Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Ask RiotACT

Experts in Wills, Trusts
& Estate Planning

NBN not as expected

By ozdownunder 4 December 2014 50

Really disappointed that Nicholls still does not have NBN in the making, does anyone know when this will happen?


What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
50 Responses to
NBN not as expected
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
rosscoact 11:31 am 09 Jul 15

fabforty said :

I don’t think anyone should get too excited about NBN. My home was connected about six months ago. All it gave me was a lot of unsightly boxes and hardware on my wall and an internet connection which is pretty much the same as before.

Did you previously have ADSL2 and have chosen a slower than maximum NBN speed?

In comparison to pre-NBN I have 11x faster download, 20x faster upload, 4x greater limits and $60 a month less cost for phone and internet combined. A massive difference by any comparison.

fabforty 10:53 am 09 Jul 15

I don’t think anyone should get too excited about NBN. My home was connected about six months ago. All it gave me was a lot of unsightly boxes and hardware on my wall and an internet connection which is pretty much the same as before.

rubaiyat 10:46 am 09 Jul 15

Here is how the “fiscally responsible” liberals handled a simple footbridge:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/the-tibby-cotter-walkway-to-the-scg-a-bargain-at-1700-a-trip-20150708-gi7m6w.html

The truth is that almost all politicians show a remarkable ineptitude at managing everything except their own inflated egos.

ozdownunder 11:07 pm 08 Jul 15

rosscoact said :

switch said :

dungfungus said :

Ah, it’s John Howard’s fault then?

Nope, neither the Internet nor Google are John Howard’s fault.

I know it’s early days yet but this has to be the post of the year. 😀

Superb! Love that!!

dungfungus 10:20 am 25 Jan 15

JimCharles said :

OpenYourMind said :

rosscoact said :

OpenYourMind said :

rosscoact said :

OpenYourMind said :

The cost of that physical medium is enormous. Why run fibre to everybody’s home? I like fast internet as much as the next person, however every argument I’ve seen, current bandwidth can perform or the user is a gamer or needs to watch lots of TV. There’s no strong business case for FTTH and it’s hardly the infrastructure bet Australia should be making. Personally I think bandwidth for most will be a bit like music quality, we have actually given up a bit of music quality for portability with MP3s vs CDs. In the same way, the portability and flexibility of wireless will result in it being the product of choice over fibre. This has happened in Japan with FTTH. IT people (and I’ve worked in IT longer than some of you have been alive) often think that bandwidth is everything and fibre delivers the most, so it must be the best. As we see the rise and rise of wireless technologies, for most personal applications, wireless will be good enough.

Honestly, if you haven’t seen any business case that goes beyond TV and gaming then you haven’t read a single business case, not one. Or by business case do you mean “article in the Daily Telegraph’?

Try google or even look back at previous threads here. With research comes knowledge and with knowledge comes understanding.

I’m all ears. Name some significant nation building kind of business cases that justify fibre to the home. By the way, I successfully run a business from home using ADSL. All of the examples I’ve seen to justify NBN are already being done without FTTH. Certainly future generation wireless is going to meet any of these business needs without needing to dig up every street.

I find it amusing that some of you are saying that the biggest weakness of wireless is that people share it, yet Korea is investing so much in wireless is population dense. At the same time others say we aren’t population dense enough yet the NBN design switched to wireless as the users became more remote. Harden have just introduced a form of town wide cheap wireless offering 100M/bs. They manage that with an old shipping container and a big aerial and an aerial on each premise choosing to opt in.

I don’t think you are all ears, otherwise you would have already had a look yourself. But I’ll give you a bit of a leg up.

Telehealth + remote learning + the future

The first two justify proper NBN just in cost terms and are available now but need bandwidth.

The latter is however, the most important of all. Create the capacity and people will invent things that we are now only dreaming of. Think of the world 20 years ago and how much it’s changed.

Although I expect you’re going to dismiss all this because it doesn’t fit with your beliefs.

The demos I’ve seen of telehealth all look like they could be easily knocked off with ADSL type speed. eLearning has been going on for years without FTTH. My wife completed an online course only recently, again using ADSL and not even stretching it. As for the future, for most applications, the future will be wireless and will be cloud based. Much cloud based tech takes away the heavy footprint from the home and you only need enough bandwidth to present a screen session.

