have access to an ADSL2+ enabled exchange. The backhaul of those exchanges are all still part of the same network regardless. Copper isn't being forced to run long distances. It's just one of Telstras many ways of building a quick and cheap network.

Instead of using the 0.4mm gauge cables they could have easily have opted for something better.
deteego
Sep 30, 2010 3:25 PM
Bazwalt wrote:
"This doesn't prove anything that what I said (or what Turnbull said) was incorrect. You are referring to an issue with an underdeveloped backhaul (copper being forced to run over longer distances then it should). Please stop trying to twist the argument"

Actually it does, if your too ignorant to it than that's your problem not mine.
Im not twisting the argument, im pulling the factually wrong segments of your reply and throwing them at you. You just don't like it.

The fact of the matter is, most (most being the keyword) Australians DO have access to an ADSL2+ enabled exchange. The backhaul of those exchanges are all still part of the same network regardless. Copper isn't being forced to run long distances. It's just one of Telstras many ways of building a quick and cheap network.

Instead of using the 0.4mm gauge cables they could have easily have opted for something better.


The statement is that most of Australia has access to ADSL2+

Please show how that statement is incorrect. This has nothing to do with issues on copper connection or back hauls not being done properly in certain areas of the country
HubertCumberdale
Sep 30, 2010 3:41 PM
Man I love iView, this thing will be even more awesome when NBN is fully operational, Turnbull comes up with some classics to relive:

Quote:
we will obviously have to make the very best possible use of it.


Seems I was right about the anti NBN crowd, they actually do want the fibre too they're just bitching all day long because the coalition was unable to form a government.
nate.cochrane
Sep 30, 2010 3:52 PM
Whether your exchange is ADSL2+ enabled is largely irrelevant at the first instance unless you live close to it as the cable runs.

Good overview at Internode:
www.internode.on.net/residential/broadband/adsl/extreme/performance/
Ezy2Confuze
Sep 30, 2010 4:03 PM
Well I live in West Perth, am connected into Bulwer street and am paying for an ADSL 2+ service that I only get just over 8Mb/s for because my building is from the 1950's and the copper in our area sucks.

So yes, technically I can get ADSL 2+ but in reality I should have stuck with ADSL 1 and saved the extra cost for postage stamps and paper so I can post out letters to my local representatives to get the Govt's backside into gear to do something about our aging copper connectivity but now I don't have to if NBN gives me fiber.

No I don't need the speed for downloading movies but I'm not just thinking about my needs, why should Australia always be left behind, we have some shining stars out there, such as the CSIRO - who have been taking some of the biggest names in IT to court over wireless IP they own - we cannot rely on the Resources Boom to go on forever, we need to become smarter and one of the ways the NBN will help is with Education, faster information sharing, faster video for conferencing etc.
deteego
Sep 30, 2010 4:15 PM
Ezy2Confuze wrote:
Well I live in West Perth, am connected into Bulwer street and am paying for an ADSL 2+ service that I only get just over 8Mb/s for because my building is from the 1950's and the copper in our area sucks.

So yes, technically I can get ADSL 2+ but in reality I should have stuck with ADSL 1 and saved the extra cost for postage stamps and paper so I can post out letters to my local representatives to get the Govt's backside into gear to do something about our aging copper connectivity but now I don't have to if NBN gives me fiber.

No I don't need the speed for downloading movies but I'm not just thinking about my needs, why should Australia always be left behind, we have some shining stars out there, such as the CSIRO - who have been taking some of the biggest names in IT to court over wireless IP they own - we cannot rely on the Resources Boom to go on forever, we need to become smarter and one of the ways the NBN will help is with Education, faster information sharing, faster video for conferencing etc.


Point is that all these issues would be fixed by an improved backhaul. Conroy tried to claim that not everyone could get ADSL (this is false, he used two random places/individuals with low populations as justification, and when Tunrbull asked him "how much of the population does that represent" he didn't answer).
Famidovo
Sep 30, 2010 4:16 PM
cyberknutt wrote:
To say that most Australians have access to ADSL2 shows his lack of knowledge on the subject.

This is most correct.

I live in an outer suburb. I want ADSL. I've asked my ISP, Optus, and even Telstra many months ago. The result, my suburb has been cabled and there is no way in hell I can receive ADSL?????

So what does Turnbull know??? Probably a whole lot of BS, but the facts.
deteego
Sep 30, 2010 4:23 PM
Famidovo wrote:
cyberknutt wrote:
To say that most Australians have access to ADSL2 shows his lack of knowledge on the subject.

This is most correct.

I live in an outer suburb. I want ADSL. I've asked my ISP, Optus, and even Telstra many months ago. The result, my suburb has been cabled and there is no way in hell I can receive ADSL?????

So what does Turnbull know??? Probably a whole lot of BS, but the facts.


And you are more educated to state that EVERYONE is in the same situation as you and don't have ADSL? Stop thinking about (yourself) and think about the population in general. Its a very small minority who cannot get ADSL, it also happens this minority is very noisy (after all, who would complain about their internet working as expected?)
Jono
Sep 30, 2010 4:43 PM
Best part of the debate was when Turnbull had a little pout look on his face at the very end of the interview and started to rip out his earphone when Tony was saying goodnight. Reminded me of a little spoilt kid who didn't get his way hahaha. To be honest, I am not surprised after how Tony an Conroy did destroy him a little. The debate itself was not bad, but Turnbull was coming across as someone who just did not believe in what he was saying and only 'towing the line' for Abbott, which when coupled with the ''im not going to be on the climate change committee cause Abbott said no' issue is really not doing him any favours (considering he lost his leadership on his stand on the issue) and making him quite shallow, which is a shame as he is my favourite Liberal party member.
Smurf
Sep 30, 2010 4:50 PM
OK so the argument from Turnbull's side is that the majority of Australians have access to ADSL2.
I will not dispute this as Technically I'm sure this is correct.
What the NBN does do is bring Choice and a greater consistency in speeds.
Distance from the exchange would no longer be a deciding factor on what plan you can go with.
Also I live in Darwin and while I am able to get ADSL2 through Telstra I would prefer not to use them as I have been an Internode customer for 10+ years and have found them to be A+. Unfortunately due to my location Telstra is the Only Option!

So while I technically have access to ADSL2 at the moment. The NBN will ensure I can get whatever speed I want through whom ever I want. Not just the provider with infrastructure in the area.
deteego
Sep 30, 2010 4:55 PM
Smurf wrote:
OK so the argument from Turnbull's side is that the majority of Australians have access to ADSL2.
I will not dispute this as Technically I'm sure this is correct.
What the NBN does do is bring Choice and a greater consistency in speeds.
Distance from the exchange would no longer be a deciding factor on what plan you can go with.
Also I live in Darwin and while I am able to get ADSL2 through Telstra I would prefer not to use them as I have been an Internode customer for 10+ years and have found them to be A+. Unfortunately due to my location Telstra is the Only Option!

So while I technically have access to ADSL2 at the moment. The NBN will ensure I can get whatever speed I want through whom ever I want. Not just the provider with infrastructure in the area.


Again this depends on where you are

Where I live, there is massive competition for ADSL2+. You can literally get any type of plan (that you need) all with different upsides/downsides. This is basically the case for everyone living in the inner/middle city areas (which is probably half of the Australian population already). The other areas are the ones that need help, and Turnbill explicitly stated that in those areas (where the Market obviously failed) is where the government should step in
ezk
Sep 30, 2010 4:57 PM
deteego: "Point is that all these issues would be fixed by an improved backhaul."

Again, explain how improved backhaul will make the copper runs from the DSLAMs shorter? A fatter pipe feeding into the same tiny pipe will do squat to increase throughput at the latter.
deteego
Sep 30, 2010 5:00 PM
ezk wrote:
deteego: "Point is that all these issues would be fixed by an improved backhaul."

Again, explain how improved backhaul will make the copper runs from the DSLAMs shorter? A fatter pipe feeding into the same tiny pipe will do squat to increase throughput at the latter.


Its the distance thats the issue. Copper works up to almost full capactiy assuming you don't go over 1k's (1.5k is probably the max limit you should reach). In a lot of those areas, Copper is being used in great excess of 2km's so obviously you are not going to be getting more speeds

Improved (and by improved I mean more nodes/exchanges added) backhaul would mean there would be a closer exchange so the copper is used better. It was something that was clearly outlined in coalitions plan
umbria
Sep 30, 2010 5:02 PM
I understand that about 60% of Australians currently have ADSL, with a headline speed of 8 (ADSL1) or 20 (ADSL2) Mbps. But more than half of users actually get 3 Mbps or less, because ADSL fades so quickly.

The $26 billion decade-long rollout of the NBN will progressively supply satellite broadband of at least 12 Mbps everywhere, wireless of at least 12 Mbps for 97% of premises, and fibre for 93% of premises. This is $1000 per person for the 26 million people we will have by then. That's $8.33 per person per month. Expensive, huh?

33% of premises with no ADSL will now have a speed-agnostic fibre connection that can deliver all future services simultaneously and never become congested. So will the 60% of premises currently using ADSL or cable. This replaces your copper line rental, STD calls, and existing internet costs with a single fibre service that will be cheaper, even after allowing for the $8.83 per head cost to build it.

Another 4% of premises will have 12 Mbps or faster wireless masts on their rooftops, and some of them will be able to make VoIP calls to eradicate their expensive STD and mobile call costs.

The difference between 60% with ADSL now and 93% with FTTH in a decade is 33% or nearly 9 million Australians who will go from having no ADSL to futureproof fibre. That access benefit alone justifies the cost as an investment in Australia's future.
umbria
Sep 30, 2010 5:12 PM
So what's wrong with Turnbull's FTTN and wireless idea? Plenty.

First you spend $100,000 per street pillar adding DSLAMs that need maintenance and periodic replacement, plus electrification, just so you can buy a 1.5 km extension. And you still need to lay fibre down the suburban streets to the pillars anyway? How much electricity will be needed to power 20,000 (cf Telstra's OPEL estimate) of these pillars, before other operational expenses? And of course there's nothing outside towns.

Now households get vintage ADSL capped at 20Mbps forever, which will be a constraint for many before the rollout is even finished. And the coalition quotation won't get much wireless in place as a backup, and what is there will be clogged with the heavy data users that should have a fixed service. Bah, humbug, Mr Turnbull! Sounds like the ghost of obsolete dialup.
deteego
Sep 30, 2010 5:14 PM
umbria wrote:
I understand that about 60% of Australians currently have ADSL, with a headline speed of 8 (ADSL1) or 20 (ADSL2) Mbps. But more than half of users actually get 3 Mbps or less, because ADSL fades so quickly.

Actually this is half the truth

The other reason why Australians get such crappy speeds is because of contention ratios. There are plenty of other countries (especially in Europe) which run as much ADSL as we do, but have around 4x higher speeds because they don't have to deal with contention ratios of 20:1. Also they have a longer distance to the node. VADSL2+ can get up to 100mbit speeds as long as you are 1k within the node

Quote:
The $26 billion decade-long rollout of the NBN will progressively supply satellite broadband of at least 12 Mbps everywhere, wireless of at least 12 Mbps for 97% of premises, and fibre for 93% of premises. This is $1000 per person for the 26 million people we will have by then. That's $8.33 per person per month. Expensive, huh?

If you did economics you realize you cannot look at it in such a naive manner. There is the multiply effect (among other things). That amount of money may look trivial when compared to GDP, but there are many other factors which contribute that people ignore.

Quote:
The difference between 60% with ADSL now and 93% with FTTH in a decade is 33% or nearly 9 million Australians who will go from having no ADSL to futureproof fibre. That access benefit alone justifies the cost as an investment in Australia's future.

And if people don't actually use all this stuff, then the government basically goes bankrupt (or close to it). And in this case, they actually wasted more then 43 billion dollars, because those 16 billion dollars in private investment is actually through bonds, which the government has to pay back
umbria
Sep 30, 2010 5:16 PM
Finally, the question of backhaul congestion. The NBN natively includes multicast capability for local redistribution of a single video to thousands of local users. When everyone is watching the Wimbledon final in HDTV over their fibre, wireless or satellite connection, their local exchange, tower or satellite will only need 10MBps of backhaul to supply them all.

