This is what the future looks like. NBN cable going down Flemington Road

justin heywood said :

So, to summarize this particular argument, the NBN supporters are damn sure that improved technology will create a use for the increased bandwidth which the cables will provide. (Technology is always improving blah blah).

But these very same people claim that wireless technology is stuck in its present state of development, and that wireless technology has advanced as far as it will ever go.

And they call the NBN naysayers the Luddites?

So this wasn’t in reply to one of my posts, but I’ll assume that as someone who believes that wireless technology isn’t the right fit for homes and businesses, that I’m one of these ‘people’ you’re talking about.

No, wireless technology has certainly not reached its limits. It will certainly improve with time, it will become more reliable, it will be faster, and it will likely be cheaper. I have no issues with that at all.

I just seriously cannot see though, why anyone would think that a technology that is best suited to those who are mobile, is the best fit for every absolutely stationary home in the country. Please, prove you’re not a luddite, and explain it to me? Why should the speed and reliability of my connectin be dependent on how many people are currently connected to my local tower? Why should my home connection be in competition with anyone who is just passing through my area, and using mobile data? Why should I expect to have worse performance in peak times, when everyone in my area is using their connection?

So if wireless is the way to go, how long should we wait before adopting it? Right now, it struggles to meet the bandwidth needs of mobile users, let alone moving home users over. So do we wait until 4G is the norm? Oh…home and mobile users are now using more data, and 4G isn’t sufficient. Hrmmm, so let’s wait for the next advance. Rinse, repeat.

Right now, fibre to the home is a solution that provides enough bandwidth, and is future proof. The cables being laid right now, will be useful for decades to come.

I just get so frustrated at the idea that there’s some magical wireless solution just around the corner now, that will give everyone all the bandwidth they need, while somehow avoiding all of the limitations inherent in a wireless connection. It just won’t happen. Essentially, it’s down to the difference between a FTTH service that is shared with nobody else, and a mobile tower that may be shared with hundreds of people.

I don’t actually think you’re a luddite – I do think that you have no technical understanding of the technologies you’re advocating though.

phototext said :

“Try to make a business case for this huge expenditure, please?
Every argument I’ve heard is lame. eg. I can watch HQ movies, skype to my Mum etc.”

See, that’s the thing, back in the day when they where rolling out the copper network, the current uses beyond basic telephone services hadn’t been thought of, but they did it anyway and the telephone as a means of communication (personal and business) changed the world profoundly.

This century data is going to be a big thing, big chunks of data, getting bigger and bigger by the day. Moving all that data all over the place is going to be important. Having the infrastructure in place that is quick and reliable puts our country in a good position for this century’s railway/ highway system and we all know how important the railway and highway system is to growing an economy.

You just have to look at some of the most important and influential companies at the moment and what is being played out between them, Google, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon. It’s all about data, big effin chunks of it and making it accessible. Wireless is part of that plan but only part. Wifi iPads outsell 3G models for a reason.

Now I’m no friggin genius but you can bet there are fair few going through the education system in China and India at the moment and god knows what they will come up with that takes advantage of those fat data moving pipes that changes our world.

Off the top of my head, beyond faster movie downloads, what may be a use for the NBN.

3D printers are pretty cool, could see a really amazing version of that in every home in ten years, log into Amazon, buy a new toaster, data downloads, 3D printer prints it out, instant toaster, the deluxe version comes with toast in it.

Way out there I know but everyday teleportation gets closer and closer, instead of a 3D printer perhaps every home has a teleporter and Amazon zaps the goods to you. That would require an effin big pipe.

As I said I’m no genius, but they are out there and hopefully they have a better imagination than all the NBN naysayers.

So, to summarize this particular argument, the NBN supporters are damn sure that improved technology will create a use for the increased bandwidth which the cables will provide. (Technology is always improving blah blah).

But these very same people claim that wireless technology is stuck in its present state of development, and that wireless technology has advanced as far as it will ever go.

And they call the NBN naysayers the Luddites?

OpenYourMind said :

thatsnotme, there’s some great points you make, but unfortunately you aren’t thinking big picture enough. Now when our country is investing FTTH money, you have to think really big.

Perhaps a better way to approach this is to use the analogy of music recordings. For years people sought better and better quality. If you asked someone 12 years ago what mattered with their recording, the answer would be quality. Along came mp3s and mp3 players and overnight the game changed. People settled for slightly compromised quality in exchange for other benefits. My example of the LAN where wireless is opted for over copper or fibre to the desktop is to demonstrate that a paradigm shift can result in losing what you think are the highest requirements. It’s not that the engineers who settled on the wireless solution don’t know and understand copper and/or fibre, it’s that the wireless achieves what is required and provides other benefits. I switch between a 100meg and a 1gig link for my desktop at work and except for really large file transfers, I can’t tell the difference.

Don’t think this year, or next year, think about the enormous investment and then think about the leaps and bounds wireless has taken together with shifts in computing in unlikely directions. Some time in the future, well before the enormous costs of FTTH are ever recovered, the game will have changed. It’s a big bet for our country to be making.

Your analogy, and comparing it to an office environment, simply doesn’t work. I’m sorry, but your example is completely broken – no normal user in an office environment ever goes close to touching the sides of the bandwidth they have available on a LAN. Normally, people working in an office simply don’t handle large files. For precicely this reason, there is an option to replace fixed wiring in the office with a WLAN, knowing that the reduced bandwidth will likely have little impact. Even then though, that option will only suit environments where everyone has a wireless cabable device. Standard desktop PC’s don’t come with a wireless card as standard, and don’t move around an office. I’d argue that offices that have implemented an all-wireless LAN are the exception rather than the norm, and that the business of that office would have to be fairly unique to allow that type of freedom. 99% of users in an office environment probably wouldn’t really see any negative impact if their LAN was dialled back to 10 base

The whole argument that wireless is progressing in leaps and bounds – well, the fact of the matter is, the NBN is being rolled out today, and basing that rollout on the hope that at some undefined time in the future that wireless will be fast enough and reliable enough to replace fixed connections just doesn’t make sense. Do you think that fixed fibre technology has reached its maximum capacity, and will fail to progress? Absolutely not – and I’d put a lot of money on a bet that said that by the time that any wireless technology is able to service a household as quickly and reliably as fibre is able to right now, that fibre will be at least 4 times faster than it currently is. That’s the thing with a fibre optic cable – it’s simply a glass tube, that transmits light. It’s the equipment on the end of the cable that determines how fast data can be pushed down that tube, not the cable itself – so FTTH is a future proof solution, that will have the ability to grow for decades to come.