Look, I get fast fibre bandwidth when it’s needed, but the thing is that for most home users, it’s not worth betting the nation’s wealth on it. As an online home business owner (of an evening), the things that would improve my business are lower postage costs overseas, better freight systems, a better and fairer tax system etc.

Telehealth needs high bandwidth, you can’t do consultations over ADSL2 if your upload speed is so poor, even Skype suffers in Canberra and that’s not built for medical grade video, the first thing they do is compress the signal and prioritise sound over video so no good for any medical professional to examine or be able to give confident advice.
An interesting Telehealth development will be in insurance, and insurance companies investing in high bandwidth illness prevention forums linked to your medical history. Less illness, less to payout. You can’t do this over ADSL2….not because of downloading video’s but because ADSL2 uploading speed not being suitable for the interactive side.
Health apps are in their infancy yes, still quite basic, but then some online businesses only have low bandwidth requirements. Just because one can do it, doesn’t mean they all can. Basing a policy on a low requirement standard baseline is just foolhardy.

They could do with having a state plan for ACT so somebody can influence what the telco’s do. Never seen anywhere with such a fragmented non-plan and a combination of the superb and the appalling provision. You can have 100Mb across the road from 1Mb and it seems like pot luck how it ended up like this ?
You have the Transact VDSL2 supernodes now all updated, but patchy provisioning in Belconnen and the South only goes down to Monash, Oxley, Wanniassa…below that there are only 2 Telstra exchanges to cover the rest of Tuggerarong (?) so you’re left with a ruler measuring distances from the exchange to try and guess what speed you’ll get. Pity the poor sods on the outskirts of Theodore and Banks, Calwell, Conder…..and the gap in Nicholls where they’re pretty much surrounded by VDSL2 or NBN, but only get ADSL2 themselves?
It’s a great example of a lack of a coherent plan for the City, lack of control, interference, weak policy planning and not following things through to a logical end leaving this patchwork in existence today.

The ACT government is only interested in 100 year old “visionary” technology, AKA trams.

JimCharles 7:16 am 25 Jan 15

OpenYourMind said :

rosscoact said :

OpenYourMind said :

rosscoact said :

OpenYourMind said :

The cost of that physical medium is enormous. Why run fibre to everybody’s home? I like fast internet as much as the next person, however every argument I’ve seen, current bandwidth can perform or the user is a gamer or needs to watch lots of TV. There’s no strong business case for FTTH and it’s hardly the infrastructure bet Australia should be making. Personally I think bandwidth for most will be a bit like music quality, we have actually given up a bit of music quality for portability with MP3s vs CDs. In the same way, the portability and flexibility of wireless will result in it being the product of choice over fibre. This has happened in Japan with FTTH. IT people (and I’ve worked in IT longer than some of you have been alive) often think that bandwidth is everything and fibre delivers the most, so it must be the best. As we see the rise and rise of wireless technologies, for most personal applications, wireless will be good enough.

Honestly, if you haven’t seen any business case that goes beyond TV and gaming then you haven’t read a single business case, not one. Or by business case do you mean “article in the Daily Telegraph’?

Try google or even look back at previous threads here. With research comes knowledge and with knowledge comes understanding.

I’m all ears. Name some significant nation building kind of business cases that justify fibre to the home. By the way, I successfully run a business from home using ADSL. All of the examples I’ve seen to justify NBN are already being done without FTTH. Certainly future generation wireless is going to meet any of these business needs without needing to dig up every street.

I find it amusing that some of you are saying that the biggest weakness of wireless is that people share it, yet Korea is investing so much in wireless is population dense. At the same time others say we aren’t population dense enough yet the NBN design switched to wireless as the users became more remote. Harden have just introduced a form of town wide cheap wireless offering 100M/bs. They manage that with an old shipping container and a big aerial and an aerial on each premise choosing to opt in.

I don’t think you are all ears, otherwise you would have already had a look yourself. But I’ll give you a bit of a leg up.

Telehealth + remote learning + the future

The first two justify proper NBN just in cost terms and are available now but need bandwidth.

The latter is however, the most important of all. Create the capacity and people will invent things that we are now only dreaming of. Think of the world 20 years ago and how much it’s changed.

Although I expect you’re going to dismiss all this because it doesn’t fit with your beliefs.