So forget the argument about inadequate backhaul - it was thought of and solved at the start.
deonast
Sep 30, 2010 5:17 PM
ADSL 2+ is not made equal. I too must be one of these people who Turnbull is technically referring to. I have ADSL 2+ and due to my distance from the exchange I'm limited by the physical characteristics of copper. I max out at 3.5Mbs if I'm lucky just enough to get iview streaming ok at the moment but if video qualities go up or other services are required there is no head room to go. Distance from the exchange is why I have this level of service, while fibre to the premises will have a lot longer life span and more headroom for the future.

So yes lots of people have ADSL 2+ but you can be damn sure only a few get any where near the maximum throughput of the spec. We've seen how the internet is becoming more data intensive as time goes on but we have pretty much topped out what ADSL can on the current infrastructure.
deteego
Sep 30, 2010 5:18 PM
umbria wrote:
Finally, the question of backhaul congestion. The NBN natively includes multicast capability for local redistribution of a single video to thousands of local users. When everyone is watching the Wimbledon final in HDTV over their fibre, wireless or satellite connection, their local exchange, tower or satellite will only need 10MBps of backhaul to supply them all.

So forget the argument about inadequate backhaul - it was thought of and solved at the start.


And where is the proof that everyone will be doing this in the next 10,20 or even 30 years? (Oh wait, thats something the CBA is supposed to show, hmmm.........)
Smurf
Sep 30, 2010 5:19 PM
deteego: "Where I live, there is massive competition for ADSL2+. You can literally get any type of plan (that you need) all with different upsides/downsides. This is basically the case for everyone living in the inner/middle city areas (which is probably half of the Australian population already)."

Darwin is a capital city and where I live within the middle of the residential area. The only options for Darwin are Telstra. IINet has a presence in the City only but has no ports available.
I believe Internode and Optus looked at running their own cables but I believe a Cost analysis killed this idea.

So I for one welcome the NBN as the increased competition will be a good thing.
deteego
Sep 30, 2010 5:22 PM
Smurf wrote:
deteego: "Where I live, there is massive competition for ADSL2+. You can literally get any type of plan (that you need) all with different upsides/downsides. This is basically the case for everyone living in the inner/middle city areas (which is probably half of the Australian population already)."

Darwin is a capital city and where I live within the middle of the residential area. The only options for Darwin are Telstra. IINet has a presence in the City only but has no ports available.
I believe Internode and Optus looked at running their own cables but I believe a Cost analysis killed this idea.

So I for one welcome the NBN as the increased competition will be a good thing.


Darwin also only has a population of 125000 iirc. I am not trying to be offensive, but as I said, the Market has worked for the majority of Australians. In rural areas (which Darwin probably falls in) thats a different story, and both plans by both parties would have addressed that
umbria
Sep 30, 2010 5:29 PM
@deteego, what are the economic factors that change the calculation $26 million / 26 million people / 120 months = $8.80 per person per month? You may prefer to call it 7 million taxpayers contributing $30.95 per month, but it's the same deal. Do the maths for any kind of household and they will be ahead when they ditch line rental, call "plans" and call costs in favour of a fibre broadband plan plus VoIP. And this before you start counting any other benefits. Show me where I'm wrong, please, because you sound like a first-year university economics student.

And everyone will connect to "it", meaning fibre, wireless or satellite, so it will cover its costs before many people even start paying for currently unavailable extras like foreign TV services (we have a multicultural population) and 3D video streams.

The private bonds will be paid back not by taxpayers but by NBNCo, to be precise, and we should learn exactly how when they publish their business plan in coming weeks.
umbria
Sep 30, 2010 5:32 PM
@deteego, the published list of towns to get fibre have a population density in the order of hundred of persons per square kilometre, similar to our high-tech Asian neghbours who are laying FTTH. This is not fibre-to-the-farm as Turbull once quipped, but to towns and cities only, and Darwin is certainly a city.
deteego
Sep 30, 2010 5:33 PM
umbria wrote:
@deteego, what are the economic factors that change the calculation $26 million / 26 million people / 120 months = $8.80 per person per month? You may prefer to call it 7 million taxpayers contributing $30.95 per month, but it's the same deal. Do the maths for any kind of household and they will be ahead when they ditch line rental, call "plans" and call costs in favour of a fibre broadband plan plus VoIP. And this before you start counting any other benefits. Show me where I'm wrong, please, because you sound like a first-year university economics student.

In order to (properly) answer your question, you would need a CBA, which is something that is very very long (for obvious reasons). There are a massive number of factors, of which I really can't be bothered writing down and would obviously need someone much more qualified to justify and properly analyse.

All I was stating (or implying) is that the people going around saying "its just 43 billion, or its just 1% of the GDP etc etc" don't know what they are talking about. Conroy, even worse doesn't know what he is talking about when it costs 8 cents a day per person. Using that mathematical logic, we could build a superhighway every day. Things just don't work that way. Unless you have a full understanding of economics, you cannot justify that X money being spent on Y is "hardly anything" (unless the amount is so small it really is hardly anything, 43 billion is no small amount)

Quote:
The private bonds will be paid back not by taxpayers but by NBNCo, to be precise, and we should learn exactly how when they publish their business plan in coming weeks.


NBNCo is an organisation owned by the government, its being funded by the government from tax payers money. So if NBNCo pays for its, its using government funds to do so

Edited by deteego: 30/9/2010 05:35:19 PM
Tom Brown
Sep 30, 2010 6:11 PM
The point of Turnbull saying "most Australians were connected to exchanges that were ADSL2-enabled" and that "We can get the same broadband speeds that are available in Potts Point [my electorate]... right through metropolitan Australia, right through the regional cities and towns in Australia," shows either of 2 things, a: he does not know the difference between ADSL enabled exchange and getting ADSL reasonably connected or b: he is diverting the argument with a Non sequitur (but I don't see the joke please explain).

So Mr Turnbull has not bothered to understand the topic or he is being disruptive either shows lack of commitment to the electorate, a willingness to misrepresent and the smarts to do so without it being an obvious lie.
The real other issue is described in this article and the first comment here, http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/362617/aiia_nbn_crucial_making_australia_greener/?eid=-100
The commenter's disagreement with the article fits his position but the cost he quotes to get a Fibre connection is indicative of broadband today and is only because of the financial stranglehold Telstra has and Telstra's unwillingness to keep up with the times. If private enterprise had good access to long and mid distance routes as well as local access rights we would not have to do such a big shake up. If we do not do it now it will be more difficult in the future.

Also the interest on 28 to 50B it costs though a big chunk of revenues is not that great compared to the ~360B tax collect from taxpayers per year.
deteego
Sep 30, 2010 6:52 PM
Tom Brown wrote:

Also the interest on 28 to 50B it costs though a big chunk of revenues is not that great compared to the ~360B tax collect from taxpayers per year.


And you are qualified to say this how?
Tom Brown
Sep 30, 2010 7:01 PM
Thanks deteego , you are right in questioning my credentials and I do not have any! I just looked up the Bureau of stats figures. I would like the comment of a qualified person.

Regards
Tom
johnpro2
Sep 30, 2010 7:03 PM
@Mr T: "most Australians were connected to exchanges that were ADSL2-enabled".

Well ..I still can't get naked ADSL here, even though I ride my bike past the ADSL2 enabled exchange in Caboolture river rd Caboolture Qld on most days, which obviously is not too far away.I want to sack Telstra and use engin or TPG voip services.

Jp
ianbmc
Sep 30, 2010 7:54 PM
I, for one, am glad that there is some debate being had on this subject before we go and spend such a large sum of public money. The question for mine is whether this something that we really "need", or something that we just "want". Do we really need FTTH capability to every household just so we can download the latest Hollywood blockbuster in seconds rather than hours (or minutes).....I know I'm simplifying the issue here, but stay with me!!

I can't help thinking what we could be doing if we took even 10% of the $43BN budget and applied it to more critical social and public issues. For example. could it improve the state of indigenous health (an issue for which we should all feel ashamed)? Could we begin meaningful R&D into renewable energy sources, an area where Australia could easily lead the world? Recently I read an article that said that more than 130 children that were "known to DOCS" in NSW died last year. More than 130. Can anyone explain why that is? Are people not appalled by that statistic? One death under these circumstance is too many - could an extra $1M in funding here have made a difference??My local hospital (in Sydney's north) is in such disrepair that when it rains, water pours in through the leaky roof all over the place. How is that acceptable? Has anyone taken a drive to Brisbane recently via the Pacific Hwy (our national route #1)? I did it two weeks ago, and whilst vastly improved, there are 100's of km that are still in the same appalling state as they were 20 years ago, which is the last time I took that drive. I know I'm mixing up issues here that are State and Federal responsibility, but for me it's not the point. These are real issues that impact every one of us every day.....I don't really care who addresses them, all I know is that they seem more relevant and critical to me than whether or not I get high speed broadband provided to my front door.

The point is that I think it is worth debating the need for such an extraordinarily large spend when clearly there are fundamental flaws in our existing public infrastructure and social fabric. It shouldn't be about political point scoring (although this is what it has been reduced to). This is about how WE want OUR money spent. I'm not suggesting that we don't do the NBN as there are obvious benefits - even to those issues I raised earlier - however there needs to be transparency on how the money is spent, a risk vs rewards consideration, and perhaps some thought towards other clever ways of doing it. If there is a "market demand" for high-speed broadband service then why don't we let private enterprise provide the capital investment needed to build it and let them sell it to the market as we would any other commodity. Is public ownership of a broadband network more important than having first-class public health care facilities and well-paid nursing staff?? I don't see high-speed broadband as being a "basic human right" but access to healthcare certainly is!!

Food for though perhaps??
MerariSchroeder
Sep 30, 2010 9:40 PM
"Turnbull backtracks on NBN demolition"
That's a bit of an embellishment. To think that if the coalition got into government that they'd rip out the fibre out of the ground with their bare hands! Very emotive writing Ry - sneaky.

@johnpro2 "Well ..I still can't get naked ADSL here". Most of the problem has been due to poor regulation of the industry. Throwing $43bn at it isn't the answer - get the settings right.

@ianbmc - precisely, they could build better infrastructure which would actually sustain the nation. In Conroy's world, you will apparently download your hamburger.

The funny thing is we CAN have greatly improved communication infrastructure. FTTN/VDSL2+ and LTE Advanced is one of the much better options, for less than half the price - half the price for the capital means half the price in subscription. In fact you go further and spend some of the saved money on more international backhaul. And we CAN still have FTTH (yes TTHome), when it's NEEDED. But why spend more than $20bn extra, to have fibre, when you can have 100Mbps for more than half price with researchers still scratching their heads - what to do with it. In 20 years when we're using 100Mbps FTTN internet, we can then use SAVINGS in NBNCo to build out the FTTN network to FTTH, and for LESS than the difference, with new technologies coming out such as micro-trenching.

There are OPTIONS! NBNOptions.org.

Edited by merarischroeder: 30/9/2010 09:43:06 PM
johnpro2
Sep 30, 2010 9:52 PM
@HC: Mr Turnbull was totally destroyed. You know something is wrong when someone like Conroy defeats you.

*******

I feel Mr T is reluctant to bark on command from his previous subordinate,esp since Mr T apparently has made big $$$$ from the IT industry previously.
Sen Conroy has been practicing his lines for several years and is now quite slick.
djzort
Sep 30, 2010 10:21 PM
I think the quote should be "trunk routes" rather than "trunk roots".

Chances are though, Conroy doesnt know that it should be slightly mispronounced in the American style when used in the context of telecommunications.

Otherwise, why would fibre be any different when going through wood?
johnpro2
Oct 1, 2010 7:50 AM
@TB:"I would like the comment of a qualified person".

What minimum qualifications would be acceptable in order to comment further..?
johnpro2
Oct 1, 2010 7:55 AM
@iambmc:I don't see high-speed broadband as being a "basic human right" but access to healthcare certainly is!!