I honestly believe that a wireless NBN would be a far bigger bet than a FTTH NBN will ever be.

2604 said :

I agree with you mate. If it were possible to get any sort of decent ROI on FTTH, the private sector would be doing it already. Instead, we have $36 billion being spent on NBN with no proof at all that it will improve productivity or add to national income, or (god forbid) whether that expenditure will ever be repaid through dividends or increased tax revenue.

Also, if the NBN will ever be privatised – which surely should be the government’s long-term goal – the cost of the network will need to be written down to well below $36 billion. Unless it can make a reasonable profit after all the maintenance expenditures are taken into account, the gov’t will never offload $36 bn worth of NBN shares.

The fact is that we live in a large, thinly populated country. One of the drawbacks of that geography is that you can’t provide gold-plated infrastructure to every last person without spending an absolute fortune. It would be great if a dual carriageway could be built to every person’s door, but the cost would make it prohibitive. Some people need to be serviced by two-way roads, some by single-lane roads, some by dirt roads. Likewise with broadband, not every Australian can be provided with the type of broadband speeds that are available in more densely populated Asian and European countries.

Like the “every Australian schoolchild will have a laptop” thought-bubble, this was a noble idea but one that will prove enormously expensive and complex to implement. I would have preferred $36bn worth of income tax cuts, and then anyone who wanted faster broadband to work from home or telecon would have had the extra money to pay for a decent wireless connection.

I guess this is where I have a fundamental difference of philosophy. I believe that the government needs to implement something like this, precicely because it’ll never be implemented by the private sector. We do live in a unique environment, where our population is spread by such huge distances, and no private investor would ever go and lose money on users in remote areas.

Think about the benefits to someone in those remote areas though. Instead of having to travel hundreds of kilometers (several hundred kilometers for some) to see a doctor, for some stuff you could do it via a video link. Children in those areas, instead of only knowing their classmate’s voices via a radio, will be able to see their faces, as they participate in a video classroom.

Now for many of these people, the government has already decided that FTTH isn’t feasible – it’s not like every residence in the country is getting fibre rolled up to the front door. Wireless and satelite services will be what the most remote users connect to.

And still, we get back to the whole ‘just let me connect to a decent wireless connection’ argument. You want a wireless data connection that’s a fast and reliable as fibre? Sure, let me just construct a base station in your backyard then. Or, I could just have a fibre connection into your home, which you hook up your wireless router to, and have all the wireless bandwidth you need. The plus will be, that when you are actually away from home, when you need wireless data, you’ll only be competing for that data with other remote users.

By the way…you do understand that the 36 billion isn’t being spent all at once, right? That cost is spread over 10 years or so? So your tax cuts would be worth maybe a couple hundred bucks a year. Now go and compare the cost of a good wireless data plan, with a similar NBN plan, and let me know if that couple of hundred bucks is enough.

But wouldn’t it be hilarious if in the next few years someone would invent a way to compress data to a mere fraction of it’s unpacked size? We’ll all have massive bandwidth and a movie will be a 100kb download.

Watson said :

OT, but the income tax cut for laptops for school children is already there. Education Tax Rebate.

The government’s original promise was that it would supply children with laptops, not just provide a tax rebate.

“Try to make a business case for this huge expenditure, please?
Every argument I’ve heard is lame. eg. I can watch HQ movies, skype to my Mum etc.”

See, that’s the thing, back in the day when they where rolling out the copper network, the current uses beyond basic telephone services hadn’t been thought of, but they did it anyway and the telephone as a means of communication (personal and business) changed the world profoundly.

This century data is going to be a big thing, big chunks of data, getting bigger and bigger by the day. Moving all that data all over the place is going to be important. Having the infrastructure in place that is quick and reliable puts our country in a good position for this century’s railway/ highway system and we all know how important the railway and highway system is to growing an economy.

You just have to look at some of the most important and influential companies at the moment and what is being played out between them, Google, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon. It’s all about data, big effin chunks of it and making it accessible. Wireless is part of that plan but only part. Wifi iPads outsell 3G models for a reason.

Now I’m no friggin genius but you can bet there are fair few going through the education system in China and India at the moment and god knows what they will come up with that takes advantage of those fat data moving pipes that changes our world.

Off the top of my head, beyond faster movie downloads, what may be a use for the NBN.

3D printers are pretty cool, could see a really amazing version of that in every home in ten years, log into Amazon, buy a new toaster, data downloads, 3D printer prints it out, instant toaster, the deluxe version comes with toast in it.

Way out there I know but everyday teleportation gets closer and closer, instead of a 3D printer perhaps every home has a teleporter and Amazon zaps the goods to you. That would require an effin big pipe.

As I said I’m no genius, but they are out there and hopefully they have a better imagination than all the NBN naysayers.

2604 said :

OpenYourMind said :

Everyone is getting all defensive. I, and I’m sure others are not suggesting that fibre optics isn’t the gold solution for most big comms applications (eg. fibre to wireless towers). I happen to work in an IT comms related field. I understand the benefits of fibre. But, and this is the important but, trying to justify the costs of running fibre to every home is the stumbling block.

Try to make a business case for this huge expenditure, please?

I agree with you mate. If it were possible to get any sort of decent ROI on FTTH, the private sector would be doing it already. Instead, we have $36 billion being spent on NBN with no proof at all that it will improve productivity or add to national income, or (god forbid) whether that expenditure will ever be repaid through dividends or increased tax revenue.

Also, if the NBN will ever be privatised – which surely should be the government’s long-term goal – the cost of the network will need to be written down to well below $36 billion. Unless it can make a reasonable profit after all the maintenance expenditures are taken into account, the gov’t will never offload $36 bn worth of NBN shares.