The demos I’ve seen of telehealth all look like they could be easily knocked off with ADSL type speed. eLearning has been going on for years without FTTH. My wife completed an online course only recently, again using ADSL and not even stretching it. As for the future, for most applications, the future will be wireless and will be cloud based. Much cloud based tech takes away the heavy footprint from the home and you only need enough bandwidth to present a screen session.

Look, I get fast fibre bandwidth when it’s needed, but the thing is that for most home users, it’s not worth betting the nation’s wealth on it. As an online home business owner (of an evening), the things that would improve my business are lower postage costs overseas, better freight systems, a better and fairer tax system etc.

Telehealth needs high bandwidth, you can’t do consultations over ADSL2 if your upload speed is so poor, even Skype suffers in Canberra and that’s not built for medical grade video, the first thing they do is compress the signal and prioritise sound over video so no good for any medical professional to examine or be able to give confident advice.
An interesting Telehealth development will be in insurance, and insurance companies investing in high bandwidth illness prevention forums linked to your medical history. Less illness, less to payout. You can’t do this over ADSL2….not because of downloading video’s but because ADSL2 uploading speed not being suitable for the interactive side.
Health apps are in their infancy yes, still quite basic, but then some online businesses only have low bandwidth requirements. Just because one can do it, doesn’t mean they all can. Basing a policy on a low requirement standard baseline is just foolhardy.

They could do with having a state plan for ACT so somebody can influence what the telco’s do. Never seen anywhere with such a fragmented non-plan and a combination of the superb and the appalling provision. You can have 100Mb across the road from 1Mb and it seems like pot luck how it ended up like this ?
You have the Transact VDSL2 supernodes now all updated, but patchy provisioning in Belconnen and the South only goes down to Monash, Oxley, Wanniassa…below that there are only 2 Telstra exchanges to cover the rest of Tuggerarong (?) so you’re left with a ruler measuring distances from the exchange to try and guess what speed you’ll get. Pity the poor sods on the outskirts of Theodore and Banks, Calwell, Conder…..and the gap in Nicholls where they’re pretty much surrounded by VDSL2 or NBN, but only get ADSL2 themselves?
It’s a great example of a lack of a coherent plan for the City, lack of control, interference, weak policy planning and not following things through to a logical end leaving this patchwork in existence today.

rosscoact 11:08 pm 23 Jan 15

switch said :

dungfungus said :

Ah, it’s John Howard’s fault then?

Nope, neither the Internet nor Google are John Howard’s fault.

I know it’s early days yet but this has to be the post of the year. 😀

OpenYourMind 10:29 pm 23 Jan 15

rosscoact said :

OpenYourMind said :

rosscoact said :

OpenYourMind said :

The cost of that physical medium is enormous. Why run fibre to everybody’s home? I like fast internet as much as the next person, however every argument I’ve seen, current bandwidth can perform or the user is a gamer or needs to watch lots of TV. There’s no strong business case for FTTH and it’s hardly the infrastructure bet Australia should be making. Personally I think bandwidth for most will be a bit like music quality, we have actually given up a bit of music quality for portability with MP3s vs CDs. In the same way, the portability and flexibility of wireless will result in it being the product of choice over fibre. This has happened in Japan with FTTH. IT people (and I’ve worked in IT longer than some of you have been alive) often think that bandwidth is everything and fibre delivers the most, so it must be the best. As we see the rise and rise of wireless technologies, for most personal applications, wireless will be good enough.

Honestly, if you haven’t seen any business case that goes beyond TV and gaming then you haven’t read a single business case, not one. Or by business case do you mean “article in the Daily Telegraph’?

Try google or even look back at previous threads here. With research comes knowledge and with knowledge comes understanding.

I’m all ears. Name some significant nation building kind of business cases that justify fibre to the home. By the way, I successfully run a business from home using ADSL. All of the examples I’ve seen to justify NBN are already being done without FTTH. Certainly future generation wireless is going to meet any of these business needs without needing to dig up every street.

I find it amusing that some of you are saying that the biggest weakness of wireless is that people share it, yet Korea is investing so much in wireless is population dense. At the same time others say we aren’t population dense enough yet the NBN design switched to wireless as the users became more remote. Harden have just introduced a form of town wide cheap wireless offering 100M/bs. They manage that with an old shipping container and a big aerial and an aerial on each premise choosing to opt in.

I don’t think you are all ears, otherwise you would have already had a look yourself. But I’ll give you a bit of a leg up.