Quite right ...although much poor health in Oz often the result of poor maintenance of the ever suffering body by its owner.
Bazwalt
Oct 1, 2010 8:40 AM
"The statement is that most of Australia has access to ADSL2+

Please show how that statement is incorrect. This has nothing to do with issues on copper connection or back hauls not being done properly in certain areas of the country"

Wrong, read it again. The statement is that most Australians are connected to ADSL2+ Enabled Exchanges. That does not mean mean that most Australians have access to ADSL2+. The copper network is a physical limitation that prohibits any "access" to ADSL2+ services.

Comprehension isn't your best asset is it Mr.Deteego?

"Point is that all these issues would be fixed by an improved backhaul."

Wrong again Deteego. Do you even know what backhaul is?
Backhaul isn't going to shorten the copper lengths to the exchange. It isn't going to negate the use of RIMs, and it isn't going to fix copper degradation which is also occurring.

Backhaul upgrades will certainly improve peering, and transit paths but it won't make any changes to the last mile which is where the problem is to begin with.

Sure there's a lack of national backhaul but the last mile is, has, and always will beif the NBN does not go ahead.

Your recurring banter of baseless statements really makes your ignorance stand out
Francis
Oct 1, 2010 9:27 AM
Seems to me that there is a lot of misinformed comment here especially from the pollies.
1.
Not all exchanges are ADSL2 enabled.
2.
ADSL can only run so far on copper before it degrades. There are subburbs within sight of the Sydney CBD who still have to rely on Dial up.
3.
Just because yoy dont need the speed of Fiber it does not mean everyone is in the same boat.
4.
I am advised that it is imprudent to run more than one ADSL copper pair in less than ten pairs of copper due to problems with cross talk and interference. so while everyone theoretically has access to ADSL that is not the case. Using the 10:1 rule only one house in ten can get it.
Meanwhile I have Telstra Cable and at times it is so slow that cant download a video news clip from the Sydney Morning Herald.
Give me fiber any day, and while on the subject we are not just talking about Internet but a whole suite of communications packages.

I wonder if they have costed in the cost benefit of the sale of Copper and Lead which will become available as scrap metal?
johnpro2
Oct 1, 2010 10:20 AM
@francis: Meanwhile I have Telstra Cable and at times it is so slow that cant download a video news clip from the Sydney Morning Herald.

yep ..just like the roads, peak time is usually slower no matter how fast your car.
Even so ..many complaints about slow downloads and slow computers in general are exacerbated because the owners fail to do basic house cleaning chores from one month to the next.This is often because because the home owner and small business has never been shown the process.
Bazwalt
Oct 1, 2010 10:52 AM
Francis wrote:

I wonder if they have costed in the cost benefit of the sale of Copper and Lead which will become available as scrap metal?


I'm glad you're one of the few to recognise this important factor.

Retaining the copper is the same as if you kept a car that continually leakes oil or steering fluid no matter how many times you repair it.

By replacing the copper, BILLIONS of dollars will be saved alone since the maintainance costs will be far LESS than Fiber. That is fact. I'm not saying that maintenance won't be needed..just that it will be far less.

So for all of you wanting a cost benefit - consider that one. There's certainly some $$$ to be saved there.
OzBoy08
Oct 1, 2010 1:08 PM
Bazwalt wrote:
Deteego said:
"He is correct?

Majority of population does have access to ADSL2, its the few rural areas that don't (and believe it or not, majority of Australia does not live in the country)"

Wrong, Almost every Australian (and im referring to non-rural Australians) DO have access to ADSL2+ Enabled DSLAMS.

The problem, is that there are so many areas with cable runs that exceed 2.5Kms, there are PLENTY of areas that are connected via RIMs (only some of which are upgraded to support ADSL2+), and then you have areas with copper degradation that make it pointless to have ADSL2+ anyways.

So on one hand, Turnbull is right. Almost all of us have access to ADSL2+ Enabled Exchanges. It's the RIMs and the crappy copper that makes ADSL2+ impossible to get or pointless to have even if you can get it.

There's a big difference and this is what people like Deteego and the Politicians either fail to realise or choose to ignore. One way or another, failure on their behalf.


Well said. I live in metro melbourne but am connected via a RIM so I can't get ADSL2+ BUT my exchange is ADSL2+ enabled. Replacing this infrastructure makes perfect sense.
Graeme Harrison (prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu)
Oct 1, 2010 1:43 PM
I'm pro-technology, support fibre & state-ownership of 'natural monopolies'... but I've posted here before re my challenge to the 93% fibre cut-off that is proposed.

I can't believe McKinsey analysed a multi-billion proposal and didn't perform any 'marginal analysis'. I used to work as a Management Consultant with a top international consulting firm, and can't understand how consulting firm was lured (with large cash amounts) to deal with ONLY the government's proposed plan. Inter alia, the Environmental Assessment (Impact of Proposals) Act (C'th) REQUIRES "all prudent and feasible alternatives" to be assessed.

Clearly return on investment (ROI) is highly dependent upon cut-over point from fibre to wireless. Dropping fibre coverage from 93% to 90% or even 85%, would deliver HUGE savings. The ROI is >20% to run fibre to every business and truly-urban dwelling. But as you extend fibre to 1-acre blocks then 10-acre blocks on the outer-urban fringe... the MARGINAL return of doing long fibre runs becomes HUGELY negative. These facts were intentionally hidden in the overall 7% ROI for Conroy's preferred plan.

But why didn't McKinsey analyse the alternatives? Remote rural MUST remain satellite... and those closer to each other would benefit from wireless over satellite (as you no longer suffer the latency lag, inherent with satellite) as that allows VOIP (which is almost impossible over satellite links, irrespective of bandwidth, due to length of links to/from geo-stationary orbits). [I say this, based on personal experience having ADSL2 at my Sydney home, and satellite at my farm.] So we were always going to be bound to have three technologies - urban (fibre), rural (wireless) and remote (satellite). The big question is where to cut-over from fibre to wireless at urban fringes.

And I don't want pollies deciding which suburbs/electorates ought be done. Let's set 'standards' of exceeding 'average fibre runs' of >200m per potential subscriber ONLY IF sufficient customers pre-sign five-year contracts to justify that run. That type of clear economics-driven should stop ideologically-based waste.

AND everyone needs to see the NBN as the project you promote if the government is to ignore "the greatest moral challenge of our time". We MUST build new renewable power generation, at a cost of $100b+, so maybe we should fibre only high density areas over eight years, then look at extending fibre, based on actual ROI near urban-fringe areas, and also based on how our green energy funding is going. This will not be a waste, as it would be a commitment to fibre to 80-85% of citizens, with wireless servicing the outer-urban fringe areas... and if fibre is laid there, there is very little waste in then retiring a few wireless transmitters. Besides, even after extending fibre to 93% in second decade, there will be some locations in the most remote locations which will still use the wireless services, so I suspect very few wireless transmitters would actually be retired. Many farmers would use the wireless services to provide feedback from dam level meters, remote in-soil moisture monitoring, gate audio/video security cameras with solar-powered opening devices etc. There is a huge need for wireless-based IP services in all rural land areas.

But if we go gung-ho on NBN and ignore alternative energy investment, we'll be able to watch the planet scorch on 200 channels of HD IP-TV.
deteego
Oct 1, 2010 4:19 PM
Bazwalt wrote:
Francis wrote:

I wonder if they have costed in the cost benefit of the sale of Copper and Lead which will become available as scrap metal?


I'm glad you're one of the few to recognise this important factor.

Retaining the copper is the same as if you kept a car that continually leakes oil or steering fluid no matter how many times you repair it.

By replacing the copper, BILLIONS of dollars will be saved alone since the maintainance costs will be far LESS than Fiber. That is fact. I'm not saying that maintenance won't be needed..just that it will be far less.

So for all of you wanting a cost benefit - consider that one. There's certainly some $$$ to be saved there.


Thing is, majority of cost is in actual laying out and installation of copper, not the actual material (same deal with Fibre). You will not be saving that much
Bazwalt
Oct 1, 2010 4:49 PM
deteego wrote:
Bazwalt wrote:
Francis wrote:

I wonder if they have costed in the cost benefit of the sale of Copper and Lead which will become available as scrap metal?


I'm glad you're one of the few to recognise this important factor.

Retaining the copper is the same as if you kept a car that continually leakes oil or steering fluid no matter how many times you repair it.

By replacing the copper, BILLIONS of dollars will be saved alone since the maintainance costs will be far LESS than Fiber. That is fact. I'm not saying that maintenance won't be needed..just that it will be far less.

So for all of you wanting a cost benefit - consider that one. There's certainly some $$$ to be saved there.


Thing is, majority of cost is in actual laying out and installation of copper, not the actual material (same deal with Fibre). You will not be saving that much


True, but you completely dodged my argument. Even after the initial expenditure goes towards the laying of the copper.
You're still paying excess amounts for the continued maintenance to the copper.

Time and time again trucks are rolling out to sites to reterminate gel joints, completely ripping up worn main pairs, scotch locking corroded joints at NBPs, removing bridge taps with excess loop, resealing water filled pits.

Hell, I've seen an entire main pair damaged so badly that it has completely eroded an entire streets main pair because the pits had poor seals and the pillars were flooded.

You have no idea how much work goes into simply repairing this kind of stuff.

You simply have no idea mate..
deteego
Oct 1, 2010 10:40 PM
There hasn't been any substantial proof that mainting copper is more expensive then Fibre. Obviously Fibre has better bandwidth then Copper, but I have yet to see any document that states maintaining our current copper network is any more expensive then the Fibre network. Fibre still has issues that Copper has, where its not the material thats necessarily creating all the problems, but badly done/cut connections and terminations (even PIPE released a video showing how to properly terminate Fibre, because if its not done then it loses as much bandwith as copper does). Copper as a material with insulation, lasts around the same time that Fibre does. The problems that are being seeing now is because people did not properly terminate copper connections and not the material itself. Copper may not be inert, its also one of the LEAST reactive materials on the planet (which makes the difference negligible, thats why its actually been used for so long).

In fact there is some thread going around on whirlpool that states Fibre lasts from 25 years to 50 years (depending on conditions and/or who you listen to).

Here is that thread
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1538857

Whats good to note is what Tim Hogard has said

Quote:
Cable lifetime isn't so much about failing but is more about how the splices last over time when they get wet and how many times you can splice it before you end up with too much signal loss. There is also a compatibility issue where your new patch has to be the same size as the old cable and there is lots of useable cable in the ground around the world that can no longer be patched. The current single mode stuff is all about 9 um diameter but several sized had been used before 9 became the standard. 9 um isn't even the optimum size for higher speeds but it has the advantage that its more forgiving of manufacturing changes than the best stuff. In 20 years I expect all new fiber may be some size like 7.654 um or whatever which will make the existing stuff in the ground obsolete. The glass also changes over time and you can't mix glass types or you get odd reflections that do very bad things to shared links. I've been involved in fiber projects long ago and some of them are now dead fiber but they used sizes you can't buy any more but since there is so much 9um in the ground, there should be support for it for a very long time.


Also the lifetime of Fibre cables (which just like copper) are overhanging and not underground is also up to debate

Edited by deteego: 1/10/2010 10:52:51 PM
Francis
Oct 2, 2010 4:32 AM
Turn-Bull and Captain Chaos (Abbott) would have us still driving around in "Model T Fords" if they had their way. Fibre is a natural progression in communications technology just as the Falcon is to the Model T.
I also note the quote by deteego above about overhead and underground cable. Overhead cable deteriorates much faster than underground, but the argument does not end just there, there is also the reliability factor, It's not much good if you cant for instance ring "000" in an emergency because some Politician decided to save a few bob by string the cable from rotting Power Poles.
What did Marie Antoinette say? Let the peasants eat cake!
deteego
Oct 2, 2010 1:02 PM
Francis wrote:
I also note the quote by deteego above about overhead and underground cable. Overhead cable deteriorates much faster than underground, but the argument does not end just there, there is also the reliability factor, It's not much good if you cant for instance ring "000" in an emergency because some Politician decided to save a few bob by string the cable from rotting Power Poles.
What did Marie Antoinette say? Let the peasants eat cake!


