To Broadband or not, that is the question?

[matty77]

So what do people think of the current government building the new broadband network?

By the time it has finished will it be irrelevant or will it propel each Australian home into the world of fast internet dominance?

Will the current decrease in broadband users continue as people move over to wireless devices (like the iphone)?

Will there actually be anyone left that wants broadband by the time it gets rolled out?

discuss.

National broadband network. Last year the Rudd government spent $17 million looking for a private partner to co-build the network. The process yielded nothing. The government will now build and operate the network itself at a cost of $43 billion. A money sink

 

[Aussiejeff]

So what do people think of the current government building the new broadband network?

By the time it has finished will it be irrelevant or will it propel each Australian home into the world of fast internet dominance?

Will the current decrease in broadband users continues as people move over to wireless devices (like the iphone)?

discuss.

Already obsolete!!

Google will shortly be rolling out 1TB broadband in the US (yes, that's 10 x faster than the 100MB to be offered by KRuddCo sometime in the next millenia).

Next please....

 

[Trembling Hand]

Telstra announced last week that they have already upgraded the MAX speed of their network to 44 Meg. Wireless is just getting started. 300 meg and above is not that far away.

For most a wireless solution will be 100x better than wired. Business and people who need lowest latency systems will still need wired connection but it would seem evident that retail & a good part of biz accesse is after Mobile connection not fixed.

Have a look at Telstra 7% loss of wired phones the past 6 months.

By the way haven't we already got a good thread about this?

 

[boofhead]

Some bad information so far presented.

Google is installed gigabit fibre and not terabit (TB) fibre. By using suitable fibre the network speeds can be upgraded using the same fibre cabling and changing the devices attached to the fibre. It has much potential for expansion.

Wireless isn't the great solution it is written to be. It is interesting to read various real world tests of mobile internet using the cell infrastructure. Wireless can suffer congestion and interference. It does have potential better redudancy than fixed line/fibre systems.

Wireless also has a premium attached to it based on data allowances and charges. Telcos providing it must love it - their growing high margin service.

While there are less landlines in service the number of people using landline based broadband may not be shrinking.

Based on Telstra's recent report they do announce a drop in combined retail and wholesale fixed broadband the numbers show a potential increase in total fixed line broadband as many ISPs now use ULL and SSS. When you combine the figures you see an increase in total fixed line broadband.

 

[Trembling Hand]

Some bad information so far presented.

Oh? I could say the same about your comments locked into the present rather than being focused on the future which is where this thread was looking

Wireless also has a premium attached to it based on data allowances and charges. Telcos providing it must love it - their growing high margin service.

Its premium is very rapidly diminishing. just as fast as dial up and broadband did.

While there are less landlines in service the number of people using landline based broadband may not be shrinking.

Based on Telstra's recent report they do announce a drop in combined retail and wholesale fixed broadband the numbers show a potential increase in total fixed line broadband as many ISPs now use ULL and SSS. When you combine the figures you see an increase in total fixed line broadband.

Broadbands growth is slowing, wireless is just getting started.

 

[Mr J]

And what will most of us use these speeds for anyway?

 

[Trembling Hand]

And what will most of us use these speeds for anyway?

Zactly -twitter post

 

[Bolle]

myself and several people i know get headaches from most wireless devices, i sincerely hope they never really get that popular. it's already worrying how many people have developed brain tumors from mobile phones, don't need to take that any further than it's gone if you ask me.

I can't figure out why the govt want to build broadband, only to take away all the fun sites anyway. What care I if we have faster access to a stack of sites only to watch them be blacklisted for, er... gov't assessed (ie secret) reasons.

waste of time, energy and resources, once again.

don't even get me started on the schools upgrade program. gah.damn.

 

[matty77]

Wireless isn't the great solution it is written to be. It is interesting to read various real world tests of mobile internet using the cell infrastructure. Wireless can suffer congestion and interference. It does have potential better redudancy than fixed line/fibre systems.

Wireless also has a premium attached to it based on data allowances and charges. Telcos providing it must love it - their growing high margin service.

Partly agree but not really, yes wireless has a premium attached to it - but worse in Australia and its just a way for the Telcos to rip of the average consumer and bump up their profits.

So my question is - would the government be better off to spend the same amount of money upgrading to say a wireless system? Or something similar to what google is doing? Why install something if it is going to be made redundant in a few years time? Why put all your eggs in one basket if the technology is probably going to be surpassed once its put in?

 

[Aussiejeff]

Think how fantastic it will be to watch PG Rated, Parliamentary Broadcasts in full, glorious Widescreen HD!

What more could you wish for?

 

[boofhead]

matty77: How is the NBN going to redundant? The main expense and a considerable part of the build is the actual fibre which will not be redundant. Telstra has been involved with trials using fibre to 40 gigabits/s and working with a major hardware company working on 100 gigabits/s. The base of the build has so much potential.

Wireless increased speeds partly revolve around developing new standards, getting more spectrum and using multiple bands. Unfortunately my memory isn't as good as it used to be but last year some discussion pieces on the use of wireless with good technical references.

Wireless looks good with strong growth because it is mostly new and has so little marketshare. Fixed line broadband is much more mature with substantial existing subscribers.

For Australians I can understand their fascination with wireless. A number of carriers trade on the ASX. Not so for the hardware makers. What is happening with wireless security? Issues have recently been found with GSM and 3G.

For a while I see wireless as a hole filler and not a suitable alternative to fixed line. Can anyone give estimates to when wireless will be cost competitive for retail services with fixed line?

 

[So_Cynical]

And what will most of us use these speeds for anyway?