Telehealth + remote learning + the future

The first two justify proper NBN just in cost terms and are available now but need bandwidth.

The latter is however, the most important of all. Create the capacity and people will invent things that we are now only dreaming of. Think of the world 20 years ago and how much it’s changed.

Although I expect you’re going to dismiss all this because it doesn’t fit with your beliefs.

The demos I’ve seen of telehealth all look like they could be easily knocked off with ADSL type speed. eLearning has been going on for years without FTTH. My wife completed an online course only recently, again using ADSL and not even stretching it. As for the future, for most applications, the future will be wireless and will be cloud based. Much cloud based tech takes away the heavy footprint from the home and you only need enough bandwidth to present a screen session.

Look, I get fast fibre bandwidth when it’s needed, but the thing is that for most home users, it’s not worth betting the nation’s wealth on it. As an online home business owner (of an evening), the things that would improve my business are lower postage costs overseas, better freight systems, a better and fairer tax system etc.

switch 5:15 pm 23 Jan 15

dungfungus said :

Ah, it’s John Howard’s fault then?

Nope, neither the Internet nor Google are John Howard’s fault.

dungfungus 3:19 pm 23 Jan 15

switch said :

rosscoact said :

The latter is however, the most important of all. Create the capacity and people will invent things that we are now only dreaming of. Think of the world 20 years ago and how much it’s changed.

Yeah. Remember Google didn’t exist the last time the Coalition won government (in 1996). Now it almost is the Internet!

Ah, it’s John Howard’s fault then?

dungfungus 3:15 pm 23 Jan 15

switch said :

rosscoact said :

The latter is however, the most important of all. Create the capacity and people will invent things that we are now only dreaming of. Think of the world 20 years ago and how much it’s changed.

Yeah. Remember Google didn’t exist the last time the Coalition won government (in 1996). Now it almost is the Internet!

Last night, the EU created the capacity for another trillion Euros to allow people to invent a reason for borrowing some at near zero interest rates for things they have been dreaming of.
Think of how much better it was an almost debt free 20 years ago.

switch 2:18 pm 23 Jan 15

rosscoact said :

The latter is however, the most important of all. Create the capacity and people will invent things that we are now only dreaming of. Think of the world 20 years ago and how much it’s changed.

Yeah. Remember Google didn’t exist the last time the Coalition won government (in 1996). Now it almost is the Internet!

rosscoact 1:02 pm 23 Jan 15

OpenYourMind said :

rosscoact said :

OpenYourMind said :

The cost of that physical medium is enormous. Why run fibre to everybody’s home? I like fast internet as much as the next person, however every argument I’ve seen, current bandwidth can perform or the user is a gamer or needs to watch lots of TV. There’s no strong business case for FTTH and it’s hardly the infrastructure bet Australia should be making. Personally I think bandwidth for most will be a bit like music quality, we have actually given up a bit of music quality for portability with MP3s vs CDs. In the same way, the portability and flexibility of wireless will result in it being the product of choice over fibre. This has happened in Japan with FTTH. IT people (and I’ve worked in IT longer than some of you have been alive) often think that bandwidth is everything and fibre delivers the most, so it must be the best. As we see the rise and rise of wireless technologies, for most personal applications, wireless will be good enough.

Honestly, if you haven’t seen any business case that goes beyond TV and gaming then you haven’t read a single business case, not one. Or by business case do you mean “article in the Daily Telegraph’?

Try google or even look back at previous threads here. With research comes knowledge and with knowledge comes understanding.

I’m all ears. Name some significant nation building kind of business cases that justify fibre to the home. By the way, I successfully run a business from home using ADSL. All of the examples I’ve seen to justify NBN are already being done without FTTH. Certainly future generation wireless is going to meet any of these business needs without needing to dig up every street.

I find it amusing that some of you are saying that the biggest weakness of wireless is that people share it, yet Korea is investing so much in wireless is population dense. At the same time others say we aren’t population dense enough yet the NBN design switched to wireless as the users became more remote. Harden have just introduced a form of town wide cheap wireless offering 100M/bs. They manage that with an old shipping container and a big aerial and an aerial on each premise choosing to opt in.

I don’t think you are all ears, otherwise you would have already had a look yourself. But I’ll give you a bit of a leg up.