Uh thats what I said, and there will be Fibre cables that are going to be overhanged, which will have the exact same issues Copper has had in the same situation
listohan
Oct 2, 2010 4:54 PM
If the internet had been more widespread before 2000, we would have debated the preparations for the Olympics to death and probably missed the deadlines (see India).

Instead we said little and had the best games ever. Can't we set our sights a bit higher for the NBN and just get on with it?

Some of the calculations based on the built time should really be based on the useful life of the project, not its construction time.

Are we saying the copper network was laid in less prosperous times and is now written off, but we can't afford the work in replacing it with material more suited to the times?
deteego
Oct 2, 2010 5:39 PM
listohan wrote:
If the internet had been more widespread before 2000, we would have debated the preparations for the Olympics to death and probably missed the deadlines (see India).


You do realize that the olympics put the state government into such massive debt that its one of the reasons that NSW state government is so horrible right now
Bazwalt
Oct 3, 2010 4:15 PM
deteego wrote:
There hasn't been any substantial proof that mainting copper is more expensive then Fibre. Obviously Fibre has better bandwidth then Copper, but I have yet to see any document that states maintaining our current copper network is any more expensive then the Fibre network. Fibre still has issues that Copper has, where its not the material thats necessarily creating all the problems, but badly done/cut connections and terminations (even PIPE released a video showing how to properly terminate Fibre, because if its not done then it loses as much bandwith as copper does). Copper as a material with insulation, lasts around the same time that Fibre does. The problems that are being seeing now is because people did not properly terminate copper connections and not the material itself. Copper may not be inert, its also one of the LEAST reactive materials on the planet (which makes the difference negligible, thats why its actually been used for so long).

In fact there is some thread going around on whirlpool that states Fibre lasts from 25 years to 50 years (depending on conditions and/or who you listen to).

Here is that thread
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1538857

Whats good to note is what Tim Hogard has said

Quote:
Cable lifetime isn't so much about failing but is more about how the splices last over time when they get wet and how many times you can splice it before you end up with too much signal loss. There is also a compatibility issue where your new patch has to be the same size as the old cable and there is lots of useable cable in the ground around the world that can no longer be patched. The current single mode stuff is all about 9 um diameter but several sized had been used before 9 became the standard. 9 um isn't even the optimum size for higher speeds but it has the advantage that its more forgiving of manufacturing changes than the best stuff. In 20 years I expect all new fiber may be some size like 7.654 um or whatever which will make the existing stuff in the ground obsolete. The glass also changes over time and you can't mix glass types or you get odd reflections that do very bad things to shared links. I've been involved in fiber projects long ago and some of them are now dead fiber but they used sizes you can't buy any more but since there is so much 9um in the ground, there should be support for it for a very long time.


Also the lifetime of Fibre cables (which just like copper) are overhanging and not underground is also up to debate

Edited by deteego: 1/10/2010 10:52:51 PM


Deteego, Have you done ANY ounce of science? Are you in the Industry? Do you have some kind of electrical certification?

Mate, Copper IS more expensive to maintain. If you go around throwing copper in the ground without decent insulation and protection from moisture. It will degrade and/or be subject to interference.

The fact that Telstra techs are going out everyday to reterminate and/or replace joints, reseal pits, replace entire main pairs is evidence enough. You won't find any documentation to prove that either. Wanna know why? Because Telstra would NEVER release such documents which would cripple their business. The media and everyone else can release whatever documents they want but none of it will be official.

Fibre is and will ALWAYS better than Copper. Wanna know why? Go learn science deteego and find out. Science already has my back and if you disagree otherwise your just proving that you're a fool. You're already doing a good job anyways.

Sure, Fibre does have it's issue. But not to the volume and degree that copper does. You will get Fibre cuts but these are a piece of cake to resplice.

The major fibre cut in Sydney took approx 2 hours to fix. The copper that was nearby that got cut...took 3-4 days to fix. The fibre guys were in and out before the copper repair trucks even got started.

You also have end to end hardware failure. Happens in any telecommunications setup.

There's probably 1 or 2 more issues that I can't think of but you wont have even spend half of the time you spend on copper that you do on Fibre. With Fibre, you dont get: crosstalk, high resistance, insertion loss, the attenuation distance of fibre is much greater.

deteego wrote:
The problems that are being seeing now is because people did not properly terminate copper connections and not the material itself.


Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....wrong again. It's because the pits we are putting these cables in places where moisture can get to it.
Sure, most pits are sealed pretty good to begin with but eventually those seals degrade and wear out.

With fibre, even if the pits seal did wear out. It wouldn't matter. ITS GLASS AND PLASTIC. HURR DURRR

Fact is..Science disagress with you Deteego. So cry all you want but...You're wrong :)

Oh and also, I challenge you to present me with a scenario where copper was used underwater. Go on.. try it. You won't though.

Give up deteego. I'm done dealing with your banter. You have no supporting evidence that trumps science, common sense, and industry experience.

Edited by bazwalt: 3/10/2010 04:17:36 PM
Pilotyoda
Oct 3, 2010 8:23 PM
Tere is someone who posts here who seems to be an apologist for either Sen. Conman or the Libs.

There are may suburbs that have sprung up over the last few years or so that have no access to ADSL2+. In a penny pinching exercise may or these suburbs got RIM or Pair-Gain services - No ADSL -full stop. Some are spread afar and only serviced by an exchange >5kM (cable distance) away and simply cannot get more than 1 or 2 Mb speeds MAX. Some have outdated copper services which have such high attenuation rates that if you are only 2kM from thee exchange you feel like you are on dial-up.

I often have to wait for a YouTube clip to load, so how can I ever be serviced by Internet TV. (I note Telstra would sell me a T-Box and service, but I couldn't use it).

Wireless wont cut it for high traffic and copper is approaching its limits. Only fibre will suffice for the future (it is only simple physics)

As for back-haul, Telstra commenced using Fibre between exchanges and high volume points many years ago, but was privatised and stopped upgrading the rest of the network.
Time to finish the job properly!
deteego
Oct 4, 2010 8:03 AM
Bazwalt wrote:

Deteego, Have you done ANY ounce of science? Are you in the Industry? Do you have some kind of electrical certification?


Yes I have, and saying "no" doesn't make it a proof. Fibre has issues that (copper) doesn't have, its not with the material gradually disintegrating (which is probably the minimal factor in lifespan of the cable) but the fact that Fibre suffers from massive signal loss from splits/splices. Usually the effect isn't noticeable initially, because these splits/splices almost always happen near the premise, where people are hardly expected to use the full bandwith of Fibre

Bazwalt wrote:
Mate, Copper IS more expensive to maintain. If you go around throwing copper in the ground without decent insulation and protection from moisture. It will degrade and/or be subject to interference.

Show me a study, saying so doesn't make it so. Copper in our country has been around for zonks (like 60+ years), a lot of issues with copper had to with badly terminated connections, Fibre has this issue as well

Bazwalt wrote:
The fact that Telstra techs are going out everyday to reterminate and/or replace joints, reseal pits, replace entire main pairs is evidence enough. You won't find any documentation to prove that either. Wanna know why? Because Telstra would NEVER release such documents which would cripple their business. The media and everyone else can release whatever documents they want but none of it will be official.

Read above. Also look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic because that is what you are doing

Bazwalt wrote:
Fibre is and will ALWAYS better than Copper. Wanna know why? Go learn science deteego and find out. Science already has my back and if you disagree otherwise your just proving that you're a fool. You're already doing a good job anyways.

Glass is more fragile then copper and has other issues that copper doesn't. Copper is inert, but its one of the least inert materials (I can do calculations if you want to show the difference is minimal). Both are insulated. Did you even read the thread I showed you (because you clearly didn't).

I trust industry professionals that post on Whirlpool more then I trust you

Bazwalt wrote:
The major fibre cut in Sydney took approx 2 hours to fix. The copper that was nearby that got cut...took 3-4 days to fix. The fibre guys were in and out before the copper repair trucks even got started.

That isn't any proof at all. If the Fibre was part of the network backbone, it would have been incredibly easy to fix because there would be minimal splices and an easy replacement

This proves jack shit. There could have been plenty of reasons why the copper took longer to fix. There is also no evidence this is the norm, or this wouldn't happen to a Fibre cable connected in the same circumstances as the copper (or was even as old as the copper). Thats like saying that carrots are more dangerous then guns because someone happened to die from having a hard carrot thrown on their head in some random circumstance (and calling that the norm)

Bazwalt wrote:
You also have end to end hardware failure. Happens in any telecommunications setup.

Happens in ANY telecommunications setup (copper and/or Fibre)

Quote:
There's probably 1 or 2 more issues that I can't think of but you wont have even spend half of the time you spend on copper that you do on Fibre. With Fibre, you dont get: crosstalk, high resistance, insertion loss, the attenuation distance of fibre is much greater.

This has nothing to do with maintainability. Fibre has greater general bandwidth, this is generally understood


Quote:

With fibre, even if the pits seal did wear out. It wouldn't matter. ITS GLASS AND PLASTIC. HURR DURRR

Glass is weaker, Hurr durr. Both Copper and Fibre is insultated. Hurr Durr. The difference between how inert Cable and Fibre is negligable, Hurr Durr.

Seriously have you stepped on glass that is as thin as Fibre? It doesn't last too long ;)

Quote:
Fact is..Science disagress with you Deteego. So cry all you want but...You're wrong :)

Right, science gives stupid generalist statements such that a weaker but inert material lasts a less amount of time then an almost inert but much stronger material completely disregarding other factors. You should be my professor.

Your proof is not scientific at all, your proof is events that you popped out claiming that this happens all the time. Again why you should stop doing this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic.

Quote:
Oh and also, I challenge you to present me with a scenario where copper was used underwater. Go on.. try it. You won't though.

I never did, Fibre is obviously used underseas because it has like 100000 times more bandwidth. Stop creating a strawman (and undersea Fibre cables last around 20 years, stated why in this thread http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1538857)

Quote:
Give up deteego. I'm done dealing with your banter. You have no supporting evidence that trumps science, common sense, and industry experience.

You didn't provide any proof at all. Your 'science' proved nothing. You have no one from the industry backing up what you say, and there is no have provided no references. Maybe you should go read the whirlpool forums sometime, they may be biased but their (usually) not stupid.

They are definitely smarter then you

Edited by deteego: 4/10/2010 09:31:30 AM
Bazwalt
Oct 4, 2010 10:28 AM
deteego wrote:
Yes I have, and saying "no" doesn't make it a proof. Fibre has issues that (copper) doesn't have, its not with the material gradually disintegrating (which is probably the minimal factor in lifespan of the cable) but the fact that Fibre suffers from massive signal loss from splits/splices. Usually the effect isn't noticeable initially, because these splits/splices almost always happen near the premise, where people are hardly expected to use the full bandwith of Fibre


Of course, I never said Fibre doesn't have issues. But I have said that Fibres issues are far less than that of copper.
Oh and if you cut ANY cable at all...of course there's going to be signal loss. You can't say that Fibres is greater or lesser than that of any other cable because that is factually incorrect.

A splice is a splice, if you fracture the the glass the signal attentuation will shoot through the roof. The same affect will happen with any kind of fixed line, the same has been shown to occur with copper. The only difference is that instead of dealing with light we're dealing with electricity.

deteego wrote:
Show me a study, saying so doesn't make it so. Copper in our country has been around for zonks (like 60+ years), a lot of issues with copper had to with badly terminated connections, Fibre has this issue as well.


Again, can't show you a study because frankly Telstra won't release one and any study from anyone else is not considered official so Telstra will ignore it.
If you had any experience in the industry you would know this.

The only supporting evidence available is a) the volume of faults and their causes (survey some ISPs and find out what the cause of the fault was) and b) The technology we deal with. Copper degrades. Pure and simple. If you're too ignorant to realise this and accept it than that's your own undoing.

deteego wrote:
Read above. Also look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic because that is what you are doing


Nice try. but that card won't work Deteego. I work in the industry. My company is the biggest provider in our area and I deal with alot of the faults that come in. I see the faults that our Field Techs are deployed to and I also see their test results.

