NBN, Which Team has the best plan for the future ?i

[Shaddam IV]

From today's herald sun.

THE 'gigabyte geeks' expecting a Shorten Labor government to go back to a Kevin Rudd and Stephen Conroy future of an all-fibre 'Rolls-Royce' version of the National Broadband Network have in fact been sold a 'gigabyte pup'.

Labor leader Bill Shorten and 'his Conroy' shadow communications minister Jason 'the blackest day in Australian sport' Clare have actually ditched the all-fibre 'back-of-a-drinks-coaster/$100 billion-plus blank cheque' all-singing, all-fibre FTTP-NBN.

Further, Shorten and Clare have actually accepted not just the increasingly built reality of Malcolm Turnbull's much cheaper but just as effective and far, far more quickly delivered MTM (Multi-Technology Mix) NBN, but they have accepted both its logic and its functionality....

Under the original Rudd-Conroy FTTP-NBN, some 93 per cent of all 12 million premises in Australia would have been connected by fibre to their external wall. Sheer, utter madness. You might just as well have promised a tramline to every home....

Under the Turnbull-Morrow MTM-NBN, the connections will be split 20 per cent FTTP, 38 per cent FTTN/B (Fibre-To-The Node or Basement), 34 per cent (mostly Telstra's) HFC (Hybrid Fibre Coaxial), and the last 8 per cent wireless/satellite.

All that Shorten-Clare are promising is to increase FTTP to 37 per cent and to cut FTTN/B to 21 per cent. That is to say, 83 per cent of the footprint or the Shorten-Clare NBN would be left exactly unchanged from the Turnbull NBN.

 

[Big A.D.]

Malcolm's MTM version is not much cheaper and it's not going to arrive much sooner either, but worst part is that it doesn't have a proper upgrade path.

 

[SilverDJ]

Wireless is fine until you run up against the limits of physics and can't shove any more bytes through the limited amount of radio spectrum that exists.
Satellites are also fine, provided you don't need to use VoIP, video calling apps like Skype or anything else that requires low latency.

Yes, wireless is useless for streaming and other real time stuff. It always will be, there are too many environment variables.

 

[SpacePete]

Malcolm's MTM version is not much cheaper and it's not going to arrive much sooner either, but worst part is that it doesn't have a proper upgrade path.

It's far worse than that. The previous NBN CEO has just come out with extensive data that shows how incredibly bad Turnbull's politically-motivated solution really is. It is damming.

Slides: http://networkedsociety.unimelb.edu..._file/0007/1996261/MNSI_Telsoc_Text_Final.pdf

And an article:

The first chief executive of the National Broadband Network has weighed into the election debate on broadband policy to declare the Coalition's multi-technology rollout a "colossal mistake"

In a rare public intervention, Mike Quigley told the University of Melbourne in a speech on Wednesday night that Labor's original plan to deliver fibre-to-the-premises to 93 per cent of the population would have cost $45 billion - far less than estimates of $64 billion to $94 billion.

He criticised the financial assumptions which the Coalition used when it was in opposition to discredit Labor's project. He called their forecast of a cost blow-out to over $94 billion "a fiction" and "impossible to be arrived at by sane analysis".

More: http://m.smh.com.au/federal-politic...ss-blasts-turnbulls-plan-20160622-gpozid.html

 

[SpacePete]

From the first page:

Why is it important that we all understand the true picture regarding the original FTTP based NBN?

Because unless the reality about the deployment costs and timing of FTTP is known and understood, decisions will continue to be made about the NBN based on incorrect information.

Compared to the original FTTP based NBN, we are currently on a path to end up with a much poorer performing broadband network. It will have increased long term costs and will be completed at about the same time as the original project would have been completed.

Around the world, the direction in which new builds of fixed broadband networks are headed has become clear. The world is increasingly moving towards FTTP. As a consequence advances are being made in FTTP technology that make it cheaper and easier to deploy.

These developments which have taken place in the last few years have only reinforced the rationale for basing Australia's NBN on FTTP.
It is not too late to change the current direction of the NBN but of course that change would need to be made in a controlled and managed way to ensure the project is not subject to another major disruption.

Why has it been so hard to get at the facts regarding the costs and timing of the FTTP based NBN? The answer, as we all know, is that the NBN project has been, from its inception, a contentious political issue.

 

[errol43]

Seems like we now have the 60th fastest in NBN ...Internet traffic has increased by 5 times over the past 5 years and is expected to do so again in the next 5 years..

Everytime we have heavy rain, up here in Bundaberg, out drops the satellite link for even TV.

Cable to the home is the only way for an innovative broadband network IMO.

As a politician recently said on Q & A, Do it right, Do it now and do it with cable.

Regards Errol 43

 

[Shaddam IV]

Turnbull's motive isn't political, it's economic.

 

[Shaddam IV]

Fibre to every premises in Australia is fine and achievable as long as everyone doesn't mind paying $300.00 a month for Internet access for the next decade.

 

[Big A.D.]

Turnbull's motive isn't political, it's economic.

Then he really has made a complete hash of it.

Mike Quigley's speech posted above goes into detail about how badly the Coalition got the numbers wrong.

 

[Shaddam IV]

I don't believe for a second that the cost of rolling out fibre is decreasing. Unless I missed the massive reduction in pay rates in Australia and the end of the unions.