Telehealth + remote learning + the future

The first two justify proper NBN just in cost terms and are available now but need bandwidth.

The latter is however, the most important of all. Create the capacity and people will invent things that we are now only dreaming of. Think of the world 20 years ago and how much it’s changed.

Although I expect you’re going to dismiss all this because it doesn’t fit with your beliefs.

dungfungus 8:18 am 23 Jan 15

OpenYourMind said :

rosscoact said :

OpenYourMind said :

The cost of that physical medium is enormous. Why run fibre to everybody’s home? I like fast internet as much as the next person, however every argument I’ve seen, current bandwidth can perform or the user is a gamer or needs to watch lots of TV. There’s no strong business case for FTTH and it’s hardly the infrastructure bet Australia should be making. Personally I think bandwidth for most will be a bit like music quality, we have actually given up a bit of music quality for portability with MP3s vs CDs. In the same way, the portability and flexibility of wireless will result in it being the product of choice over fibre. This has happened in Japan with FTTH. IT people (and I’ve worked in IT longer than some of you have been alive) often think that bandwidth is everything and fibre delivers the most, so it must be the best. As we see the rise and rise of wireless technologies, for most personal applications, wireless will be good enough.

Honestly, if you haven’t seen any business case that goes beyond TV and gaming then you haven’t read a single business case, not one. Or by business case do you mean “article in the Daily Telegraph’?

Try google or even look back at previous threads here. With research comes knowledge and with knowledge comes understanding.

I’m all ears. Name some significant nation building kind of business cases that justify fibre to the home. By the way, I successfully run a business from home using ADSL. All of the examples I’ve seen to justify NBN are already being done without FTTH. Certainly future generation wireless is going to meet any of these business needs without needing to dig up every street.

I find it amusing that some of you are saying that the biggest weakness of wireless is that people share it, yet Korea is investing so much in wireless is population dense. At the same time others say we aren’t population dense enough yet the NBN design switched to wireless as the users became more remote. Harden have just introduced a form of town wide cheap wireless offering 100M/bs. They manage that with an old shipping container and a big aerial and an aerial on each premise choosing to opt in.

The fact that the original “nation building” case for the NBN was an idealistic lightbulb moment scribbled on the back of an envelope in the presence of a narcissist and a pommy shop steward says it all.

OpenYourMind 10:59 pm 22 Jan 15

rosscoact said :

OpenYourMind said :

The cost of that physical medium is enormous. Why run fibre to everybody’s home? I like fast internet as much as the next person, however every argument I’ve seen, current bandwidth can perform or the user is a gamer or needs to watch lots of TV. There’s no strong business case for FTTH and it’s hardly the infrastructure bet Australia should be making. Personally I think bandwidth for most will be a bit like music quality, we have actually given up a bit of music quality for portability with MP3s vs CDs. In the same way, the portability and flexibility of wireless will result in it being the product of choice over fibre. This has happened in Japan with FTTH. IT people (and I’ve worked in IT longer than some of you have been alive) often think that bandwidth is everything and fibre delivers the most, so it must be the best. As we see the rise and rise of wireless technologies, for most personal applications, wireless will be good enough.

Honestly, if you haven’t seen any business case that goes beyond TV and gaming then you haven’t read a single business case, not one. Or by business case do you mean “article in the Daily Telegraph’?

Try google or even look back at previous threads here. With research comes knowledge and with knowledge comes understanding.

I’m all ears. Name some significant nation building kind of business cases that justify fibre to the home. By the way, I successfully run a business from home using ADSL. All of the examples I’ve seen to justify NBN are already being done without FTTH. Certainly future generation wireless is going to meet any of these business needs without needing to dig up every street.

I find it amusing that some of you are saying that the biggest weakness of wireless is that people share it, yet Korea is investing so much in wireless is population dense. At the same time others say we aren’t population dense enough yet the NBN design switched to wireless as the users became more remote. Harden have just introduced a form of town wide cheap wireless offering 100M/bs. They manage that with an old shipping container and a big aerial and an aerial on each premise choosing to opt in.

rosscoact 3:52 pm 22 Jan 15

OpenYourMind said :

The cost of that physical medium is enormous. Why run fibre to everybody’s home? I like fast internet as much as the next person, however every argument I’ve seen, current bandwidth can perform or the user is a gamer or needs to watch lots of TV. There’s no strong business case for FTTH and it’s hardly the infrastructure bet Australia should be making. Personally I think bandwidth for most will be a bit like music quality, we have actually given up a bit of music quality for portability with MP3s vs CDs. In the same way, the portability and flexibility of wireless will result in it being the product of choice over fibre. This has happened in Japan with FTTH. IT people (and I’ve worked in IT longer than some of you have been alive) often think that bandwidth is everything and fibre delivers the most, so it must be the best. As we see the rise and rise of wireless technologies, for most personal applications, wireless will be good enough.