9 times out of 10, the problem is due to water in the pits, corroded copper, crosstalk, and electrical shorts. All of these do NOT occur on Fibre. It's simple. Throw a fibre next to another and you won't get a short, crosstalk. Throw it in water and it won't corrode. That's at least 90% of our faults out the window. All I'd have to worry about is damaged NTU's and and fibre cuts. Don't you dare sit there and demand evidence from me.

If fibre will fix 90% of faults for my company, than lets extend that towards other ISPs. There will be a HUGE decrease in faults. And therefore an increase in infrastructure maintenance.

The only issue you've mentioned so far is fibre cuts/splices which I agree with is an inherent problem. But its the ONLY huge problem. What else have you got there? If fibre splices are your only card than you've already proven Fibre more reliable.

deteego wrote:
Glass is more fragile then copper and has other issues that copper doesn't.


What are these other issues you speak of? Fibre Splicing aside.

These other issues seem so bad to you yet you don't mention them?

deteego wrote:
I trust industry professionals that post on Whirlpool more then I trust you


You clearly don't since you've ignored everything they've said and you clearly have your own opinion on the matter regardless of whatever facts are thrown at your face.

deteego wrote:
This has nothing to do with maintainability. Fibre has greater general bandwidth, this is generally understood.


It has everything to do with it. By eliminating the predominant issues with the physical line you reduce the amount of maintenance required. Instead of trucks rolling out to deal with the aforementioned crosstalk, shorts, main pair replacements, more time can be spent repairing fibre splices and upgrading end to end equipment. AND more time can be spent on backhaul upgrades. So stop being ignorant.

I really wish you would leave Fibres bandwidth out of this argument because it has very little to do with this discussion. It's already been proven that copper and fibre are both capable of delivering 100Mbit. The issue is that it has harder to make such a delivery on copper without reducing cable lengths and introducing repeaters. Fibre has the ability to deliver 100Mbit at far greater distances.

Both fixed lines can do it...it's just that 1 is more reliable and able to make this delivery much more easily. Fibre > Copper.

deteego wrote:
Glass is weaker, Hurr durr. Both Copper and Fibre is insultated. Hurr Durr. The difference between how inert Cable and Fibre is negligable, Hurr Durr.


The insulation in copper doesn't make a difference at all. If coppers insulation wears off the copper degrades. Happens all the time. If the same happened with Fibre it wouldn't make a difference. The inertness of copper has nothing to do with it. Try again.

deteego wrote:
Right, science gives stupid generalist statements such that a weaker but inert material lasts a less amount of time then an almost inert but much stronger material completely disregarding other factors. You should be my professor.


Ok, If science isn't good enough than try this experiment for me. Go and build a window frame out of copper for me and then fit it to a sheet of glass. Then, I want you to leave it out in the raid for 2-3 months. Then tell me which one rusts first.

If the window goes first, then I will be on my knees and kiss your feet. Otherwise..gtfo

deteego wrote:
I never did, Fibre is obviously used underseas because it has like 100000 times more bandwidth. Stop creating a strawman (and undersea Fibre cables last around 20 years, stated why in this thread http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1538857)


Wow, your ignorance just gets better and better. You're wrong again. They use Fibre undersea because 1) It doesn't degrade 2) The signal attenuates are far greater distances and therefore they can push a beam of light much further than any electrical signal would ever reach on copper 3) If a cable is cut, they can make the repairs underwater. If they tried that with copper than they would have to either lift the copper from the ground (good luck with that) or they would have to cut into the insulation to repair, then the ENTIRE line would be useless.

Get some common sense mate.

deteego wrote:
You didn't provide any proof at all. Your 'science' proved nothing. You have no one from the industry backing up what you say, and there is no have provided no references. Maybe you should go read the whirlpool forums sometime, they may be biased but their (usually) not stupid.


I don't need to provide proof because any man or woman with a brain and a bit of education could work it out. Try my little experiment and then come back and tell me that science proves nothing. You've provided absolutely nothing except for the accusation that my arguments are based on an Availability Heuristic which is laughable. You ask me to provide studies which no company, in this case Telstra, would ever release because that's just bad for business.

Actually, I have the entire industry behind me really. The industries main concern is the costs being spent on the project.

Maybe you should go back to school and get some common sense and education. Even that's a stretch.
johnpro2
Oct 4, 2010 12:36 PM
@someone: "Maybe you should go read the whirlpool forums sometime, they may be biased but their (usually) not stupid."

******
Maybe ...but do they know their there's & they are's from their theirs ..that is the question.
johnpro2
Oct 4, 2010 12:42 PM
@someone: Then, I want you to leave it out in the raid for 2-3 months. Then tell me which one rusts first.

*****
I know that one ..neither.

deteego
Oct 4, 2010 2:20 PM
Bazwalt wrote:

Of course, I never said Fibre doesn't have issues. But I have said that Fibres issues are far less than that of copper.
Oh and if you cut ANY cable at all...of course there's going to be signal loss. You can't say that Fibres is greater or lesser than that of any other cable because that is factually incorrect.

Something which you haven't proven

Bazwalt wrote:
A splice is a splice, if you fracture the the glass the signal attentuation will shoot through the roof. The same affect will happen with any kind of fixed line, the same has been shown to occur with copper. The only difference is that instead of dealing with light we're dealing with electricity.


Except the effect is greater then Fibre

Bazwalt wrote:

Again, can't show you a study because frankly Telstra won't release one and any study from anyone else is not considered official so Telstra will ignore it.
If you had any experience in the industry you would know this.

Telstra isn't the only company that uses copper, try harder

Bazwalt wrote:
The only supporting evidence available is a) the volume of faults and their causes (survey some ISPs and find out what the cause of the fault was) and b) The technology we deal with. Copper degrades. Pure and simple. If you're too ignorant to realise this and accept it than that's your own undoing.

Again no evidence, show it (if such properly conducted surveys exist)

Bazwalt wrote:
Nice try. but that card won't work Deteego. I work in the industry. My company is the biggest provider in our area and I deal with alot of the faults that come in. I see the faults that our Field Techs are deployed to and I also see their test results.

You sure don't seem to know a lot about issues underlying copper problems if you own a company that deals with it

Quote:
9 times out of 10, the problem is due to water in the pits, corroded copper, crosstalk, and electrical shorts. All of these do NOT occur on Fibre. It's simple. Throw a fibre next to another and you won't get a short, crosstalk. Throw it in water and it won't corrode. That's at least 90% of our faults out the window. All I'd have to worry about is damaged NTU's and and fibre cuts. Don't you dare sit there and demand evidence from me.

If the cables insulation is corroded, Fibre is not any better. In fact Fibre has as many issues as copper does in water pits. Fibre can also get Fibre Fused (electrical shock), completely killing the cable
"At high optical intensities, above 2 megawatts per square centimeter, when a fiber is subjected to a shock or is otherwise suddenly damaged, a fiber fuse can occur. The reflection from the damage vaporizes the fiber immediately before the break, and this new defect remains reflective so that the damage propagates back toward the transmitter at 1–3 meters per second (4−11 km/h, 2–8 mph).[48][49] "

Bazwalt wrote:
If fibre will fix 90% of faults for my company, than lets extend that towards other ISPs. There will be a HUGE decrease in faults. And therefore an increase in infrastructure maintenance.

Seems like a big if, have you even worked with Fibre?

Bazwalt wrote:
The only issue you've mentioned so far is fibre cuts/splices which I agree with is an inherent problem. But its the ONLY huge problem. What else have you got there? If fibre splices are your only card than you've already proven Fibre more reliable.

One huge problem is a worse then a lot of small ones (considering almost all of the issues you brought up with is fixed with proper insulation). If Fibre loses its insulation it also get signal loss

Bazwalt wrote:
What are these other issues you speak of? Fibre Splicing aside.

These other issues seem so bad to you yet you don't mention them?

Read the whirlpool links that I provided earlier

Quote:
You clearly don't since you've ignored everything they've said and you clearly have your own opinion on the matter regardless of whatever facts are thrown at your face.

I am regurgitating what they are saying, you clearly haven't even read the links

Bazwalt wrote:

It has everything to do with it. By eliminating the predominant issues with the physical line you reduce the amount of maintenance required. Instead of trucks rolling out to deal with the aforementioned crosstalk, shorts, main pair replacements, more time can be spent repairing fibre splices and upgrading end to end equipment. AND more time can be spent on backhaul upgrades. So stop being ignorant.

....... (I see no point on commenting on this)

Bazwalt wrote:
I really wish you would leave Fibres bandwidth out of this argument because it has very little to do with this discussion. It's already been proven that copper and fibre are both capable of delivering 100Mbit. The issue is that it has harder to make such a delivery on copper without reducing cable lengths and introducing repeaters. Fibre has the ability to deliver 100Mbit at far greater distances.

And this argument has nothing to do with maintainability, what you are describing is fixed by adding nodes, something a national FTTN scheme would have done

Bazwalt wrote:

The insulation in copper doesn't make a difference at all. If coppers insulation wears off the copper degrades. Happens all the time. If the same happened with Fibre it wouldn't make a difference. The inertness of copper has nothing to do with it. Try again.

As mentioned earlier, Fibre has many issues with environment as copper does if it loses its insulation. UV radiation kills the life of Fibre, it has issues with water as well (and snow and whatnot)

Bazwalt wrote:
Ok, If science isn't good enough than try this experiment for me. Go and build a window frame out of copper for me and then fit it to a sheet of glass. Then, I want you to leave it out in the raid for 2-3 months. Then tell me which one rusts first.


You know you just shown you have no idea about Science in general with the retarded experiment you came up with, which has no control (among other things)

Quote:
Wow, your ignorance just gets better and better. You're wrong again. They use Fibre undersea because 1) It doesn't degrade 2) The signal attenuates are far greater distances and therefore they can push a beam of light much further than any electrical signal would ever reach on copper 3) If a cable is cut, they can make the repairs underwater. If they tried that with copper than they would have to either lift the copper from the ground (good luck with that) or they would have to cut into the insulation to repair, then the ENTIRE line would be useless.


Undersea cables also die in around 20 years due to the repeaters being blown out from the cables being overstressed with full bandwith. As I said earlier, Fibre is used due to bandwidth and much less signal loss. Maintainability isn't a reason that Fibre is used underseas. Copper just isn't designed for underground sea use. Its like using a bike to try and move furniture, its nothing to do with Bike's being unmaintainable

Bazwalt wrote:

I don't need to provide proof because any man or woman with a brain and a bit of education could work it out. Try my little experiment and then come back and tell me that science proves nothing. You've provided absolutely nothing except for the accusation that my arguments are based on an Availability Heuristic which is laughable. You ask me to provide studies which no company, in this case Telstra, would ever release because that's just bad for business.

Seems like you have half a brain if you couldn't figure out that Telstra isn't the only company in the world using copper

Bazwalt wrote:

Actually, I have the entire industry behind me really. The industries main concern is the costs being spent on the project.

No you don't. The industries argument in general of replacing Fibre with copper is that the majority of copper is already degraded since its around 50 YEARS OLD (or badly installed). So it makes obvious sense (from their point of view) that if you have to replace a network, you better do it with better technology (there are issues with this POV as well, but thats besides the point). They haven't said anything about Fibre being cheaper to maintain then copper. Their point of view is that if you have an old car that you need to replace, you may as well replace it with a newer model. Both types of car cost the same to maintain, its just that the newer one may go faster (or have other features)

As someone from AARNET (smarter then you) pointed out.
"The quality of installation is a large influence on a fiber's operational life and Australian installers are, on the whole, much better than those I've used overseas."
Fibre in itself is not more easily maintainable then copper, its dodgy installations that are the problem. Not the material

Bazwalt wrote:
Maybe you should go back to school and get some common sense and education. Even that's a stretch.