The fact is that we live in a large, thinly populated country. One of the drawbacks of that geography is that you can’t provide gold-plated infrastructure to every last person without spending an absolute fortune. It would be great if a dual carriageway could be built to every person’s door, but the cost would make it prohibitive. Some people need to be serviced by two-way roads, some by single-lane roads, some by dirt roads. Likewise with broadband, not every Australian can be provided with the type of broadband speeds that are available in more densely populated Asian and European countries.

Like the “every Australian schoolchild will have a laptop” thought-bubble, this was a noble idea but one that will prove enormously expensive and complex to implement. I would have preferred $36bn worth of income tax cuts, and then anyone who wanted faster broadband to work from home or telecon would have had the extra money to pay for a decent wireless connection.

OT, but the income tax cut for laptops for school children is already there. Education Tax Rebate.

thatsnotme, there’s some great points you make, but unfortunately you aren’t thinking big picture enough. Now when our country is investing FTTH money, you have to think really big.

Perhaps a better way to approach this is to use the analogy of music recordings. For years people sought better and better quality. If you asked someone 12 years ago what mattered with their recording, the answer would be quality. Along came mp3s and mp3 players and overnight the game changed. People settled for slightly compromised quality in exchange for other benefits. My example of the LAN where wireless is opted for over copper or fibre to the desktop is to demonstrate that a paradigm shift can result in losing what you think are the highest requirements. It’s not that the engineers who settled on the wireless solution don’t know and understand copper and/or fibre, it’s that the wireless achieves what is required and provides other benefits. I switch between a 100meg and a 1gig link for my desktop at work and except for really large file transfers, I can’t tell the difference.

Don’t think this year, or next year, think about the enormous investment and then think about the leaps and bounds wireless has taken together with shifts in computing in unlikely directions. Some time in the future, well before the enormous costs of FTTH are ever recovered, the game will have changed. It’s a big bet for our country to be making.

OpenYourMind said :

Everyone is getting all defensive. I, and I’m sure others are not suggesting that fibre optics isn’t the gold solution for most big comms applications (eg. fibre to wireless towers). I happen to work in an IT comms related field. I understand the benefits of fibre. But, and this is the important but, trying to justify the costs of running fibre to every home is the stumbling block.

Try to make a business case for this huge expenditure, please?

I agree with you mate. If it were possible to get any sort of decent ROI on FTTH, the private sector would be doing it already. Instead, we have $36 billion being spent on NBN with no proof at all that it will improve productivity or add to national income, or (god forbid) whether that expenditure will ever be repaid through dividends or increased tax revenue.

Also, if the NBN will ever be privatised – which surely should be the government’s long-term goal – the cost of the network will need to be written down to well below $36 billion. Unless it can make a reasonable profit after all the maintenance expenditures are taken into account, the gov’t will never offload $36 bn worth of NBN shares.

The fact is that we live in a large, thinly populated country. One of the drawbacks of that geography is that you can’t provide gold-plated infrastructure to every last person without spending an absolute fortune. It would be great if a dual carriageway could be built to every person’s door, but the cost would make it prohibitive. Some people need to be serviced by two-way roads, some by single-lane roads, some by dirt roads. Likewise with broadband, not every Australian can be provided with the type of broadband speeds that are available in more densely populated Asian and European countries.

Like the “every Australian schoolchild will have a laptop” thought-bubble, this was a noble idea but one that will prove enormously expensive and complex to implement. I would have preferred $36bn worth of income tax cuts, and then anyone who wanted faster broadband to work from home or telecon would have had the extra money to pay for a decent wireless connection.

thatsnotme said :

OpenYourMind said :

Everyone is getting all defensive. I, and I’m sure others are not suggesting that fibre optics isn’t the gold solution for most big comms applications (eg. fibre to wireless towers). I happen to work in an IT comms related field. I understand the benefits of fibre. But, and this is the important but, trying to justify the costs of running fibre to every home is the stumbling block.

The thing is, the choice isn’t really between fibre and wireless. Fact of the matter is, the copper network, that currently is connected to every home, is aging. Telstra aren’t investing money in improving it. One of the major reasons I’m so pro government built FTTH is that I’ve lived through the alternative – that was literally two years of constant effort, line tests, hour long phone calls to my ISP, needing to be home because a Telstra tech was going to come (and then wouldn’t), all to have a copper connection that was stable enough to maintain an ADSL connection that wouldn’t drop out up to dozens of times each and every day. It got to the stage where if there was a thunderstorm in the distance, several kilometers away, a flash of lighting would cause my connection to drop.

My home is in an area that’s around 40 years old now, and infrastructure is crumbling. I absolutely don’t trust that Telstra will do anything to improve things by themselves – especially as they are not my ISP, so upgrading the network sees them little benefit.

Something needs to happen, and wireless solutions simply aren’t suitable. Sure, wireless speed will keep on improving – but the one thing that won’t change, is that whatever bandwidth is able to be squeezed from a tower, will still be shared amongst every person currently connected to it. The only solution to that problem, is to build more towers. If Australia’s broadband needs are to be provided by wireless, we will absolutely see towers in the middle of suburban areas, and far more than we already do. Would you be ok with having a mobile tower next to your house?

OpenYourMind said :

Try to make a business case for this huge expenditure, please?
Every argument I’ve heard is lame. eg. I can watch HQ movies, skype to my Mum etc. These aren’t compelling reasons for our country to invest huge money in FTTH. Sure improve our big fibre links.

I’ll happily sign up for FTTH when it is ploughed through my suburb. I just cringe at the cost to our country.

Firstly, why shouldn’t entertainment be considered a serious reason for investment? The entertainment industry is huge. Most recently, Modern Warfare 3 has become the highest grossing piece of entertainment ever – surpassing any book, TV show, movie, music release or game. It’s taken over 700 million dollars in a week. We can get all high and mighty about how entertainment isn’t serious enough to be considered justification for something like the NBN, but let’s face it – it’s a massive industry.