Honestly, if you haven’t seen any business case that goes beyond TV and gaming then you haven’t read a single business case, not one. Or by business case do you mean “article in the Daily Telegraph’?

Try google or even look back at previous threads here. With research comes knowledge and with knowledge comes understanding.

dungfungus 3:28 pm 22 Jan 15

JC said :

OpenYourMind said :

Once again, dare I say it, but why are we so hell bent on considering fibre to the home to be modern infrastructure?

Why don’t we just wait for better wireless? Now before all the fibre advocates get too hot under the collar, I have heard the arguments before, but I consider them to not be valid now and certainly not in the future. Take a look at South Korea, the country with the best internet access speed in the World. They are investing heavily in wireless and are delivering speeds in the hundreds of megabits a second with one project aiming for 800Mb/s. I’m far from convinced that the future for home connected internet services is fibre.

Korea is an interesting example as the whole country has broadband, based on VDSL technology, which delivers an average speed across the country of around 14mb/s. VDSL of course being the technology the Liebral party wants to inflict on the Australian public with their current plan. The same technology that Transact rolled out, what 15+ years ago now. Hmmm

As for Korea and 800mb/s wireless you must be talking about 5G wireless which they and the Chinese seem to be leading the development of. Ready by for testing circa 2018 and roll-out in 2020 though some experts are saying closer to 2025.

Of course come 2019, someone like you will be saying why waste all this money on 5G when just around the corner is new technology that will deliver even more speed (in another 5 years).

Oh and 5G from what I’ve read works by having lots of little low powered cells spread over the place, thus ensuring maximum use of the radio spectrum, which is finite. Might be ok in a place like Korea, but in Australia which is much further spread out

Whilst right here right now we have technology that can effectively deliver 1GB/s to most homes in the country over a physical medium that will last 30+ years, which can have the equipment on either end replaced quickly and easily as technology improves. Yup wireless is the way to go. Not.

Korea’s area is a lot less than Australia’s and its biggest city Seoul has 10 million people with population densities up to 17,000 people per square kilometre.
The need for massive speeds is not for everybody. Most of Canberra still has ADSL2 which is adequate. The people who need super speeds (for what I do not know) can pay a bit extra.

OpenYourMind 1:21 pm 22 Jan 15

JC said :

OpenYourMind said :

Once again, dare I say it, but why are we so hell bent on considering fibre to the home to be modern infrastructure?

Why don’t we just wait for better wireless? Now before all the fibre advocates get too hot under the collar, I have heard the arguments before, but I consider them to not be valid now and certainly not in the future. Take a look at South Korea, the country with the best internet access speed in the World. They are investing heavily in wireless and are delivering speeds in the hundreds of megabits a second with one project aiming for 800Mb/s. I’m far from convinced that the future for home connected internet services is fibre.

Korea is an interesting example as the whole country has broadband, based on VDSL technology, which delivers an average speed across the country of around 14mb/s. VDSL of course being the technology the Liebral party wants to inflict on the Australian public with their current plan. The same technology that Transact rolled out, what 15+ years ago now. Hmmm

As for Korea and 800mb/s wireless you must be talking about 5G wireless which they and the Chinese seem to be leading the development of. Ready by for testing circa 2018 and roll-out in 2020 though some experts are saying closer to 2025.

Of course come 2019, someone like you will be saying why waste all this money on 5G when just around the corner is new technology that will deliver even more speed (in another 5 years).

Oh and 5G from what I’ve read works by having lots of little low powered cells spread over the place, thus ensuring maximum use of the radio spectrum, which is finite. Might be ok in a place like Korea, but in Australia which is much further spread out

Whilst right here right now we have technology that can effectively deliver 1GB/s to most homes in the country over a physical medium that will last 30+ years, which can have the equipment on either end replaced quickly and easily as technology improves. Yup wireless is the way to go. Not.

