National Broadband Network
- Thread starter Aussiejeff
- Start date
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/nbn-to-announce-huge-increase-in-speed-20100811-11zqj.html
As you can see fibre is fully upgradable, its not the cable that needs to be altered and speeds of 1/Terabyte have been achieved in labs.
To answer your question the biggest problem with wireless is its a shared medium, to maintain a consistent speed in high traffic we would need that many towers we would practically be living in a microwave. That and the technology isn't in place to bring wireless up to par with fibre and I doubt ever will be.
- Joined
- 21 June 2009
- Posts
- 5,880
- Reactions
- 14
Thanks newbie trader, moxJO and overhang for the explanation.
Isn't there already a fibre optic cable circling the whole of Australia already? I have a vague recollection about 10 years ago of one being laid? I am unsure as to who actually owns it?
I know there is one as there are several places in WA where right out in the middle of nowhere there are signs saying "DO NOT DIG ! Fibre optic cable below"
Isn't there already a fibre optic cable circling the whole of Australia already? I have a vague recollection about 10 years ago of one being laid? I am unsure as to who actually owns it?
I know there is one as there are several places in WA where right out in the middle of nowhere there are signs saying "DO NOT DIG ! Fibre optic cable below"
- Joined
- 12 September 2004
- Posts
- 1,714
- Reactions
- 1
There's trunk cable between major metropolitan centres, sometimes with a surprising lack of redundancy. Oct 08 "Trevor in his backhoe" cuts through a fibre-Optic cable, and large parts of Qld were left without Optus service (including a huge swathe of metro Brisbane).Isn't there already a fibre optic cable circling the whole of Australia already? I have a vague recollection about 10 years ago of one being laid? I am unsure as to who actually owns it?
I know there is one as there are several places in WA where right out in the middle of nowhere there are signs saying "DO NOT DIG ! Fibre optic cable below"
Fibre to the home does have the potential to be a game changer in terms of future communications - within a generation we may be talking about the strange old days of needing antennas for TV reception, having to go to a store to rent movies and waiting for internet pages to load when simply downloading documents.
Potentially freeing up spectrum for other uses would be an added bonus.
- Joined
- 21 June 2009
- Posts
- 5,880
- Reactions
- 14
Amazing bit of journalism in The West Australian today by Murrray Stevens asking WHY the NBN in Australia is costing us $2000 per person when similar conduits have cost other countries a lot less. Korea is only $25 per head? Admitteldy there are a lot more Koreans than Australians. Apparently most of it was privately funded. Also points out that a lot of schools and hospitals already have high speed internet etc so why duplicate? Went on to say that that the cost went from 6 billion to 25 billion now 43 billion but is sceptical of this being a capped price ? Great that you are going to get these radical speeds BUT YOU WILL PAY FOR IT THROUGH THE NOSE !
Hmmmmmmm ... how may hospitals and schools or roads could be built for this kind of money ? All to deliver us what again? Faster pr0n? Quicker ASF ? Shiny baubles for the punters again.
Hmmmmmmm ... how may hospitals and schools or roads could be built for this kind of money ? All to deliver us what again? Faster pr0n? Quicker ASF ? Shiny baubles for the punters again.
- Joined
- 18 September 2008
- Posts
- 4,041
- Reactions
- 1,185
The figure is staggering. $43B divided by 21.5M people. That's $2K per head. If we assume an average household of 2.5 that becomes $5K per household. Cut out all the households that pay little or no tax (unemployed, pensioners etc.) and you are probably close to $10K per tax paying household. And if we assume the average household taxable income of tax paying households is just under $80K, $10K is more than half the total tax take ($17,550) of the tax paid by that household if it has only one tax payer. It would be a bigger fraction if the $80K is spread over multiple tax payers in the household. I know it won't be in the same year, but it puts a dimension to the sums involved.
Of course that is just the cost side, the income side of the NBN will reduce that.