Actually common sense is not something you can teach, someone with common sense would tell you that ;)

Edited by deteego: 4/10/2010 02:30:12 PM
Bazwalt
Oct 4, 2010 3:21 PM
Again, I don't need to prove that Fibres signal loss is greater OR lesser than that of copper. A simple lab setup of a Fibre and Copper cable would prove you wrong.

deteego wrote:
Except the effect is greater then Fibre


Greater than fibre or greater than copper? I'm confused. But, regardless, prove it. Show me YOUR test results...not something that's regurgitated that you've mindless decided to believe.

deteego wrote:
Telstra isn't the only company that uses copper, try harder


I realise that. But I choose to use Telstra as my example considering that we are talking about an Australian project. Also because Telstra controls the infrastructure within Australia. The only copper that doesn't belong to Telstra or the Govt is copper that is run by privatised companies. Nice troll though.

deteego wrote:
Again no evidence, show it (if such properly conducted surveys exist)


If you want evidence, survey some Telstra Techs and some techs from other ISPs. A firm knowledge of wtf copper is will help as well.
I'm not going to waste my time gathering evidence for an ignorant troll. If you're too dumb to realise how wrong you are..that's your loss.

deteego wrote:
You sure don't seem to know a lot about issues underlying copper problems if you own a company that deals with it


Could say the same for you.

deteego wrote:
If the cables insulation is corroded, Fibre is not any better. In fact Fibre has as many issues as copper does in water pits.

Bullshit. If that were the case why in the hell would they use fiber under a friggen ocean. Get a clue. Try again.

deteego wrote:
Fibre can also get Fibre Fused (electrical shock), completely killing the cable

Ok. Fair enough. Now where's your study to show the frequency of such an event? How often does this occur? What types of events would trigger such a problem?

Now, in case you weren't aware, that whole regurgitation you have made is factually incorrect. It's not the electrical shock that kills the cable.
Fibre is glass and it does NOT conduct electricity. It's actually the heat that would kill the cable.

So something like a lightening strike (unlikely as the bolt would have no reason to be attracted to the fibre), kids throwing petrol into a pit, or even a fire would be more likely to cause such an event.

All of the above EXTREMELY unlikely. So try again mate.

deteego wrote:
Seems like a big if, have you even worked with Fibre?


Oh for sure, It's a huge gamble. But one with enough knowledge behind fibre can make an educated guess.

deteego wrote:
One huge problem is a worse then a lot of small ones (considering almost all of the issues you brought up with is fixed with proper insulation). If Fibre loses its insulation it also get signal loss


I disagree. Small problems are time consuming. Time is money.

Re-splicing a fibre cable only takes half the time it takes to repair a copper cable. Instead of wasting time on small issues you can focus on the bigger ones.

deteego wrote:
Read the whirlpool links that I provided earlier


Rather not, Whirlpool attracts idiots and morons. It's just a whinge pool. Sounds like your kind of place.

deteego wrote:
I am regurgitating what they are saying, you clearly haven't even read the links


Well that's obvious enough. At least your honest to admit it. Do yourself a favour and being so gullible and take some time to educate yourself better.

I've read the links, I just disagree with them. Don't believe everything you read.

deteego wrote:
....... (I see no point on commenting on this)


A bit above your head? I'm sorry. I'll try not to be so right next time.

deteego wrote:
And this argument has nothing to do with maintainability, what you are describing is fixed by adding nodes, something a national FTTN scheme would have done


It has everything to do with maintainability. On a Fibre run infrastructure you wouldn't need to add extra nodes...in fact...money could actually be saved by removing by decommissioning nodes that aren't needed. FTTN cuts copper runs but the copper is dead anyways so it's a pointless move.

deteego wrote:
As mentioned earlier, Fibre has many issues with environment as copper does if it loses its insulation. UV radiation kills the life of Fibre, it has issues with water as well (and snow and whatnot)


Factually wrong again. Fibre actually has far less environmental issues. The only thing the insulation does is protects the fibre from cuts (only slightly) and reduces the impact from heat (again..only slightly).

I would LOVE to see fibre being affected by radiation. I really would. Show me an example of where this has occurred.

deteego wrote:
You know you just shown you have no idea about Science in general with the retarded experiment you came up with, which has no control (among other things)


Actually I was dumbing it down to your level. It's the only way I seem to be able to communicate to you. Though very basic, still a perfect experiment that proves my point.

deteego wrote:
Undersea cables also die in around 20 years due to the repeaters being blown out from the cables being overstressed with full bandwith. As I said earlier, Fibre is used due to bandwidth and much less signal loss. Maintainability isn't a reason that Fibre is used underseas. Copper just isn't designed for underground sea use. Its like using a bike to try and move furniture, its nothing to do with Bike's being unmaintainable

That lifespan is virtually the same among almost all types of cable. Copper and Fibre alike. Most people would be over the moon to get that kind of life.
Fibre is used because of it's capacity and reliability. Maintainability has everything to do with it.

Bad example btw.

deteego wrote:
Seems like you have half a brain if you couldn't figure out that Telstra isn't the only company in the world using copper

Like I said before, Telstra was being used as an example.

deteego wrote:
No you don't. The industries argument in general of replacing Fibre with copper is that the majority of copper is already degraded since its around 50 YEARS OLD (or badly installed). So it makes obvious sense (from their point of view) that if you have to replace a network, you better do it with better technology (there are issues with this POV as well, but thats besides the point). They haven't said anything about Fibre being cheaper to maintain then copper. Their point of view is that if you have an old car that you need to replace, you may as well replace it with a newer model. Both types of car cost the same to maintain, its just that the newer one may go faster (or have other features)

As someone from AARNET (smarter then you) pointed out.
"The quality of installation is a large influence on a fiber's operational life and Australian installers are, on the whole, much better than those I've used overseas."
Fibre in itself is not more easily maintainable then copper, its dodgy installations that are the problem. Not the material


Sigh...wrong again.

deteego wrote:
Actually common sense is not something you can teach, someone with common sense would tell you that ;)


You got me on that one. It's apparent though that you can't be taught anything. Since all you seem to do is regurgitate complete and utter crap that you've only read.
deteego
Oct 4, 2010 7:33 PM
Look their isn't any point in replying to this. Whirlpool has many morons, they also have ISP and IT representatives, which state "I am from Internode, or I am from iiNet or am from AARNET". The statements which I have said come from those people. I don't listen to any random person that posts on whirlpool

Furthermore your example of the window (with copper vs glass) as a test shows you may work in the industry, but you are not very smart. If you haven't realized, the reason copper degrades much more in such an area is because it has less of a surface area (the glass is paned over as a sheet, the copper is like strips over the edges), the location of the copper means that it has to deal with stuff like buidup of water (you know, water ripples down the window but it can easily sit on the crevice where copper is) and furthermore the glass used in windows is very different to the glass used in Fibre (window glass is very strong and durable, Fibre Optic glass is much weaker because it has to be "diffractive" for obvious reasons). Try comparing the lifetime of two statues, one made of glass and one made for copper, and guess which ones through history have lasted the longest ;) (even that is a retarded example, I am not going to use that as a justification)

Your refusal to look at any generic studies/results apart from Telstra prove one thing and one thing only, you indirectly implied that the reason our copper network is so bad is probably due to the way that Telstra have installed it in certain locations and little to do with the actual material. America is a country which relies on copper for internet as much as Australia (in fact much more so) and has much more extreme whether conditions then Australia (snow, lightning, Tornadoes, extreme UV radiation, extreme cold, frostbite etc etc, America has it all). If copper was "unmaintainable" I would be pretty god damn sure they wouldn't be using it so widely. In fact since you constantly state that in your examples insulation is gone (which is supposed to be incredibly rare, either cable basically relies on the insulation for its lifespan) it seems to be an issue of poor management/installation of copper in those areas (something that I said is the most likely cause of the problems you are describing)

The matter of fact is, almost all countries apart from a select few (Japan, South Korea, Singapore) run on primarily copper networks for last mile. Almost all of Europe does, America/Canada does and South America does. Fibre optic has been around for 40 years, I am pretty god damn sure if Fibre was more maintainable by copper by such a huge amount then at least half of those countries would have FTTH, well they don't (in fact the only countries that have FTTH are ones that have incredibly rich monopolistic telecommunication companies such as NTT or Deutch Telecom who had plenty cash to blow on an FTTH without much risk).If Fibre is so much more maintainable then copper that it ends up being cheaper in the longrun, it definitely has not shown in the past 40 years its been available because many more countries would have replaced Fibre with copper. Only in networks backhaul and FTTN schemes has this happened, and the reasons are obvious (back hauls receive massive congestion so obviously Fibre is used, and there is hardly any loss in speed of the signal over the vast distances so you don't need as many repeaters)

Fibre has 3 main advantages over copper, bandwidth, attenuation and latency (and the fact that that Fibre pairs don't interfere with each-other like copper ones). Like the guy from AARNET said, the quality of networks in general (including Fibre) basically all comes down to how they are installed properly. You install any cabling badly (either Fibre or Copper), it will not last long, just like if you build a car really badly it will not last long. He also said that the NBN will be less likely to have these issues, because the industry practices today and the Australian workforce that is installing the Fibre is one of the best (or better then American ones). So this Fibre network (if its ever built) will be more maintainable (if at all) because of better workmanship, and you scapegoating the issue onto copper being a shitty material just makes you look stupid

And if you have any idea who AARNET is (you know, they actually deploy Fibre) then you wouldn't disagree with that statement at all. Even PIPE networks (you know, another company, and this one just focuses on deployment of Fibre) has stated similar things

http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/969670
Here is another thread about maintainability of Fibre networks (with a representative from PIPE talking about it)

Edited by deteego: 4/10/2010 07:46:43 PM
Bazwalt
Oct 4, 2010 8:49 PM
deteego wrote:
Look their isn't any point in replying to this.

So why'd you reply then?

Either way. It seems that all you can do is regurgitate what others have said without any evident real world experience. You might be happy living in your Copper Wonderland where everything is supposedly peachy but I'll stick to my Fibre Wonderland where everything is far better :)

P.S Have fun with your wireless :)

Edited by bazwalt: 4/10/2010 08:51:45 PM
deteego
Oct 4, 2010 8:53 PM
Bazwalt wrote:

So why'd you reply then?

Replying directly to what you said, because it was all crap

Bazwalt wrote:
Either way. It seems that all you can do is regurgitate what others have said without any evident real world experience. You might be happy living in your Copper Wonderland where everything is supposedly peachy but I'll stick to my Fibre Wonderland where everything is far better :)


Clearly I am an idiot, so I quoted people that I know what they are talking about (since you don't). Any reason why you don't accept what these people say, or is it just inconvenient (or are you saying they are idiots as well?)

Your statement also shows how ignorant you are, I already stated that the FTTH network would most likely be cheaper to maintain, but thats because its being built better and not because its FTTH. Its like holding a grudge against motorbikes and say cars are much easier to maintain because you happened to have bought a bike has a shitty build

Edited by deteego: 4/10/2010 08:54:39 PM
Bazwalt
Oct 4, 2010 9:14 PM
deteego wrote:
Clearly I am an idiot

Least you got something right.

deteego wrote:
so I quoted people that I know what they are talking about (since you don't)

And you know this how? Just above you said that you're an idiot. So how would you know any better? I think it has more to do with the fact that noone can be right unless you say it's O.K.

deteego wrote:
Your statement also shows how ignorant you are, I already stated that the FTTH network would most likely be cheaper to maintain, but thats because its being built better and not because its FTTH.


I'm sorry. I must have missed it because for last dozen or so pages that we've been having this debate you've been trashing Fibre as if it holds no place ANYWHERE and instead putting Copper on some high pedestal like a trophy when statistically and practically Copper is worse.

Suddenly out of nowhere you pull the "Oh but if it's built right than it's ok :)". NBNco has time and time again insisted that it will build it the very best way possible. If you pulled this card pages back I might have actually supported you.

God, I feel like I've just taught maths to a bloody chicken.
deteego
Oct 4, 2010 9:19 PM
Bazwalt wrote:

Least you got something right.

Clearly you are an even bigger idiot if you don't understand obvious sarcasm

Bazwalt wrote:
I'm sorry. I must have missed it because for last dozen or so pages that we've been having this debate you've been trashing Fibre as if it holds no place ANYWHERE and instead putting Copper on some high pedestal like a trophy when statistically and practically Copper is worse.