Aside from that though, here’s a few possibilities. I often work from home – but my connectivity to work is reasonably limited. Meetings are via teleconference – with a decent connection, I could easily turn that into a video link.

My wife is looking to return to university next year, part time, while on maternity leave. With an NBN, and the right infrastructure in place at uni, she could attend lectures and tutorials remotely, without needing to leave the house.

I run a small, part time photography business from home. Backups are vital to me, but right now, any type of cloud based backup solution just isn’t feasible – I can easily end up with 30GB and more from a job. Uploading that on my current connection just isn’t a feasible option – it would take a solid four days to upload.

OpenYourMind said :

Now, more importantly, because computing is changing, changes will be driven in the comms space. Smartphones, tablets, reach out of mobile devices in 3rd world countries etc. will drive more investment in LTE and 4th gen wireless. 4th gen promises gigabit speed (insert big disclaimer).

Sure, the way people use computers is changing, and the old school ‘tower, keyboard, monitor and mouse in the study’ is becoming less common – but the simple fact is that regardless of whether you are using a tablet, smartphone, desktop, laptop, IPTV, or whatever technology you have that can use an internet connection – while you are at home, you will be far better served by a fixed internet connection, than relying on any type of mobile data connection. That doesn’t mean that your mobile devices suddenly need cables – you just provide the wireless connection via your wireless router, rather than relying on a tower in your area.

OpenYourMind said :

Computing is changing in other ways too. Organisations not cabling new buildings but rather having secure wireless and thin client solutions. Sure fibre will always be part of the equation, but the game is changing.

I’m sorry, but this has absolutely nothing at all to do with the NBN, or any type of internet connection. As someone who claims to work in an IT comms related field, I’d really hope that you can distinguish between the method a business may use to provide a LAN, as opposed to a WAN. Businesses may decide that a wireless LAN is the best way to go, but I’d put money on none deciding to do away with their external fibre link, and instead giving everyone mobile data coverage. WLAN (eg, 802.11g/n etc) is sure as hell not the same as WWAN (3g, 4g, LTE etc). No business is going to allow the performance of their office network to be completely dependent on external factors such as the capacity of whichever mobile tower they’re connected to.

+1!

OpenYourMind said :

Everyone is getting all defensive. I, and I’m sure others are not suggesting that fibre optics isn’t the gold solution for most big comms applications (eg. fibre to wireless towers). I happen to work in an IT comms related field. I understand the benefits of fibre. But, and this is the important but, trying to justify the costs of running fibre to every home is the stumbling block.

The thing is, the choice isn’t really between fibre and wireless. Fact of the matter is, the copper network, that currently is connected to every home, is aging. Telstra aren’t investing money in improving it. One of the major reasons I’m so pro government built FTTH is that I’ve lived through the alternative – that was literally two years of constant effort, line tests, hour long phone calls to my ISP, needing to be home because a Telstra tech was going to come (and then wouldn’t), all to have a copper connection that was stable enough to maintain an ADSL connection that wouldn’t drop out up to dozens of times each and every day. It got to the stage where if there was a thunderstorm in the distance, several kilometers away, a flash of lighting would cause my connection to drop.

My home is in an area that’s around 40 years old now, and infrastructure is crumbling. I absolutely don’t trust that Telstra will do anything to improve things by themselves – especially as they are not my ISP, so upgrading the network sees them little benefit.

Something needs to happen, and wireless solutions simply aren’t suitable. Sure, wireless speed will keep on improving – but the one thing that won’t change, is that whatever bandwidth is able to be squeezed from a tower, will still be shared amongst every person currently connected to it. The only solution to that problem, is to build more towers. If Australia’s broadband needs are to be provided by wireless, we will absolutely see towers in the middle of suburban areas, and far more than we already do. Would you be ok with having a mobile tower next to your house?

OpenYourMind said :

Try to make a business case for this huge expenditure, please?
Every argument I’ve heard is lame. eg. I can watch HQ movies, skype to my Mum etc. These aren’t compelling reasons for our country to invest huge money in FTTH. Sure improve our big fibre links.

I’ll happily sign up for FTTH when it is ploughed through my suburb. I just cringe at the cost to our country.

Firstly, why shouldn’t entertainment be considered a serious reason for investment? The entertainment industry is huge. Most recently, Modern Warfare 3 has become the highest grossing piece of entertainment ever – surpassing any book, TV show, movie, music release or game. It’s taken over 700 million dollars in a week. We can get all high and mighty about how entertainment isn’t serious enough to be considered justification for something like the NBN, but let’s face it – it’s a massive industry.

Aside from that though, here’s a few possibilities. I often work from home – but my connectivity to work is reasonably limited. Meetings are via teleconference – with a decent connection, I could easily turn that into a video link.

My wife is looking to return to university next year, part time, while on maternity leave. With an NBN, and the right infrastructure in place at uni, she could attend lectures and tutorials remotely, without needing to leave the house.

I run a small, part time photography business from home. Backups are vital to me, but right now, any type of cloud based backup solution just isn’t feasible – I can easily end up with 30GB and more from a job. Uploading that on my current connection just isn’t a feasible option – it would take a solid four days to upload.

OpenYourMind said :

Now, more importantly, because computing is changing, changes will be driven in the comms space. Smartphones, tablets, reach out of mobile devices in 3rd world countries etc. will drive more investment in LTE and 4th gen wireless. 4th gen promises gigabit speed (insert big disclaimer).

Sure, the way people use computers is changing, and the old school ‘tower, keyboard, monitor and mouse in the study’ is becoming less common – but the simple fact is that regardless of whether you are using a tablet, smartphone, desktop, laptop, IPTV, or whatever technology you have that can use an internet connection – while you are at home, you will be far better served by a fixed internet connection, than relying on any type of mobile data connection. That doesn’t mean that your mobile devices suddenly need cables – you just provide the wireless connection via your wireless router, rather than relying on a tower in your area.

OpenYourMind said :

Computing is changing in other ways too. Organisations not cabling new buildings but rather having secure wireless and thin client solutions. Sure fibre will always be part of the equation, but the game is changing.