But no matter what the cost is, they are trying to sell it on things like educational and medical facilities it will make available. The kids who aren't paying attention in the oversized classrooms today still won't pay attention no matter what gee whiz thing is on their computers. Having access to the world's knowledge of medicine in your bedroom isn't going to be of any use if there isn't a doctor or nurse there to administer or make sense of it.
The same amount of money spent on schoolteachers and nurses would probably create many more jobs as that being touted by the NBN advocates for the NBN rollout.
I am all for fast internet, but the market will deliver what is required to those willing to pay.
IFocus
You are arguing with a Galah
- Joined
- 8 September 2006
- Posts
- 7,650
- Reactions
- 4,722
Just on the health thing you would have devices stuck to you to monitor vital signs plus back to a facility so you could stay at home rather than clogging up hospitals. Real time voice / video would allow for remote analysis
Plug your car in for diagnostics rather than go to a service center.
With video / voice real time stay home rather than commute for a large percentage of city workers either increase efficiency or spend more time with the family.
List is endless
For critical infrastructure involving the county's future its not a market environment or business based proposal. An example would be the highway that links Perth to the north of the state it was build long before all the mining / oil and gas booms. Those that say wait because there is better tech
around the corner will never build any thing because there will always be some thing better just around the corner.
So_Cynical
The Contrarian Averager
- Joined
- 31 August 2007
- Posts
- 7,467
- Reactions
- 1,469
Australia land area = 7,617,930 square kilometers - population of 22 million.
Sth Korea land area = 99,392 square kilometers - population of 50 million.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korea
Australia has 77 X the land area of South Korea with less than half the population, and you 2 don't get how the price is 80 X more than the Koreans paid.
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,296
- Reactions
- 17,526
1. Connection is voluntary at this stage. Free if you do it when the line is put in your area but it costs if you do it later.
That said, it has been well publicised that the State Government is seriously considering making connection compulsory.
I suspect the project has more political significance in Tasmania than elsewhere. As has been noted, an IT-driven economy would bring about the first real economic direction for the state since hydro-industrialisation (yes that's a real word, at least in Tas) ran aground amidst a blaze of environmental controversy a generation ago.
After a third of a century arguing about rivers and trees, we might finally have a real way forward economically that doesn't involve protests, arrests and those ubiquitous green (originally yellow) triangles appearing everywhere. Nobody in state politics is likely to stand in the way of that.
Even the Liberal leader in Tas hasn't actually criticised the project. Nor has he sided with his Federal colleagues with their alternative plan. Meanwhile we have a Premier who just happened to be an IT guru in his last job...
2. Overall set-up fees from at least one ISP add up to around $600. They seem willing to waive this for early adopters however.
Plans range $50 to over $150 per month depending on speed. Cheapest plan I've seen at full speed was about $130 per month.
I'm not in the service area, though I did have personal involvement with some of the early cable installation (prior to the NBN existing when it was being done by the electricity industry as a purely Tasmanian project).
I don't recall the details, I'm not overly knowledgeable on fibre, but my understanding is that the cable we were installing was the largest in Australia at the time. That may not be correct, but it was the general understanding of those doing the work and it's certainly a larger physical size than any fibre cable I've seen before.
One ISP's plan is here. http://www.iinet.net.au/nbn/index.html
- Joined
- 18 September 2008
- Posts
- 4,041
- Reactions
- 1,185
Yes. And probably all of that can be done with today's broadband speeds and certainly with the speeds that will be available as we go forward. It is the provision of the services (which NBN doesn't do in any case) not the network in between that is the reason we don't have these at the moment. In any case, everything else doesn't stop where it is today, with just NBN the only thing progressing.
It is primarily private enterprise that brought the internet and computing to where it is today. I know the internet was originally a US government developed network for the military, but it is when private enterprise got involved that it grew to what it is today. Computer technology, which goes hand in hand with the internet, is almost exclusively the result of private enterprise.
I am in no doubt that NBN offers great technology. But it is a massive cost and is the government betting on one technology. And remember that the network is only part of the puzzle. The other components that are part of the picture that the government is selling - the services that will be available - these will primarily come from private enterprise. Why say private enterprise will come to the party on one aspect, but not on the other.