Suddenly out of nowhere you pull the "Oh but if it's built right than it's ok :)". NBNco has time and time again insisted that it will build it the very best way possible. If you pulled this card pages back I might have actually supported you.

You have issues reading then, my original statement always has been that I see no major evidence that copper networks are inherit-ably cheaper to maintain then Fibre. How you managed to extrapolate this from that makes it evident that you were trying to create arguments with something I never disagreed with

Bazwalt wrote:

God, I feel like I've just taught maths to a bloody chicken.

Considering your hilarious example of windows as a "scientific experiment", if I am a chicken then you are a headless one. Would also explain why you have issues reading

Edited by deteego: 4/10/2010 09:22:50 PM
Bazwalt
Oct 4, 2010 10:08 PM
Like I said, Enjoy your Copper Wonderland.
deteego
Oct 4, 2010 10:11 PM
Bazwalt wrote:
Like I said, Enjoy your Copper Wonderland.


Thank you I am perfectly happy with it (even though your statement is retarded since we use Fibre for backhaul as it should be, but w/e)

I will continue to live another day in paradise

I also like the fact that you didn't scientifically, or otherwise prove anything at all (you spent 3 pages saying "zomg, copper is bad in my area, therefore it is bad EVERYWHERE.)

Edited by deteego: 4/10/2010 10:12:28 PM
Bazwalt
Oct 4, 2010 11:07 PM
deteego wrote:
I also like the fact that you didn't scientifically, or otherwise prove anything at all (you spent 3 pages saying "zomg, copper is bad in my area, therefore it is bad EVERYWHERE.)

If you say so. Clearly you're the guru with all the facts.

Actually, the copper in my area appears to be great so I dunno where you got that. I never said that Copper is bad, my argument is that Fibre is most suitable and logical choice for the advancement of our telecommunications infrastructure.

Obviously you don't even know what your opposition is arguing about. GG



Edited by bazwalt: 4/10/2010 11:08:10 PM

Edited by bazwalt: 4/10/2010 11:10:09 PM
deteego
Oct 4, 2010 11:18 PM
Bazwalt wrote:

Actually, the copper in my area appears to be great so I dunno where you got that. I never said that Copper is bad, my argument is that Fibre is most suitable and logical choice for the advancement of our telecommunications infrastructure.

No your argument is that Fibre is more maintainable, which isn't something that has been proven to be correct. You never actually stated that the FTTH scheme would be more reliable SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE OF BETTER INDUSTRY STANDARDS/WORKMANSHIP, you said it was because of Fibre being a more maintainable technology
Ace
Oct 4, 2010 11:32 PM
I used up my monthly download allowance accessing this article.
Bazwalt
Oct 4, 2010 11:54 PM
deteego wrote:
Bazwalt wrote:

Actually, the copper in my area appears to be great so I dunno where you got that. I never said that Copper is bad, my argument is that Fibre is most suitable and logical choice for the advancement of our telecommunications infrastructure.

No your argument is that Fibre is more maintainable, which isn't something that has been proven to be correct. You never actually stated that the FTTH scheme would be more reliable SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE OF BETTER INDUSTRY STANDARDS/WORKMANSHIP, you said it was because of Fibre being a more maintainable technology


If you say so chief.

Ace wrote:
I used up my monthly download allowance accessing this article.


Rofl..
baalrak
Oct 5, 2010 9:16 AM
Deteego your problem in this whole debate is that you have an opinion about something but are obviously very uneducated on.
You claim to know about this topic yet you refer back to forums as your source of information, don't get me wrong I am sure there must be some people on the forums you use that do have an idea.
The problem is that you clearly feel very negative towards the NBN and the progression of our great country, therefore you only take out the negative information that these people offer.
It is good to have an opinion deteego but sometimes it is better to not say anything and be thought a fool then to open your mouth (type in this case) and remove all doubt.
anonymous
Oct 5, 2010 11:02 AM

@baalrak, well said. It's amusing that deteego comes here and stuffs this thread up with his opinions, and frequently refers to the other sites where he posts. But his ignorance seems to get the same response everywhere.
deteego
Oct 5, 2010 1:00 PM
baalrak wrote:
Deteego your problem in this whole debate is that you have an opinion about something but are obviously very uneducated on.

You can use this argument for everyone posting in here
baalrak wrote:

You claim to know about this topic yet you refer back to forums as your source of information, don't get me wrong I am sure there must be some people on the forums you use that do have an idea.

So you would prefer I refer to no one and claim everything is say is correct because it is so?
Quote:
The problem is that you clearly feel very negative towards the NBN and the progression of our great country, therefore you only take out the negative information that these people offer.

The problem is that you clearly feel very pro for the NBN even though they are using up a massive number of $$$ without releasing a CBA in a market area that isn't even growing (everyone is going wired now). Lets go build a rocketship for everyone, that sounds like great progression, am I right?
baalrak wrote:

It is good to have an opinion deteego but sometimes it is better to not say anything and be thought a fool then to open your mouth (type in this case) and remove all doubt.

It is good that you have an opinion, but people that care about emotive opinions over facts probably shouldn't be posting then?

Im not sure if you realise, but you are just as (bad) and biased as anyone else here (including myself). In fact, no one in this thread has actually proven that they know what they are talking about. Yes that is right, no one, it includes you and it includes Bazwalt. A fool in ones eyes is a hero in another (I can can say that anyone here is a fool in my opinion and many others as well)

EVERYTHING here is opinion, just because you don't happen to like opinion doesn't mean you can be hypocritical and dismiss it when you are no better

Edited by deteego: 5/10/2010 01:02:04 PM
Bazwalt
Oct 5, 2010 1:35 PM
deteego wrote:
So you would prefer I refer to no one and claim everything is say is correct because it is so?


I would prefer you present some real world evidence that actually disproves the NBN approach rather than regurgitated statements that are purely speculative.

Just because it comes from PIPE or AARNET doesn't automatically make it 100% accurate.

People have the right to question what they are being told and some prefer not to just accept something outright.

deteego wrote:
The problem is that you clearly feel very pro for the NBN even though they are using up a massive number of $$$ without releasing a CBA in a market area that isn't even growing (everyone is going wired now).


You're right. The market isn't growing. In fact...its in a state of stagnation because there is simply no room for growth. It will continue to remain like this until Telstra is removed and/or bound and our telecommunications upgraded to keep us level with the rest of the world.

deteego wrote:
Im not sure if you realise, but you are just as (bad) and biased as anyone else here (including myself). In fact, no one in this thread has actually proven that they know what they are talking about. Yes that is right, no one, it includes you and it includes Bazwalt.


And since when are you any better than the rest of us. We have no idea who you are or what your credentials are. You have, at no point, proven that you are any wiser than the rest of us. Your just another guy with another opinion.

Just because you don't like our opinions doesn't make us wrong or any lesser a fool than you are.
deteego
Oct 5, 2010 2:03 PM
Bazwalt wrote:


I would prefer you present some real world evidence that actually disproves the NBN approach rather than regurgitated statements that are purely speculative.

And you are better then me in this regard how???? (you saying that there are major issues with copper connections in Australia being the norm is just as speculative)

Bazwalt wrote:
Just because it comes from PIPE or AARNET doesn't automatically make it 100% accurate.

No but odds they know much more then you do in this area, since they specialise in deploying Fibre networks and thats what they were talking about

Bazwalt wrote:

People have the right to question what they are being told and some prefer not to just accept something outright.

Which is why I am questioning all your assumptions (which are still that, assumptions)

Bazwalt wrote:

You're right. The market isn't growing. In fact...its in a state of stagnation because there is simply no room for growth. It will continue to remain like this until Telstra is removed and/or bound and our telecommunications upgraded to keep us level with the rest of the world.


You do realise that Japan who did a FTTH, was done by a vertically intergrated private monopoly (well ogipoly to be technically correct). I have no idea why people hate Telstra so much, the (main) reason Telstra has issues is that deploying Internet in a lot of areas in Australia just isn't cost effective, especially when our bandwith is limited by contention ratios. NTT also happens to be one of the 30 richest corporations in the world, they probably rival our whole government in terms of profit

Bazwalt wrote:

And since when are you any better than the rest of us. We have no idea who you are or what your credentials are. You have, at no point, proven that you are any wiser than the rest of us. Your just another guy with another opinion.

I am better because of one and only one thing
I have provided evidence of people who have clear credentials in this area stating what I am stating. You have done none of this, and all you have claimed is that apparently you work for some company that deals with copper installations

Bazwalt wrote:

Just because you don't like our opinions doesn't make us wrong or any lesser a fool than you are.

Yes but so far, I am the only person that has provided any sought of evidence. Unfortunately in the real world, its the people who actually have evidence that are "less" of a fool

Edited by deteego: 5/10/2010 02:06:14 PM
midspace
Oct 5, 2010 2:53 PM
deteego wrote:
"So you would prefer I refer to no one and claim everything is say is correct because it is so?"

Try linking a whitepaper, case study, not a forum. Otherwise it's just speculation or personal opinion.

I haven't seen anything here to prove that Fibre is better than Copper. Neither have I seen anything that disproves that Fibre is better than Copper.
Time to call the MythBusters!!!!

You guys debate just as good as the politicians. A lot of arguments but not much substance.

I got one thing from the article though. Turnbull is starting to turn against Tony Abbott.
"The fact is that - look, I'm not interested in demolishing the NBN."

In several more months I'm sure the Coalition will start to fall apart. They'll boot Abbott, and someone new will come in as leader (again), and then we'll have a new set of Broadband Australia plans to argue over (again).

@Ace wrote:
"I used up my monthly download allowance accessing this article."
ROFL. I want this as my quote of the day.
RaTTyRaTT
Oct 5, 2010 2:56 PM
You are all missing the point...

Will my Mum buy this? Will your mum buy this? Will your grandparents buy this? Will the CUSTOMER BASE actually exist??? It's nice to say that we will have millions of people on this - but seriously??? get real. my mum won't pay for this... unless it's like $10 a month. She doesn't need it - doesn't want it, and frankly doesn't care about it either way. I suppose the 20 something's who voted Labor in the last election so they could eventually get MASSIVE torrent/download speeds, will buy it = but in the end. Rural battlers don't give a toss about feeds & speeds... Many of them would be happy as long as they got above 1.5Mb... (if that!)
My mum still wonders about the dongle I gave her. (I pay her connection) She's on a pension along with a lot of other older generation people, and she's not caring about this crap... It's all a 'storm in a teacup' to her (and others like her.)

Please people, think about the actual end user's for a change, not your own bloody selves. Business can use faster speeds, (some businesses...) but if you need more than 8Mbps ??? I ask WHAT are you using it FOR??? Honestly, what a bunch of dumb people. Even I am sitting still on a 512/128 link to this day (suburban location) and while I chafe a bit at this, I will move soon, but I'm not damn stupid = why pay for a MASSIVE link... especially if I don't need it really. (uh huh, that's the problem, eyes are bigger than the tummy as my mum used to say...)
midspace
Oct 5, 2010 4:06 PM
Exetel's Residential Fibre pricing for Tasmania, have a plan with no monthly fee, with $2.00 per GB.
http://www.exetel.com.au/residential-fibre-pricing-tasmania.php

Frankly, this meets my expectations of $10 a month for several realatives who are also pensioners.