I’m sorry, but this has absolutely nothing at all to do with the NBN, or any type of internet connection. As someone who claims to work in an IT comms related field, I’d really hope that you can distinguish between the method a business may use to provide a LAN, as opposed to a WAN. Businesses may decide that a wireless LAN is the best way to go, but I’d put money on none deciding to do away with their external fibre link, and instead giving everyone mobile data coverage. WLAN (eg, 802.11g/n etc) is sure as hell not the same as WWAN (3g, 4g, LTE etc). No business is going to allow the performance of their office network to be completely dependent on external factors such as the capacity of whichever mobile tower they’re connected to.

OpenYourMind said :

trying to justify the costs of running fibre to every home is the stumbling block.

So you think people who want more bandwidth are “lame” for doing so? Fact is, people want it regardless of your disdain for them – and they’re paying for FTTH already where they can. Look at Forde/Franklin (in spite of TransACT’s greedy pricing). Look at the Opticomm / Velocity / etc fibre equipped estates already set up interstate. It’s pretty clearly justified, and a lot of argument to the contrary seems politically motivated.

Bandwidth requirements are increasing – as they always have, and always will. Plenty of people already have insufficient bandwidth, EG North Lyneham, numerous suburbs in Gungahlin, etc.

In 1996, 56kbps was the fastest. People downloaded maybe a few meg a day.
In 2001, 512Kbps was great. People downloaded a couple of dozen meg a day.
In 2006, ~5Mbps was fine. People downloaded a couple of hundred meg a day.
In 2011 .. people were stuck on ~5Mbps and wanting more, and a minority of Australians are able to get ~50Mbps. They downloaded a few hundred meg a day, on average.
In 2016 .. most subscribers will only have 2006 technology/speeds available unless the NBN has rolled past their door, despite their bandwidth requirements having increased by maybe an order-of-magnitude. Some will be stuck on 2001-era connections, and NBNCo is apparently aiming to roll out to some of those areas early.

It’s 100 times more expensive to wirelessly provide the same spectral density as fixed-line broadband, and it’s reflected in the quota per $ on wired and wireless services. Today’s or tomorrow’s technologies are the same – fibre speeds are increasing just like wireless. At least you can re-use the existing fibre when you upgrade FTTH.

Wireless is a complementary technology, not a replacement.

PS: 4G wireless promises 100mbit speeds, not Gigabit. Current FTTH (2.4gbit GPON) already offers gigabit. NBNCo’s ONTs come with 4 GigE interfaces.

wireless technology is crap. It can’t even hold a phone call with out dropping out. I don’t mind paying for the fibre optic cable. At least it will contribute to the country and will be cheaper than paying for the economic refugee queue jumping boaties .

justin heywood said :

matt31221 said :

[…. don’t those mobile phone towers popping up everywhere worry you? They consume so much power -… There is actual proof that high concentrations of Radio radiation from mobile phone towers does cause various health effects.

Sounds like you’ve got some solid evidence there Mat.

Care to post a link?

Look it is not solid evidence. I don’t really know if there is any yet. I suppose you could call it anecdotal evidence. Like the tumor cluster at RMIT, the authorities said there was no link between the towers and the cluster but of course they would of said that to avoid litigation and legal precedence. The anecdotal evidence was the fact that several people got tumors who were working on the upper level of a RMIT building that had many cell towers on the roof.

There is evidence of the health effects of LARGE microwave dishes and large FM station antennae and they have guidelines for the safe distances that they can be installed from people.

Apparently mobile phones and small devices cause more risk than cell towers far away.

A good study on mobile phone tower risk – concluding that there isn’t conclusive evidence yet but more study needs to be done
http://www.ohsrep.org.au/hazards/radiation/phone-towers/index.cfm

The cancer council page, note 2 says there is evidence that suggests mobile phones may cause gilomas.
http://www.cancercouncil.com.au/editorial.asp?pageid=231

A world class cancer research institute declaring mobile phones to be a “2B possible carcinogen”
http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf

More time and evidence is required. It is like smoking and asbestos – it took many years for the truth to come out despite ‘scientific’ studies declaring these things safe.

I think there are financial interests that want the world to think that the phones are safe too to avoid lawsuit. Just look at the tobacco industry, there were tobacco industry funded ‘science’ studies that declared smoking safe in the old days.

Everyone is getting all defensive. I, and I’m sure others are not suggesting that fibre optics isn’t the gold solution for most big comms applications (eg. fibre to wireless towers). I happen to work in an IT comms related field. I understand the benefits of fibre. But, and this is the important but, trying to justify the costs of running fibre to every home is the stumbling block.

Try to make a business case for this huge expenditure, please?
Every argument I’ve heard is lame. eg. I can watch HQ movies, skype to my Mum etc. These aren’t compelling reasons for our country to invest huge money in FTTH. Sure improve our big fibre links.

I’ll happily sign up for FTTH when it is ploughed through my suburb. I just cringe at the cost to our country.

Now, more importantly, because computing is changing, changes will be driven in the comms space. Smartphones, tablets, reach out of mobile devices in 3rd world countries etc. will drive more investment in LTE and 4th gen wireless. 4th gen promises gigabit speed (insert big disclaimer).

Computing is changing in other ways too. Organisations not cabling new buildings but rather having secure wireless and thin client solutions. Sure fibre will always be part of the equation, but the game is changing.

Good to see that there are some network engineers with a clue on here to give some balanced perspectives. There appear to be a lot of average morons with no idea about the concept of fiber, networks, bandwidth, frequency bands and basic experience of how it all goes together. Yet that doesn’t stop them from advising us of such. Having been associated with people who actually have designed and built nationwide and worldwide networks and have had to design new protocols to handle speeds on upcoming networks, they all seem to be concerned about one thing. That’s if the money runs out before it starts making it. Anyone who has seen huge network roll outs fail in projects has said the same thing. Make the long hall links first. Let them become a source of income. Then connect all the local traffic. Lots of little connections become extremely expensive for no real return. Concentrating on joining up the suburbs is a way to run out of cash.

Wireless connections are only used for things in the real world that aren’t that important. If it can be physically connected, it WILL be if it’s that important. There’s a reason for that… Wireless is very conveniently connected and convienient to disrupt if someone felt inclined.