It is not a similar comparison to building a road up to WA's north west. No one else but the government would have done that. But there are many players wanting to play in the roll out of broadband. Let them take the risks and fly and fall on their success. In fact to try and make the NBN successful, the government is deliberately restricting Telstra from competing against it.
Suggestions that private enterprise will only cater for the low flying apples and that if left to their own devices the bush and poorer areas will be ignored is true. But that can be solved by subsidising the roll out to those areas by private enterprises. If subsidies can make it profitable for it to be done by PI, it will be done. This would likely prove a lot cheaper than the government itself trying to service these areas.
Think what the situation is going to be with the government in charge of deploying the network. Is pork barrelling suddenly going to stop? Why should they be any more efficient than for the insulation roll out or the BER? What about the eventual privatisation of NBNCO. Do you think the mom and dads will touch it following the Telstra fiasco?
- Joined
- 2 July 2008
- Posts
- 7,102
- Reactions
- 6
Thanks Bellenuit, for an excellent appraisal of of what the NBN will accomplish at massive cost, compared to what private enterprise can do at much less cost to the taxpayer. When you consider that the majority do not need high speed broadband it is a massive overkill. But then, of course, no cost/benefit analysis has been done.
If there is a need for something, then private enterprise will supply it. And, as you say, where it is not profitable, then taxpayer subsidies could apply.
If there is a need for something, then private enterprise will supply it. And, as you say, where it is not profitable, then taxpayer subsidies could apply.
Julia
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
Thanks to both Smurf and Bellenuit for useful info.
When things are said like a majority of schools etc. already have fibre it includes Sydney and other major metro areas. I know in my area in NW Tas more than half have no access to fibre - too expensive to install and too distant to get to any backbone that is not Telstra. Then you have Telstra's costs. Telstra doesn't use costs etc. to drive prices but competition.
NBN boss did a survey of Hobart businesses and surprised by the low fibre penetration. No surprise. No reasonable competition - Telstra until recently had the only submarine cable connecting Tasmania to the big island. Very expensive to deploy fibre. Town planning doesn't forward plan for new services. So retrospective installing is expensive like what happened recently with gas rollout.
Telstra was looking at developing FTTH network. Why did they stop? Access requirements and profit margin.
People are too preoccupied with the headline figure. Unemployed people, pensioners etc. do pay taxes and not only GST (GST doesn't fact in to this anyway as that goes to states.) Labor's mistake is saying they will sell it. Governments can plan infrastructure for longer term funding. People will gain employment to use the NBN. They will pay income tax. Opens new markets to explore.
Remember fibre is the backbone to telecoms. Once the physical lines are inplace the upgrades can be done without touching the fibre itself.
Wireless services like 3G etc. are expensive. They have the same issue as cable nodes - shared. Spectrum that will be used is finite.
NBN has planned for some redundancy.
Tasmania build so far has come at 10% under budget. If they continues and replicated elsewhere then you have $4.3 billion saved. That is before access to Telstra infrastucture is used so potentially more could be saved. Telstra will get some build contracts (has at least one already) and they have good experience.
Give people a medium to exploit and they will.
While much has been said of 100 mbit costs the ISPs can and will (and do) sell slower and cheaper access.
Someone mentioned how South Korea deployed it at a cheaper cost to Australia per citizen, Japanese model used private companies with government subsidies/grants with conditions. I'm curious to know if the governments have considered the same mechanism using Telstra. Perhaps Telstra could have tried to sell such a plan to the governments. It would have been a good way to save many Telstra workers their jobs.
NBN boss did a survey of Hobart businesses and surprised by the low fibre penetration. No surprise. No reasonable competition - Telstra until recently had the only submarine cable connecting Tasmania to the big island. Very expensive to deploy fibre. Town planning doesn't forward plan for new services. So retrospective installing is expensive like what happened recently with gas rollout.
Telstra was looking at developing FTTH network. Why did they stop? Access requirements and profit margin.