The cost of that physical medium is enormous. Why run fibre to everybody’s home? I like fast internet as much as the next person, however every argument I’ve seen, current bandwidth can perform or the user is a gamer or needs to watch lots of TV. There’s no strong business case for FTTH and it’s hardly the infrastructure bet Australia should be making. Personally I think bandwidth for most will be a bit like music quality, we have actually given up a bit of music quality for portability with MP3s vs CDs. In the same way, the portability and flexibility of wireless will result in it being the product of choice over fibre. This has happened in Japan with FTTH. IT people (and I’ve worked in IT longer than some of you have been alive) often think that bandwidth is everything and fibre delivers the most, so it must be the best. As we see the rise and rise of wireless technologies, for most personal applications, wireless will be good enough.

JC 11:32 am 22 Jan 15

OpenYourMind said :

Once again, dare I say it, but why are we so hell bent on considering fibre to the home to be modern infrastructure?

Why don’t we just wait for better wireless? Now before all the fibre advocates get too hot under the collar, I have heard the arguments before, but I consider them to not be valid now and certainly not in the future. Take a look at South Korea, the country with the best internet access speed in the World. They are investing heavily in wireless and are delivering speeds in the hundreds of megabits a second with one project aiming for 800Mb/s. I’m far from convinced that the future for home connected internet services is fibre.

Korea is an interesting example as the whole country has broadband, based on VDSL technology, which delivers an average speed across the country of around 14mb/s. VDSL of course being the technology the Liebral party wants to inflict on the Australian public with their current plan. The same technology that Transact rolled out, what 15+ years ago now. Hmmm

As for Korea and 800mb/s wireless you must be talking about 5G wireless which they and the Chinese seem to be leading the development of. Ready by for testing circa 2018 and roll-out in 2020 though some experts are saying closer to 2025.

Of course come 2019, someone like you will be saying why waste all this money on 5G when just around the corner is new technology that will deliver even more speed (in another 5 years).

Oh and 5G from what I’ve read works by having lots of little low powered cells spread over the place, thus ensuring maximum use of the radio spectrum, which is finite. Might be ok in a place like Korea, but in Australia which is much further spread out

Whilst right here right now we have technology that can effectively deliver 1GB/s to most homes in the country over a physical medium that will last 30+ years, which can have the equipment on either end replaced quickly and easily as technology improves. Yup wireless is the way to go. Not.

watto23 11:15 am 22 Jan 15

OpenYourMind said :

Once again, dare I say it, but why are we so hell bent on considering fibre to the home to be modern infrastructure?

Why don’t we just wait for better wireless? Now before all the fibre advocates get too hot under the collar, I have heard the arguments before, but I consider them to not be valid now and certainly not in the future. Take a look at South Korea, the country with the best internet access speed in the World. They are investing heavily in wireless and are delivering speeds in the hundreds of megabits a second with one project aiming for 800Mb/s. I’m far from convinced that the future for home connected internet services is fibre.

Because wireless is a different type of technology. Wireless is shared for a start, too many people on wireless slows it down. Wireless will never be faster than fixed and most likely the best solution is a combination. People will need a fast link to the premise and then use wireless for the mobility around the house. I’ve got half a dozen devices on wifi now, like a tablet, laptop, phone, 2 TV’s and a blu-ray player.

Also what people fail to understand but it costs a hell of a lot to get wireless to match the same standards as a fixed line infrastructure. Just ask people when they go to a football game and the wireless/mobile system can’t cope with the number of people. an extreme example, but that is what happens. I installed a wireless system for a client and the cost of installing it with necessary bandwidth to cover large meeting rooms and small lecture theatres cost more than install fibre, but provided some flexibility.

Mobile devices are unlikely to also ever need as much bandwidth as fixed devices need, so whatever the future is you’ll need fibre to do the heavy lifting with wireless to provide connectivity for mobile devices.

The problem the coalition had was they a ubiquitous NBN was too communist for them. The thing is its been shown that similar FTTP networks has actually increased the GDP and productivity of places where it has been installed, because its a tool that helps enable startups in regional areas. As it is even Australian startups have move to silicon valey, because Australian infrastructure just wasn’t good enough.

There are so many pros to building it properly and the only negatives are based on ideological views and helping companies like Foxtel and Telstra maintain their outdated business models.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site