Discussion in 'Politics' started by RugbyReg, Aug 25, 2010.
Got sent this e-mail today. What do you techos think?:
It's mostly correct, though I'm not sure about the assertions on the fibre optic cable. One thing that is absolutely true, however, is that it is very fragile stuff that needs to be handled with care. I would only be running it through underground conduit. For some reason known only to the government, they have chosen the most expensive option available with this project. There are ways to build out a network that are much cheaper and easier to upgrade than the way they have gone.
The message was absolutely correct when talking about contention. Having 100Mbit to your home does you no good if the international links aren't substantially upgraded.
Isn't the $43bn only an estimate (as it hasn't actually been costed from what I've heard and read in the media)?
Yeah, most of it is correct.
It should be done in the private sector, it is pretty right now. recently all the main telcos upped the DL limits for their users because one of the telcos did, and they need to stay competitive, and that is how it will work with future technologies.
How all this will service the bush is now the important question.
Probably not very well Ruggo. Running fibre to the remotest parts of Australia is very expensive, which would be one of the reasons it hasn't been done yet. I gather that both the NBN and the coalition's plans are looking more at wireless and satellite out there, which would be a lot more sensible.
I'm a sparkie by trade. I don't do much data work, but everything I have read suggest the Fibre last longer than copper. It has more redundancy built in and is not subject to interference. It can be effected by water but nat as much as copper.
I would suggest that the last sentence shows the real source of the Email.
Do you seriously think that in a country like Australia the government would undertake a project of this magnitude without consulting scientists who obviously know more about this then some bloke in an email. I'm all for holding government accountable, but this is just a blatant opinion peice designed to hate on the NBN.
The reason why government insists on building the NBN as oposed to the private sector, is that government is run for the benefit of the australian people, whereas private companies such as testra are run to make money. Therefore, it is not in the best interests of telco's to provide internet to the whole of australia, they only want to provide it in areas where they stand to make a profit.
What I want to know is what role does wireless internet play in the development of tumor's. As someone who has experieced cancer in the family, like I am sure many of you unfortunatly have, To me this issue could be far more damaging in the long run then budget deficit!
Au contraire, Bowside, the NBN had the distinct stench of policy on the run. Was there even any advice sought from the Productivity Commission? I don't believe there was. I'm all for the latest tech, but it has to be at a reasonable cost and at least some semblance of demand needs to be there. I think we will pay far too much for it in the end.
Fair enough. I think we hold much the same view on this, the point of difference being our personal faith in the current administration to formulate and implement sound policy.
I hope for you sake and mine that you are wrong, but only time will tell.
I hope I'm wrong too, but I just have this uneasy feeling about the whole thing. The present government have managed to bugger up nearly everything they've touched from an infrastructure/project management point of view.
Article on Turnbull's role in opposing the NBN.
Some more for those that can't access the link:
1) Fibre optics if I remember my time in the Physics lab (from one or two years ago now to be sure) relies on the total internal refraction of the light beam which is reliant on the properties of the glass and most specifically the diameter of the walls and shape. As glass is a semi liquid it will not hold the required shape and dimensions for transmission indefinitely and the 25year time frame would seem the top end of the scale to me. The Copper network you will find also doesn't have this lifetime in many areas due to corrosion etc.
2) The alternative proposals involving wireless technologies would be fine if people had access to Mobile coverage. The fact that many areas have pretty poor coverage in regional areas restricts its availability. Add to that the areas that have decent signal strength have no guarentee that the tower supplying the signal to them has sufficient capacity to handle more phone calls or any significant data transmission. For instance a tower in my area is less than one year old, and I personally know the Project Manager who installed the new 3G+ exchange equipment there and he informed me that the tower on installation was over its capacity when installed. When he questioned why install the hardware that didn't have capacity to meet current demand he was informed that on cost benefit analysis the extra capital outlay required to meet the demand could not be justified as there was unlikely to be further growth and the company could make more by expanding capacity at other sites in Metro areas. Following that reasoning is it any wonder that people in regional areas are becoming more and more cynical that "free enterprise" will deliver to them a basic level of service that is expected in the Metro areas.
I read with some ire comment from people saying that user pays, the city should not subsidize the bush etc etc, but I would remind those people that the food they eat, fairly cheaply I might add, is produced in these areas. If it was user pays I should get the milk from my local farmer for about 50cents a litre and the City should be paying the transport costs and storage and infrastructure required which gives the price of about 190 cents. Just one example.
The best solution to this problem would be to make use of existing infrastructure with the Copper network already to most homes and put the Fibre to the Local exchanges and add in the wireless where it is available and there is capacity.
The NBN idea is awesome, only idiots would dispute it, in terms of upgrading from what we have its awesome, compared to other countries such as korea and singapore its still nothing, however the biggest problem is this continual push for internet and IP censorship which comes with it
Sorry guys, I just dont get it.
It is now $43 billion ?
To be administered by the same fools who fucked up the Schools program & the insulation debacle.
An 8 year roll out? I am sure new technologies will emerge during this time frame that will ensure that a similiar coverage to outerlying areas could be supplied much cheaper.
I am assuming the major cost is ensuring it gets to everyones front gate. how many farmers will pay $ 000's to get the facility from the front gate into the house?
The risk/ reward profile is all wrong. There are too many things than can go wrong in the rollout, No one has ever come close to justifying any economic windfall coming out of this.
No one will ever convince me this is a good idea.
I would have no problem with the NBN if they had been a little less ambitious and gone with FTTH (fibre to the hub). It's cheaper and able to be scaled up more easily than running fibre to every household in Australia. Unfortunately, FTTH isn't anywhere near as politically sexy as FTTN (fibre to the node). Be careful also in comparing us to countries like Korea and Singapore. Their population density means that the rollout of this kind of technology is considerably cheaper than it is for us.
When I look the list of countries with faster broadband than us, they all have a couple of things in common: low populations, high density and low distance between built up areas. None of that applies to us.
the other thing which people arent looking at properly is that if its a proper fibre network, it will be upgradeable in the future. Because all that needs to be upgraded are the nodes. so basically this is initial development and in the future you can quite relatively cheaply make the system faster. (i think, from what i've heard)
You mean 'high' populations?
Not always, population density is the key. Look at the Scandinavian countries, low absolute numbers but very clustered around the major cities.
Look at the following list:
Rank Country Attempts Slowest Fastest Median Average
1 Monaco 30 1,462kps 82,040kps 12,385kps 21,815kps
2 Norway 78 80kps 32,048kps 14,704kps 13,837kps
3 Gibraltar 1 13,460kps 13,460kps 13,460kps 13,460kps
4 Reserved/Private 10 2,464kps 55,465kps 11,026kps 12,875kps
5 Czech Republic 48 80kps 29,452kps 7,955kps 12,599kps
6 Andorra 5 184kps 25,173kps 15,181kps 12,581kps
7 Romania 86 335kps 69,792kps 8,549kps 12,428kps
8 Austria 51 387kps 50,089kps 11,420kps 11,584kps
9 Finland 57 238kps 49,499kps 9,212kps 11,227kps
10 Switzerland 790 53kps 93,499kps 6,654kps 9,404kps
Damn formatting tags. The majority of the above countries are small and high density. Australia is 22 on that list (http://www.zdnet.com.au/broadband/speedtest.htm?result=you&show=all). By way of comparison, Canada is 28th.
Separate names with a comma.