People are too preoccupied with the headline figure. Unemployed people, pensioners etc. do pay taxes and not only GST (GST doesn't fact in to this anyway as that goes to states.) Labor's mistake is saying they will sell it. Governments can plan infrastructure for longer term funding. People will gain employment to use the NBN. They will pay income tax. Opens new markets to explore.
Remember fibre is the backbone to telecoms. Once the physical lines are inplace the upgrades can be done without touching the fibre itself.
Wireless services like 3G etc. are expensive. They have the same issue as cable nodes - shared. Spectrum that will be used is finite.
NBN has planned for some redundancy.
Tasmania build so far has come at 10% under budget. If they continues and replicated elsewhere then you have $4.3 billion saved. That is before access to Telstra infrastucture is used so potentially more could be saved. Telstra will get some build contracts (has at least one already) and they have good experience.
Give people a medium to exploit and they will.
While much has been said of 100 mbit costs the ISPs can and will (and do) sell slower and cheaper access.
Someone mentioned how South Korea deployed it at a cheaper cost to Australia per citizen, Japanese model used private companies with government subsidies/grants with conditions. I'm curious to know if the governments have considered the same mechanism using Telstra. Perhaps Telstra could have tried to sell such a plan to the governments. It would have been a good way to save many Telstra workers their jobs.
What an interesting thread, but for me there a couple points being missed.
First lets remove the preprogrammed hate mailers who attack the politicians. For the most part our politicians are all working hard on things they think are important albeit from a couple different perspectives. Thankless job. Leave the hate out of it.
The two questions for me are this.
1 Where is the cut off point between private and public involvement in infrastructure. Running down my street is an optus cable and telstra cable. There is not a person on earth that will convince me this is smart. Fortunately I only have one set of electrical wires, one water pipe and one sewer system.
The cut off to me is where the community good is a higher priority than someone making a profit out of it, or where little competition exists. Many of the current infra structure that already exists does not run at a profit and it does not need to. It is there for the community good. Try living in a place where you **** in the gutter out the front and see if the idea is more desirable.
As many have pointed out about public assets being privatised. The problem with that it changes the goal from customer service to making a profit. The first thing that happens is the assets are maintained at minimum levels instead of best practice. ( or at least very good standard). Then the service goes to pot.
2 The other area of concern is why our governments seem to have no courage or will to build long term infra structure. If it can not be done in three years, it wont be done. I find that scary.
Think about the big projects that have been done. Snowy Mountains Scheme and of course the Sydney Harbour bridge are two outstanding examples. Both very long term benefits for the country.And given that a road tunnel of a couple of KLms in brisbane is 4.5b. I think the sugestion that the SMS could be done today for 6b is nonsense.
However, look at the last twenty years. Not much on offer. Hawk and Keating did nothing and the golden years of Howard and Costello are no better. Maybe the Sydney Harbour Tunnel will get a gong but a two lanes either way its already peaked for growth.
So where is our high speed train, National High speed freeway, Long term Agricultural plan, etc.
At least the NBN is offering future capacity. As for the cost someone on here said it was 2K a head. Well you already spend 3 times that a year on social/ medical services now.
So bring on more long term projects and dont be scared to borrow to fund them ! Stp this short term rubbish.
First lets remove the preprogrammed hate mailers who attack the politicians. For the most part our politicians are all working hard on things they think are important albeit from a couple different perspectives. Thankless job. Leave the hate out of it.
The two questions for me are this.
1 Where is the cut off point between private and public involvement in infrastructure. Running down my street is an optus cable and telstra cable. There is not a person on earth that will convince me this is smart. Fortunately I only have one set of electrical wires, one water pipe and one sewer system.
The cut off to me is where the community good is a higher priority than someone making a profit out of it, or where little competition exists. Many of the current infra structure that already exists does not run at a profit and it does not need to. It is there for the community good. Try living in a place where you **** in the gutter out the front and see if the idea is more desirable.
As many have pointed out about public assets being privatised. The problem with that it changes the goal from customer service to making a profit. The first thing that happens is the assets are maintained at minimum levels instead of best practice. ( or at least very good standard). Then the service goes to pot.