The company I work for do network installations to buildings and campuses around the country. A wireless solution that provides the same service as fixed line, costs around the same amount of money, if not more. Most places opt for fixed fibre with a sprinkling of wireless for mobile devices.

The thing is the waste of money argument is a matter of perspective. why don’t the opposition argue about the waste of money in all the welfare for the middle class programs out there that do little to improve life but looks good on paper and designed to win votes? You could also argue that while tax cuts were popular why didn’t they spend money on more worthwhile things then.

The wireless is better argument is purely being used as a political tool for people who don’t understand fibre optics, yet have a smartphone or ipad….

If there was to be a real argument it should be about fibre to the node or to the premises.
Opposition realise that argument is far too technical so avoid it and just resort to the same lines or repeated rubbish.

Also the NBN is really about making everything even. If you are a business or household in an area with telstra copper (I live and work in these suburbs) prices are not competitive and there is no alternative, or very little. Transact lost my support years ago promising cable was to be run, but instead just kept wanting me to join their mobile plans and i’m still waiting for cable.

chewy14 said :

Jim Jones said :

I think you’ll find that the argument more commonly used is “why invest in nuclear energy when it has a tendency to explode and turn people into cancer-riddled mutants?” (see Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, etc.)

Well I suppose that argument could be used. But only if you’re an idiot.

And why would that be? Is nuclear completely safe and nobody really gets hurt and its all under control?

Pretty sure Andrew Bolt was still pulling that line while the details of Fukushima were coming out.

Anyone who argues in the corner for wireless has never heard of the word “latency”

I’ll sign up, but only because I can’t get ADSL 2. If I could get ADSL 2 in my suburb, I wouldn’t care for the NBN. They could save a whole lot of money by just putting in better exchanges.

chewy14 said :

Jim Jones said :

I think you’ll find that the argument more commonly used is “why invest in nuclear energy when it has a tendency to explode and turn people into cancer-riddled mutants?” (see Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, etc.)

Well I suppose that argument could be used. But only if you’re an idiot.

Was going to say, but thanks for

Jim Jones said :

chewy14 said :

HenryBG said :

Jim Jones said :

Waiting For Godot said :

Gee, white elephants are now coloured blue.

Why would you bother spending money on roads and transport infrastructure? Everyone knows that we’re all going to be flying jetcars any day now.

This is the irony: Tony Abbott’s fanclub doesn’t believe in progress, but somehow also believe that it is progress itself that justifies their opposition to progress.
There’s a word in psychology for this type of thinking.

Completely agree.

I mean why invest in nuclear energy when full scale renewable power is just around the corner. Oh wait.

I think you’ll find that the argument more commonly used is “why invest in nuclear energy when it has a tendency to explode and turn people into cancer-riddled mutants?” (see Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, etc.)

Bzzzt try harder next time.

chewy14 said :

Jim Jones said :

I think you’ll find that the argument more commonly used is “why invest in nuclear energy when it has a tendency to explode and turn people into cancer-riddled mutants?” (see Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, etc.)

Well I suppose that argument could be used. But only if you’re an idiot.

That’s our Jimbo,

Jim Jones said :

I think you’ll find that the argument more commonly used is “why invest in nuclear energy when it has a tendency to explode and turn people into cancer-riddled mutants?” (see Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, etc.)

Well I suppose that argument could be used. But only if you’re an idiot.

chewy14 said :

HenryBG said :

Jim Jones said :

Waiting For Godot said :

Gee, white elephants are now coloured blue.

Why would you bother spending money on roads and transport infrastructure? Everyone knows that we’re all going to be flying jetcars any day now.

This is the irony: Tony Abbott’s fanclub doesn’t believe in progress, but somehow also believe that it is progress itself that justifies their opposition to progress.
There’s a word in psychology for this type of thinking.

Completely agree.

I mean why invest in nuclear energy when full scale renewable power is just around the corner. Oh wait.

I think you’ll find that the argument more commonly used is “why invest in nuclear energy when it has a tendency to explode and turn people into cancer-riddled mutants?” (see Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, etc.)

HenryBG said :

Jim Jones said :

Waiting For Godot said :

Gee, white elephants are now coloured blue.

Why would you bother spending money on roads and transport infrastructure? Everyone knows that we’re all going to be flying jetcars any day now.

This is the irony: Tony Abbott’s fanclub doesn’t believe in progress, but somehow also believe that it is progress itself that justifies their opposition to progress.
There’s a word in psychology for this type of thinking.

Completely agree.

I mean why invest in nuclear energy when full scale renewable power is just around the corner. Oh wait.

HenryBG said :

Jim Jones said :

Waiting For Godot said :

Gee, white elephants are now coloured blue.

Why would you bother spending money on roads and transport infrastructure? Everyone knows that we’re all going to be flying jetcars any day now.

This is the irony: Tony Abbott’s fanclub doesn’t believe in progress, but somehow also believe that it is progress itself that justifies their opposition to progress.
There’s a word in psychology for this type of thinking.

F%(khead?

Jim Jones said :

Waiting For Godot said :

Gee, white elephants are now coloured blue.

Why would you bother spending money on roads and transport infrastructure? Everyone knows that we’re all going to be flying jetcars any day now.

This is the irony: Tony Abbott’s fanclub doesn’t believe in progress, but somehow also believe that it is progress itself that justifies their opposition to progress.
There’s a word in psychology for this type of thinking.

Waiting For Godot said :

Gee, white elephants are now coloured blue.

Why would you bother spending money on roads and transport infrastructure? Everyone knows that we’re all going to be flying jetcars any day now.

thatsnotme said :

Gungahlin Al said :

I’m wondering how ThatsNotMe thinks broadband feeds get TO wireless transmitting stations…?

?? Getting your posts mixed up Al? I’m 100% pro NBN, and know that mobile towers are connected via fibre. It’s what is possible beyond that point that I have an issue with!