 

[Big A.D.]

I don't believe for a second that the cost of rolling out fibre is decreasing. Unless I missed the massive reduction in pay rates in Australia and the end of the unions.

And yet Quigley is able to demonstrate that NBN Co (according to their own leaked documents) was able to decrease FTTP costs by 12% using "skinny fiber", that the Kiwi's were able to decrease their FTTP costs by 29% (with more projected savings to come) and Verizon in the U.S. was able to decrease their FTTP costs by 38% in 2006, before the NBN was even conceived.

 

[wrcmad]

Wireless is fine until you run up against the limits of physics and can't shove any more bytes through the limited amount of radio spectrum that exists.
Satellites are also fine, provided you don't need to use VoIP, video calling apps like Skype or anything else that requires low latency.

Yes, wireless is useless for streaming and other real time stuff. It always will be, there are too many environment variables.

Having been connected to wireless NBN for 6 months, I would question that claim.
Our house hold has 5 PCs, 5 iPads, 4 iPhones, 1 Xbox and 4K UHD internet TV all streaming through our wireless NBN wifi router (often simultaneously) without an issue. No buffering, no resolution downgrades, no issues in bad weather. In fact, since day 1 the kids have ensured we burn 1Tb of download per month.

 

[SpacePete]

Wireless is fine until you run up against the limits of physics and can't shove any more bytes through the limited amount of radio spectrum that exists.
Satellites are also fine, provided you don't need to use VoIP, video calling apps like Skype or anything else that requires low latency.

Yes, wireless is useless for streaming and other real time stuff. It always will be, there are too many environment variables.

Having been connected to wireless NBN for 6 months, I would question that claim.
Our house hold has 5 PCs, 5 iPads, 4 iPhones, 1 Xbox and 4K UHD internet TV all streaming through our wireless NBN wifi router (often simultaneously) without an issue. No buffering, no resolution downgrades, no issues in bad weather. In fact, since day 1 the kids have ensured we burn 1Tb of download per month.

Is that wifi delivery to the house, or a wifi modem in the house?

 

[wrcmad]

Yes, wireless is useless for streaming and other real time stuff. It always will be, there are too many environment variables.

Having been connected to wireless NBN for 6 months, I would question that claim.
Our house hold has 5 PCs, 5 iPads, 4 iPhones, 1 Xbox and 4K UHD internet TV all streaming through our wireless NBN wifi router (often simultaneously) without an issue. No buffering, no resolution downgrades, no issues in bad weather. In fact, since day 1 the kids have ensured we burn 1Tb of download per month.

Is that wifi delivery to the house, or a wifi modem in the house?

Wifi modem in the house.

 

[Shaddam IV]

Having been connected to wireless NBN for 6 months, I would question that claim.
Our house hold has 5 PCs, 5 iPads, 4 iPhones, 1 Xbox and 4K UHD internet TV all streaming through our wireless NBN wifi router (often simultaneously) without an issue. No buffering, no resolution downgrades, no issues in bad weather. In fact, since day 1 the kids have ensured we burn 1Tb of download per month.

Is that wifi delivery to the house, or a wifi modem in the house?

Wifi modem in the house.

Modern wifi modems are much faster than any internet service to the premises. It's pretty hard to saturate a decent wifi router.

 

[doomsday surprise]

As soon as this useless Coalition NBN is built, we will spend billions more rebuilding it the right way which is FTTP.

 

[hyphenated]

Sigh

Even the basic question is flawed. It's not Copper, Fibre, pick one. It's a universe out there, and the optimum solution will vary by customer and (gasp) their willingness to pay.

Before we even get started, there are many different fibre possibilities. But the real fun and games comes in how you deal with the virtual or physical connections. When you wire up a CBD, you do not put an individual fibre into every building, or floor, of office. The base design is usually physical loops designed to cover the hot-spots. Why, because contrary to popular belief, lots of businesses don't give a stuff about data. Those that do vary between the 'I want my office email to work all the time' to 'I want multi-drop video broadcast to all my rural locations' to 'I need an STM-4 frame drop to four cities in Europe'.

Guess what? All of these pay more than an 'I want 16 channels of HD porn' customer 25km from the nearest exchange in West Whoop-Whoop.

The belief that a monopoly provider can best supply the full gamut of services under central command and control is out of the '60s paternalism playbook, and there is a strong case for a highly sophisticated and secure backbone to which numerous local suppliers can connect their technologies, whether they be ADSL on copper (leased from Telstra-in-a-box); single-mode or multi-mode fibre, elliptical waveguide, microwave balloons, yogurt cartons and string, telepathic resonance, Tesla coils, electrostatic bounce from meteor tracks, mechano/optical arrays, radio, TV overlay, collapsed probability functions, modulated laser, solar gliders, super-conductive tracks, or morse code tapped over pipes.

About the only thing I believe as gospel is that the more political involvement, the less achievement.

 

[bubblebobble2]

Turnbull's motive isn't political, it's economic.

Wrong! MT is always political.... he was the telco minister.... of course he doesn't want his baby to flop! Just like Gladys Berikjikli with her tramlines...eventhough 300% over budget she's still pumping our cash to it

 

[Shaddam IV]

Bubble where did you dig up this old thread from?