2 The other area of concern is why our governments seem to have no courage or will to build long term infra structure. If it can not be done in three years, it wont be done. I find that scary.
Think about the big projects that have been done. Snowy Mountains Scheme and of course the Sydney Harbour bridge are two outstanding examples. Both very long term benefits for the country.And given that a road tunnel of a couple of KLms in brisbane is 4.5b. I think the sugestion that the SMS could be done today for 6b is nonsense.
However, look at the last twenty years. Not much on offer. Hawk and Keating did nothing and the golden years of Howard and Costello are no better. Maybe the Sydney Harbour Tunnel will get a gong but a two lanes either way its already peaked for growth.
So where is our high speed train, National High speed freeway, Long term Agricultural plan, etc.
At least the NBN is offering future capacity. As for the cost someone on here said it was 2K a head. Well you already spend 3 times that a year on social/ medical services now.
So bring on more long term projects and dont be scared to borrow to fund them ! Stp this short term rubbish.
IFocus
You are arguing with a Galah
- Joined
- 8 September 2006
- Posts
- 7,650
- Reactions
- 4,722
C. Y. O'Connor and his infrastructure projects in WA late 1800's are a great example of the difficulty these things face against small minded critics who have never built any thing.
All of his stuff is still used today
Fremantle Harbour[
Critics wrong
Gold Fields water supply Perth to Kalgoorlie pipe line
Critics wrong the pipe line has supported countless mining booms in the area.
The link is worth a read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._Y._O'Connor
- Joined
- 21 June 2009
- Posts
- 5,880
- Reactions
- 14
Australia land area = 7,617,930 square kilometers - population of 22 million.
Sth Korea land area = 99,392 square kilometers - population of 50 million.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korea
Australia has 77 X the land area of South Korea with less than half the population, and you 2 don't get how the price is 80 X more than the Koreans paid.
GOSH So_Cynical you really are not quite with it some days are you? What part of this do you fail to comprehend "Admitteldy there are a lot more Koreans than Australians. Apparently most of it was privately funded"
Also have you bothered to even think that Australians are located on the finge coast and not densely populated across the whole of Australia?? HUH? So therefore the land mass is irrelevant as we actually only occupy less than 7% of total area ??? HUH ?? yes yes yes they will have to drag a cable from one side of Oz to the other but but but there ALREADY is one. HUH?
Or what about if there are 50 MILLION Koreans then there would be a sheet load more connections thus more cable etc?
Moreover it was an article in a newspaper I was referring to.
Sheeeeeeeeesh .....
Anyone worried that there is no business plan for this thing by the way? Just build it and they will come? No numbercrunching as to who is actually going to use it either.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ess-plan-for-nbn/story-fn558imw-1225904657189
Great examples Ifocus. Once again examples of a bygone era of courage and will that made this country what it is today. Precious little on the horizon unfortunately
- Joined
- 21 June 2009
- Posts
- 5,880
- Reactions
- 14
No problem with what C Y Oconnor achieved either. ESSENTIAL infrastructure this was required.
Why do we need to have an NBN when our hospitals, roads, police, basic infrastructure lies in tatters ?? GREAT we got a really fast internet. We already have high speed internet. I am using it right now on a boat in the middle of the harbour. Whoopppeeeee ! About as useful as a fish to a bicycle when the motor don't go.
So_Cynical
The Contrarian Averager
- Joined
- 31 August 2007
- Posts
- 7,467
- Reactions
- 1,469
LOL Tranny...your sounding like a typical city centric Australian
don't you have something to do with a pearl farm? .. anyway one of the reasons why its so expensive here is joining all the country dots, regional centres far from the coast (see map)I would think it works a bit like mining in that the higher the density of people/mineral then the more cost effective it is to connect/remove it.
The previous numbers for take up of new technology both here and o/s means that without a doubt the demand is there.
http://www.nbnco.com.au/content/upload/Coverage - Australia.pdf
~