This is only possible because there is no Telstra Wholesale involved.
With NBN (NBNCo) there will be no Telstra Wholesale. Theoretically this should cheaper internet pricing. Though Exetel have not extedned this to Point Cook or other areas. And we are reminded these are only pricing for the Test areas.
If prices like this could be maintained, then there is a good argument for NBN. As the Coalition's plans involve keeping Telstra as a monopoly and everyone on copper (last mile), we will never see prices that cheap become widespread.
deteego
Oct 5, 2010 5:07 PM
@midspace

I never stated that copper is more maintainable then fibre or vice versa, my position always has been that I see no evidence that Fibre (due to the material it is) is more maintainable then copper which is what Bazwalts argument is

Also you do realise that those prices are so cheap because the NBN is free for ISP's (or do assume it will stay that way)
RaTTyRaTT
Oct 5, 2010 5:30 PM
I think Deteego you are correct - are the prices sustainable, outsided a subsidized trial location? I mean this is Australia, where you can lay 200km of fibre, and have only how many subscribers off it directly... ??? hmm = bit of a cost/km benefit drawback there. Suburban areas are always going to be better drawcard, but in the end, the cost is going to be high - much higher than the basic usage person (eg pensioners) can really afford. Prices get pretty cheap at present for ADSL (never mind even ADSL2+) which as others have pointed out is available virtually everywhere. And that is sufficient for people who want to 'email' and possibly facebook with the family... It's not about Skype, after all = some of these older generation don't know/understand it... it's up to us to drive change for them. Yet, will we pay the cost for others (not just indrectly via larger monthly costs) but directly???

Midspace = you make a valid point, but it is still early days and like most government subsidized systems, the 'proof-of-concept' connections will be dirt cheap (govt trying to make a point) I rememember HiBIS satellite, and it can fall by the wayside...

Anyone think about the private medical insurance issue = same thing = subsidized...but it is often tabled as to whether it continues... well = my 10c.
HubertCumberdale
Oct 5, 2010 7:06 PM
Bazwalt wrote:

Rather not, Whirlpool attracts idiots and morons. It's just a whinge pool. Sounds like your kind of place.

Nailed it. You know the funny thing I noticed is they called deteego a troll over there. He called me a troll here, I would never call him or anyone else a troll I feel it is a disingenuous method used by people with poor debating skills (So yeah he'd fit right in) Everyone has opinions on various matters and I'd rather hear peoples honest opinions than have everything hidden like whingepool does. deteego has also been calling people idiots here but you wont see me hitting that report button I'd rather leave it so everyone knows exactly what was said.

Anyway back to the topic Turdbull is using a new tactic now saying that $65 is too high, OK I'm currently paying $99 for 16mbit so I'll be saving $34. Nice one Malcom.

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/turnbull-says-65-a-month-will-keep-most-off-broadband-20101004-164ek.html


Edited by HubertCumberdale: 5/10/2010 07:07:35 PM
Pilotyoda
Oct 5, 2010 7:28 PM
Fascinating. Strange arguments all based on politics and not physics.
1) Costs: Over 15 or so years the real cost of the NBN will be about $8/month per household. Hardly extravagant by any stretch of the imagination. The inflated figures are purely so they can support the ridiculous proposal to sell of the NBN after a few years. By the way - Which Australian company could afford to buy it? Answer: None. not even Telstra. Which means that if sold it will probably go to a foreign company. Who wants that to happen?

2) The technology:
All services above ground will perish in a accident or fire. Copper, Wireless or Fibre.
Life expectancy: In-the-ground fibre will outlast copper.

In countries with high-density populations the "last mile" is usually just that and consequently where copper is still being used speeds are much better than here. No-one rips out all that copper if things are really good, but copper is now VERY expensive and will not be used again. Europe will certainly recycle the copper for other purposes as they upgrade to fibre.

THE OPTIONS:
Wireless: assuming maximum data capacity = 1/2 frequency of carrier then 2GHz carrier = max 1 Gbit -- before check-sum bits, before headers, etc. Say about 300Mbit flat-out. Now divide that by the number of channels (users/processes) so 100 users per node = 3Mb max. Add contention, uploads, large file streaming, consider about 1.5Mb. For the Analogue TV frequencies to be released soon (about 100MHz-800Mh) we will have around 10% of the above data capacity
So with multiple RF channels, again, say, 100, then with overheads you could service maybe a couple of thousand people with about 3Mb service. mmmmmm
That's what we have now (and it is inadequate) and the only way to boost speeds is to increase frequency, which reduces range and requires different hardware and many more towers.... every few hundred metres (all fed by power and fibre!)
Already the existing service is sagging under mobile loads and will be useless for modern, high data sites or HD video.
Copper: Twisted pairs (the current copper phone line technology) has limitations whereby the maximum frequency that it will carry is up around 10 Mhz. Currently we split the signal into multiple phases (ADSL2+) and achieve a max throughput of about 20 odd Mbit. The attenuation increases with the distance so speeds drop as the error rate goes up. (Remember Cat5E or Cat6 cable increases the speeds to about 100Mb or 1Gb but on specially designed cable and it falls off dramatically over 500m (we don't have that cable anywhere in the ground and it is MUCH dearer than Fibre). Co-ax cable is better (eg Optus & Telstra TV services, but it too has limits and requires repeaters every so many hundred meters or so. It is only viable because of the relatively few people on the cable.
Fibre: Since fibre won't transmit long-wavelength infra red then the minimum frequency that will pass through fibre would be about 200THz and this will extend up to about 1000THz. Using the above calculations we would get a potential of a Million users operating at up to a couple of Gb PER FIBRE! Certainly enough potential for future high-bandwidth applications. Even with severe contention and signal loss issues, there would be no problem for IPTV, or any other HD video streaming as well as all the other applications and a house full of kids file sharing and using social media concurrently.
Any hardware/cost limitations restricting us to 100Mb will be pushed back by Moore's Law. If the average punter can get about 25Mb now they will be able to get up to 250Mb within 10 years (only end-point hardware needs upgrading).
Don't forget the applications and data requirements will ramp up in line with capacity.
Seems to me Fibre is a lay-down-mizere. And no towers every few hundred metres. As I say to the kids: it all comes down to basic physics.
deteego
Oct 5, 2010 7:32 PM
HubertCumberdale wrote:

Nailed it. You know the funny thing I noticed is they called deteego a troll over there. He called me a troll here, I would never call him or anyone else a troll I feel it is a disingenuous method used by people with poor debating skills (So yeah he'd fit right in) Everyone has opinions on various matters and I'd rather hear peoples honest opinions than have everything hidden like whingepool does. deteego has also been calling people idiots here but you wont see me hitting that report button I'd rather leave it so everyone knows exactly what was said.


Sorry this is just too funny

You are agreeing that the people on whirlpool are morons, and then you I troll them. So you say that I am trolling morons without getting banned or any of my posts being hidden (well actually one offtopic one but w/e)

Either that or you are saying that people AARNet/PIPE are morons, in which case your sheer arrogance astounds me

Got yourself into a hole in that one didn't you (if you haven't realized, whirlpool is heavily biased for NBN, who according to Bazwalt and HubertCumberDale, are all morons, thanks for clarifying this, I'm sure they will be happy to hear it)

Edited by deteego: 5/10/2010 08:04:37 PM
Bazwalt
Oct 5, 2010 11:21 PM
deteego wrote:

I never stated that copper is more maintainable then fibre or vice versa, my position always has been that I see no evidence that Fibre (due to the material it is) is more maintainable then copper which is what Bazwalts argument is.


Are you sure that's what my argument is??
Francis
Oct 6, 2010 1:01 PM
Guys,
I am getting sick and tired with all the arguments, its time to stop bickering about esoteric arguments about the NBN which now is effectively a done deal. Let us instead keep the government honest and ensure we get the right solution.
But first I would like to correct a few misconceptions.
1.
Undersea amplifiers and repeaters are from time raised upgraded and repaired. I have actually seen documentaries on this very issue where the cable is located by the cable laying ship and lifted to the surface where it is repaired or upgraded before being lowered back down to Davy Jones's locker. Some of you may remember that a few years ago when around three undersea cables were damage by undersea seismic events up around Japan. These were lifted and repaired, in fact the first one only took around three days to get back into service and you can't lay and terminate a new cable in that time.
2.
Fibre and Copper have their own advantages and disadvantages but fibre properly installed has far more advantages.
3.
For fibre splicing proposed for the NBN see link http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/broadband_ctte/index.htm Now go to the "Third Report" / Chapter Four - To bury or not to bury… / Aerial Now refer to Figure two. Note how the Fibre cable is attached to the electricity cable, what Clown, Genius or Committee (remember the design of the Camel) thought this one up?
The Life of the Electricity Cable is 40 Years, the life of the Fibre optic cable is what? So when they come to replace the Electricity cable what happens to the Fibre Optic Cable? Apart from the extra effort, time and cost involved there is a real possibility it may be damaged. Remember unlike a piece of copper wire it cant be Kinked or Stretched and has a minimum radius for any bends both for physical reasons as well as attenuation which occurs in relatively tight radius's. Light does not really like going around corners even in Fibre.This is in-part due to the light bouncing off the inner and outer surfaces of the cable in the bend or radius (the inside of the bend and outside caused by the thickness of the cable) which creates Phase Shifts due to the varying lengths the light beam has to travel.
Then there is the life of the pole in which in the case of Energy Australia is an average of 23.4 years.
Source for the life of poles and cable came from either the Energy Australia Web Site or an IPART report.Unfortunately I do not have these immediately to hand but they can be found on one of these two web sites.
4.
In the 1998 Federal Government Report "Putting Cables Underground" ISBN 0-642-47620-9 there is data supplied by the electricity distributors themselves which shows that Underground cables cost half as much to maintain as overhead and are up to five more times as reliable. Now these may be Electricity cables and not communications cables but there must be a reasonable correlation between the two. In fact in relation to Fibre a case could be argued that the figures may even be worse due to the nature of Fibre. The result of this is that in the event that the Politicians want the NBN built Fast and Cheap for electoral reasons (Cheap and Nasty) we, you and I will pay for it in higher maintenance costs and inferior reliability.

Instead of the silly arguments that are going on here our collective efforts should be channelled into ensuring that this network is built properly.
Bazwalt
Oct 6, 2010 2:54 PM
Well said Francis
HubertCumberdale
Oct 6, 2010 3:24 PM
deteego wrote:
Sorry this is just too funny

It is funny because it totally exposed your hypocrisy.

deteego wrote:

You are agreeing that the people on whirlpool are morons

You dont think they are?

deteego wrote:
and then you I troll them.

What? "you I"? What?

deteego wrote:

So you say that I am trolling

No. Like I said I dont call anyone a troll. They called you a troll I dont agree with this even if I have the same opinions with them on a topic. You have an opinion like everyone else and should be allowed to express it without been called a troll as should I.


deteego wrote:

Either that or you are saying that people AARNet/PIPE are morons

Cant say anything about AARNet. But yes to PIPE. Honestly I'd have to question the integrity of any ISP posting there. most ISP's are against the filter yet they basically condone the idiotic censorship that goes on by posting there.

deteego wrote:

in which case your sheer arrogance astounds me

I think it's arrogant to assume that just because someone works for that they would be in a better position to advise a country on how to build a NBN.

deteego wrote:

Got yourself into a hole in that one didn't you

Actually you just got yourself into one...

deteego wrote:

if you haven't realized, whirlpool is heavily biased for NBN, who according to Bazwalt and HubertCumberDale, are all morons

Just because some one agrees on one topic doesn't mean they have to agree on everything. For example I agree with Conroys NBN policy but not his censor the internets policy. He is a moron.
HubertCumberdale
Oct 6, 2010 3:29 PM
btw more comedy gold from Mr Turnbull

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/costbenefit-analysis-of-broadband-network-is-essential-20101005-16631.html
Bazwalt
Oct 6, 2010 4:11 PM
HubertCumberdale wrote:
I think it's arrogant to assume that just because someone works for that they would be in a better position to advise a country on how to build a NBN.


Couldn't agree more. Just because they decide to open their mouth to make a statement does not mean that they the most qualified for the task with our best interests at heart.

Same goes for the NBNco really, We don't really know if they will build the network properly but whether we like it or not...it's happening.

So really, all the industry professionals should be getting together and making sure things happen the right way the first time.

Edited by bazwalt: 6/10/2010 04:13:17 PM
Francis
Oct 6, 2010 10:19 PM
Please forgive me if I am not word perfect, but Tony Windsor said "Lets do it right, lets do it Fibre". The only thing he left out is that it should be underground out of harms way and not at the mercy of the elements. This would allow us to make emergency calls in all but perhaps earth quakes which would have an even more devastating effect on overhead cables.
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