My apologies! Curse of posting on a phone. Try again:

I’m wondering how OpenYourMind thinks broadband feeds get TO wireless transmitting stations…?

davo101 said :

johnboy said :

Interesting article on the coming obsolescence of fiber:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/16/adaptive_optics_for_rayguns/

Fantastic–so long as you don’t want to connect to the Internet while it’s raining, foggy, or a bit dusty outside.

Or inside, around a corner, or when it’s not your turn to have the beam pointed at your receiver!

OpenYourMind said :

yep, white elephant. By the time this is rolled out everywhere, computing will have moved on. It’s the luddites that are the ones clinging to FTTH Fibre to the Home. Fibre has its place, but computing is changing. It’s becoming more mobile and pervasive. Wireless comms networks are where it’s at. Look elsewhere at what’s happening in the mobile LTE space, and that’s not even 4th gen wifi.

Absolute crap. Wireless is completely incapable for reliable comms. You cannot share spectrum reliably the way you can multiplex on fibre. Wireless is slow, unreliable and good for idiots on twitter and not much else.

justin heywood said :

thatsnotme said :

….[With NBN you can] be having a video conversation, while surfing the net, downloading a movie, and watching TV.

So, we’re spending $35 BILLION, and that’s the best that the NBN fanboys can claim for it?

Imagine what the CSIRO could have done with that kind of money.

Absolutely. I’m completely convinced that the NBN will be solely useful for watching TV and downloading porn more quickly.

FFS…congratulations on managing to pull out a sentence from that post, and coming to that conclusion. As a supporter of the NBN, I suppose I should be listing every benefit I could possibly think of every time I try to rebutt this fantasy that somehow the NBN is going to be totally useless soon, because everyone’s going to be using wireless connections?

johnboy said :

Interesting article on the coming obsolescence of fiber:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/16/adaptive_optics_for_rayguns/

Fantastic–so long as you don’t want to connect to the Internet while it’s raining, foggy, or a bit dusty outside.

Interesting article on the coming obsolescence of fiber:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/16/adaptive_optics_for_rayguns/

The Internet is not something that you just dump something on. It’s not a big truck. It’s a series of tubes. And if you don’t understand, those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it’s going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material.

@gooterz , Transfail DO NOT have fibre everywhere. They also charge like a wounded bull. Then on top of that you pay for an ISP. With plans already coming down with the likes of iinet bringing out plans on the NBN, I for one will be better off. My current ISP charges me $79 per month for 250GB download limit. My speed is 3.2mbps when I am lucky (this really sucks when I am on call at work and have to logon to servers). On top of that I have my Telstra bill. Going with iinet on the NBN I will pay $99 for 500GB peak and 500GB off peak download limit. All this at 100mbps download speed. For an extra $9.95 I get their full phone service which includes free local and national calls. So ditching Telstra and going on to the NBN will save me money!

It’s heartening to see so many people find it difficult to imagine a world where we might need faster internet connections than now.

I wonder if these same people were the ones claiming in the early to mid 90s that no-one would ever need a personal computer that could operate at the (apparently very fast) speeds then available.

gooterz said :

I’d like to see wireless in the next few years! Due to new manufacturing technology we can build 60Ghz+ devices with very high bandwidth of 5-10Gbps or more!

With hard-wired, once you’ve got the wire down there, upgrades are relatively cheap. However with wireless, you have to upgrade everything at once. Also you’ll never get the same level of bandwidth as hard-wired devices.

gooterz said :

Waste of money!

Transact and others would already have Fibre everywhere!
Transact have already wasted a great deal of money (so i justfully took up their service).
NBN is going to replicate existing networks and backbones and charge you a premium for it.

Install cost is more than $43 thousand million dollars! (or $2000 for every man woman and child!) then you have to pay to use the damn thing!

I’d like to see wireless in the next few years!
Due to new manufacturing technology we can build 60Ghz+ devices with very high bandwidth of 5-10Gbps or more!

I can also see a lot of people getting a large internet plan and then onselling the service to neighbours!

You could probably also onsell your surplus of exclamation marks to the neighbours.

OpenYourMind said :

1. there’s no solid justification for FTTH and 2. Computing has changed. People have tablets, smartphones etc.

1) Yes there is. Bandwidth demands are increasing as they always have, and soon enough ADSL won’t offer enough. Today for some people. You tell the people on TransACT FTTH at 100mbit that they can’t justify what they’re already paying for. Or any of the Opticomm or Telstra Velocity users interstate.

2) And guess where people do over 95% of their downloading (by volume) using those tablets, phones, laptops and everything else? Using fixed-line broadband. If you got rid if wired today, you’d need 20x the wireless spectral density to accomodate it at current wireless speeds – which are on average slower than wired.

Then, to install Wireless (whether Wimax, 3G, LTE, etc) it costs a LOT more per user-megabit than wired (whether DSL or FTTH.) Sure, it’ll get cheaper and faster – just like FTTH.

gooterz said :

Due to new manufacturing technology we can build 60Ghz+ devices with very high bandwidth of 5-10Gbps or more!

I can also see a lot of people getting a large internet plan and then onselling the service to neighbours!

You’re an idiot. 60Ghz is completely useless for last-mile due to terrible penetration. Even 5GHz is pretty bad after one solid wall, let alone multiple walls plus some distance.

People share their BB with their neighbours already – sometimes involuntarily! It’s really NOT that popular now, and not going to be any more popular in a decade.

Waste of money!

Transact and others would already have Fibre everywhere!
Transact have already wasted a great deal of money (so i justfully took up their service).
NBN is going to replicate existing networks and backbones and charge you a premium for it.

Install cost is more than $43 thousand million dollars! (or $2000 for every man woman and child!) then you have to pay to use the damn thing!

I’d like to see wireless in the next few years!
Due to new manufacturing technology we can build 60Ghz+ devices with very high bandwidth of 5-10Gbps or more!

I can also see a lot of people getting a large internet plan and then onselling the service to neighbours!

thatsnotme said :

….[With NBN you can] be having a video conversation, while surfing the net, downloading a movie, and watching TV.

So, we’re spending $35 BILLION, and that’s the best that the NBN fanboys can claim for it?

Imagine what the CSIRO could have done with that kind of money.