• Gaming (Massively multi-player)
• HD Video telephony
• Multi channel HD TV

 

[Trembling Hand]

How is the NBN going to redundant?

If people don't use it!

Just because it can be built doesn't mean there is a market for it.

It only takes another technology that is 80% as fast 100 time more mobile and 1/2 the price and its redundant.

 

[nulla nulla]

If people don't use it!

Just because it can be built doesn't mean there is a market for it.

It only takes another technology that is 80% as fast 100 time more mobile and 1/2 the price and its redundant.

Hmmmmm........ Sounds like a recommendation for Telstra's next Generation Wireless/Satelite Broadband Network running at 1 gigabit plus. I wonder if Kevin & Wayne will restrict the sale of spectrum until they've lost government or recovered the cost of rolling out a redundant technology national broadband fiasco? I wonder if I should be building a small tls portfolio at sub $3.00?

 

[Smurf1976]

If people don't use it!

Just because it can be built doesn't mean there is a market for it.

It only takes another technology that is 80% as fast 100 time more mobile and 1/2 the price and its redundant.

CD versus MP3 is a classic example. MP3 is a truly rotten system in a purely technical sense in terms of the quality of music reproduced, but it has so many other advantages that it has been widely and rapidly adopted.

I'd even argue that CD's really only replaced vinyl not due to sound quality, but due to other factors. No more messing about cleaning records, no more hunting for the right stylus when it wears out, no more jumps and it's a lot smaller and easier to use (especially when you don't want to play the entire album from start to finish). Same with cassettes and all the hassles they came with.

For most consumers, that sound quality is better was simply a bonus of switching to CD - they don't have good enough speakers to get the full sound quality anyway. I'd argue it was convenience and marketing, not audio quality, that saw the mass adoption of CD's.

Give consumers broadband that is mobile at the same price but with 50% lower speed and it will kill wired connections for most users just as CD killed vinyl for all but specialised users. Convenience, marketing etc tends to win out over pure technical performance anyday given that most users won't push the technical limits anyway..

It was the same with Beta (technically superior in just about every way) versus VHS in the 1980's. Same with just about everything - the mass market doesn't automatically adopt the technically superior method unless it also happens to be the most convenient and best marketed.

All that said, some users do have a need for robust communications. A classic example would be that the that the physical part of the NBN that actually exists to date and is in operation was built by and for the use of the electricity industry. That's up and running in Tasmania and has been for quite a while - a need existed and so it was built.

Letting others use it as an alternative to Telstra wasn't hard, if your're going to have a cable then making it bigger doesn't add much to the cost, but getting the "last mile" to the household was always the problem financially. Hence the (unsuccessful) attempts at using existing powerlines for that purpose.

And the NBN will have the same financial problem. Bulk data between major points is the profitable and easy bit, getting it to individual small consumers is the expensive bit. It's comparable to electricity, transport, gas or anything else - the rate you pay at home is several times higher than the delivered cost (including production, transmission / trasport etc) to the sub-station or warehouse that's just a short walk from your door. It's the last mile that costs, and that's because there's no real volume there - lack of scale economies.

As for wireless, my own experience (at work) with it over a large number of geographically dispersed sites is that it's useful but never, ever rely on it for anything that actually matters. Good enough to send emails to your friends but usless at present for controlling critical infrastructure unless it's some situation where communication doesn't need to actually be reliable.

As for the NBN, we'll still need all but the "last mile to the home" of cable for wireless technology so it won't all be wasted. But I can't see it ever being finanically competitive as a means of connecting individual households - "the last mile".

 

[roland]

It'll make hacking easier, less latency = more attempts in a shorter space of time.

 

[marklar]

• Gaming (Massively multi-player)

don't care, don't game

• HD Video telephony

don't care, only talk to people I already know on the phone and I know what they look like

• Multi channel HD TV

meh, the current HD TV content is crap. Who cares if the footy is in high def? it's footy, as long as you can see the ball and the players numbers & colours you don't need to see the beads of sweat dripping off them.

 

[bellenuit]

As for the NBN, we'll still need all but the "last mile to the home" of cable for wireless technology so it won't all be wasted. But I can't see it ever being finanically competitive as a means of connecting individual households - "the last mile".

Isn't that the difference between the proposed NBN and the system they were going out to tender on last year, but subsequently abandoned, wasting $20M or so.

I think the previous plan was called fibre to the node or something like that. If I recall correctly, the price tag on fibre to the node was well under $10B, compared to a (finger in the air) price tag of $42B for fibre to the home.

What a waste if it turns out that fibre to the node is the only useful part of the NBN and the majority use wireless to traverse between node and home.

 

[Trembling Hand]

Isn't that the difference between the proposed NBN and the system they were going out to tender on last year, but subsequently abandoned, wasting $20M or so.

I think the previous plan was called fibre to the node or something like that. If I recall correctly, the price tag on fibre to the node was well under $10B,

It was 4.7 bil which they already had in the future fund & the 2 bill in the existing communications fund from the last bit of Telstra sale.

That flopped because of a whole heap of reason, not just Telstra's fault, and Conroy comes up with this 40-50 billion dollar joke.

And sold it to K.Rudd in a 1 hour flight between cities - farkin amazing our Ministerial government structure!!

 

[Mr J]

• Gaming (Massively multi-player)
• HD Video telephony
• Multi channel HD TV

Speeds are already fast enough to stream HD. Not everyone gets it, but the majority of major urban centres do and access in regional centres will no doubt improve. Those who live out in the sticks, well that's the price they pay for living out there. They get fresh air and the stars, so they can't really complain.