Gungahlin Al said :

I’m wondering how ThatsNotMe thinks broadband feeds get TO wireless transmitting stations…?

I read him as being pro-fibre… In any case, for those playing at home, 90% of Telstra base stations are connected to the rest of the network via, wait for it, optic fibre.

Gungahlin Al said :

I’m wondering how ThatsNotMe thinks broadband feeds get TO wireless transmitting stations…?

?? Getting your posts mixed up Al? I’m 100% pro NBN, and know that mobile towers are connected via fibre. It’s what is possible beyond that point that I have an issue with!

I’m wondering how ThatsNotMe thinks broadband feeds get TO wireless transmitting stations…?

matt31221 said :

[…. don’t those mobile phone towers popping up everywhere worry you? They consume so much power -… There is actual proof that high concentrations of Radio radiation from mobile phone towers does cause various health effects.

Sounds like you’ve got some solid evidence there Mat.

Care to post a link?

OpenYourMind said :

yep, white elephant. By the time this is rolled out everywhere, computing will have moved on. It’s the luddites that are the ones clinging to FTTH Fibre to the Home. Fibre has its place, but computing is changing. It’s becoming more mobile and pervasive. Wireless comms networks are where it’s at. Look elsewhere at what’s happening in the mobile LTE space, and that’s not even 4th gen wifi.
We’ll all be paying a hefty price for this white elephant for a long time.

Sigh… I was hoping that this whole ‘everything is going wireless man, it’s the way of the future!’ argument would have died a quiet death by now, but I guess not.

The idea that mobile comms are taking off, via smartphones and tablets, so that should also be the solution to everyone’s home needs, is just daft. I really don’t understand how it’s been able to survive as long as it has.

I really think people need to stop thinking of FTTH as just a fast connection for surfing the internet and downloading stuff. It’s a pipe for data – in whichever format that may be. So you can be having a video conversation, while surfing the net, downloading a movie, and watching TV. God knows what else will be possible in the years to come – I’m pretty sure when the copper wires we’re currently using were rolled out, that nobody knew that in the years to come we’d send fax messages over them, before moving on to connecting to the internet. Sure, wireless technology is moving forwards, and speeds are improving – but capacity is the limitation that now, and into the future, will always limit its ability to service the growing data needs of a household. FTTH is a technology that is fast now, and that has the capability to get much faster in the future over the cable currently being laid. So as computing moves on, it can move with technology.

Hardly a white elephant I’d have thought…

OpenYourMind said :

matt31221 you miss the point. Wireless doesn’t have to catch up. Its not about how fast fibre is, it’s about not needing it for an average home. I’m not suggesting fibre doesn’t have its place, just that 1. there’s no solid justification for FTTH and 2. Computing has changed. People have tablets, smartphones etc.

Ok, so there’s a war on. Children rig up white noise generators. Home users can’t download their TV shows, so what? I’m pretty sure we won’t be fighting those wars from our home xBoxes.

Those same kids live by wireless devices. Wireless remotes, printers etc.

I know what your saying, and wireless is already big. It’s just, don’t those mobile phone towers popping up everywhere worry you? They consume so much power – where does most of that power go – spewed right into the atmosphere all around us. If it turns out to have no harmful negative health effects on mammals then great! Put more up, but there is evidence that it may do us harm. There is actual proof that high concentrations of Radio radiation from mobile phone towers does cause various health effects.

The other thing that worries me about wireless is security – luckily there aren’t that many black hat hackers around, because if you knew what you were doing you could steal so much information from people without even being caught. My little cousin showed me how he designed a simple device that intercepts the keyboard strokes from wireless keyboards to steal a neighbors passwords. We are all so blase about security these days. It’s going to come back and bite us.

matt31221 you miss the point. Wireless doesn’t have to catch up. Its not about how fast fibre is, it’s about not needing it for an average home. I’m not suggesting fibre doesn’t have its place, just that 1. there’s no solid justification for FTTH and 2. Computing has changed. People have tablets, smartphones etc.

Ok, so there’s a war on. Children rig up white noise generators. Home users can’t download their TV shows, so what? I’m pretty sure we won’t be fighting those wars from our home xBoxes.

Those same kids live by wireless devices. Wireless remotes, printers etc.

OpenYourMind said :

yep, white elephant. By the time this is rolled out everywhere, computing will have moved on. It’s the luddites that are the ones clinging to FTTH Fibre to the Home. Fibre has its place, but computing is changing. It’s becoming more mobile and pervasive. Wireless comms networks are where it’s at. Look elsewhere at what’s happening in the mobile LTE space, and that’s not even 4th gen wifi.
We’ll all be paying a hefty price for this white elephant for a long time.

White elephant? Are you daft? Do you know how much information that fiber optic cable can transmit? Incomprehensible amounts of information that’s how much! Wireless will NEVER catch up to the speed and security of fiber optic.

Whats going to happen if there is a war and everything is wireless? You can say goodbye to it because even a school child would have the knowledge to rig up a white noise generator and disrupt all mobile wireless signals for KM’s. Not only is wireless crap security – the jury is still out on whether all this extra microwave radiation is doing as all harm. And according to the WHO it is starting to look like we are being subtly harmed by it. Say no to more microwave and radio radiation!

yep, white elephant. By the time this is rolled out everywhere, computing will have moved on. It’s the luddites that are the ones clinging to FTTH Fibre to the Home. Fibre has its place, but computing is changing. It’s becoming more mobile and pervasive. Wireless comms networks are where it’s at. Look elsewhere at what’s happening in the mobile LTE space, and that’s not even 4th gen wifi.
We’ll all be paying a hefty price for this white elephant for a long time.

Waiting For Godot said :

Gee, white elephants are now coloured blue.

White elephant? Enlighten me..

Waiting For Godot said :

Gee, white elephants are now coloured blue.

Spot the luddite!

And that is Flemington Road, not Ave?

I’ve layed better cable

Gee, white elephants are now coloured blue.

I still don’t know what it will mean for me when I move to Casey next year, but yay anyway. 😀

grump said :

that’s a little cable!

But it packs a lot of punch…

that’s a little cable!