NBN Rollout Scrapped

[sptrawler]

Saying most households won't need fibre is incredibly short-sighted. People said the same thing before the telephone was rolled out everywhere. I'm also certain that 20 years ago, most Australians would have thought they'd never want the internet at all (See this 1995 Newsweek article). Then when 256k ADSL arrived 10 years ago, people thought they could never possibly need more speed than that.... Do you see a pattern?

If I may finish with an appropriate quote from Prof Rod Tucker:

An enduring characteristic of human nature is our inability to understand and accept the rate of technological change and its impact on society.

Yes NBN, I just hope online gaming becomes an olympic sport, we will kick ar$e. That is, if our kids can get off theirs.

 

[NBNMyths]

All I can say, even though I have no expertise in this field, is the following:

"When talking about technology - never say never - as those that do often end up with egg on their face."

Guess I am just a technological optimist.

There's no doubting that technology will improve. But it isn't about technology, it's about physics, and I think Montgomery Scott said it best:

"Ya canna overcome the laws of physics, Cap'n"

In an optical fibre network, the method of transmission is light, and the medium is glass. In a wireless network, the method of transmission is radio and the medium is air.

So we're not really debating wireless v fixed line technologies, but the physical characteristics of shielded glass versus open air and the bandwidth of the light v radio spectrums. It doesn't matter how much you improve the transmission technology, it must still overcome the inherent lossyness, interference etc. of open air, and the smaller size of the radio spectrum.

For a wireless technology to eclipse optical fibre would mean that everything we know about the physics of radio and light must be wrong. A rather unlikely outcome.

I think NBN is right Dutchie, the fastest medium known, that humans can use is the speed of light.
That's why the optical fibre will be the backbone infrastructure for a very long time. Downstream the delivery medium may change i.e wireless, microwave ect.
But the only way to move bulk data at bling speed, is optical.

Speed isn't the issue per se. Radio waves also travel at ~the speed of light.

It is the size of the light spectrum v the radio spectrum, combined with the inherent loss of an unshielded medium that gives fibre a higher capacity.

 

[Smurf1976]

I am sitting in a hotel room right now by myself (travel for work) killing time online.

It took me about a 2 minutes to take the laptop out of the bag, plug the mains power lead in, start it up and get online.

20 years ago anyone who tried setting up a computer with external communications in a hotel room would likely have been thrown out for interfering with the hotel's phone service. The police would probably have been called to, the assumption being some sort of criminal activity (why else would anyone want a computer in a hotel room?)

In defence of the NBN and technology in general, I'd say that there's very few who predicted 20 years ago that there would be virtually no use of 35mm film cameras and that most photos would be taken not with a camera but with a phone, that CD's would have joined vinyl as largely obsolete for music sales and that there would even be such a concept as Facebook. Nor would they have predicted that 18 year old females would be as tied to computers as the stereotypical male geek.

Technology is inherently hard to predict however. People have been predicting a bright future for nuclear power ever since the first commercial power reactor started up back in 1957. Thus far at least, it's been a relative dud. Likewise supersonic flight never really caught on because it was simply too expensive relative to the benefits. And I've been hearing about 3D movies and TV since the 1980's and thus far it has failed to really catch on despite plenty of marketing over the years.

I don't doubt that technology will change radically over the next 20 years just as it has over the past 20. But what I'm not convinced about is that this technology will be tied to a cable. As I said, I'm sitting in a hotel room right now and the only cable connected to the computer is the mains power lead. I didn't even need anyone to help me carry the computer up the steps, and nobody's likely to question what I'm doing or why.

I don't doubt the technical abilities of fibre, it's just the need to run it straight to the device inside the home that I'm questioning given that the general trend does seem to be in the opposite direction with wireless networks etc.

 

[So_Cynical]

Technology is inherently hard to predict however. People have been predicting a bright future for nuclear power ever since the first commercial power reactor started up back in 1957. Thus far at least, it's been a relative dud.

A Relative dud hey.

On June 26, 1954, at Obninsk, Russia, the nuclear power plant APS-1 with a net electrical output of 5 MW was connected to the power grid, the world's first nuclear power plant that generated electricity for commercial use.

As of July 2 2012 in 31 countries 435 nuclear power plant units with an installed electric net capacity of about 370 GW are in operation and 62 plants with an installed capacity of 59 GW are in 14 countries under construction.

From 1 to 435 in less than 60 years...a total dud.

http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/n/nuclear-power-plant-world-wide.htm

Nuclear power plants provided 13.5 percent of the world's electricity production in 2010.

http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/nuclear_statistics/worldstatistics/

On a global scale Nuclear produces only a little less power than Hydro...hardly a dud.

We are less than 60 years into an unlimited future for Nuclear, 30 years into the internet and commercial fibre optics.

 

[Smurf1976]

It is off the topic of this thread, but nuclear energy has indeed been a dud at least in relative terms.

It was promised as "too cheap to meter".

In reality, it's too expensive for most utilities to be interested in unless government steps in. It hasn't lowered the cost of electricity so as to make reticulated gas redundant for running boilers or heating buildings, indeed in most places it hasn't even made gas redundant for generating electricity. Even in France, final energy consumption at the device level is dominated by fossil fuels, not electricity. We're nowhere close to the all-electric, nuclear powered world that was promised.

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be nuclear power, or some form of NBN, but the former has clearly not lived up to the hype. It's nowhere close to being "too cheap to meter".

There's a place for nuclear energy and there's a role for optical fibre communications. The former has a habit of chewing up a lot of taxpayer funds however, and I'm concerned that the latter may well end up doing the same. Both are, in the main, inherently government projects for the simple reason that the private sector sees them as too risky. Try getting finance for either of them, without the backing of government, and see how you go....

I'm not outright against the NBN but it's a worry that there are people who presently can't get any fixed line services simply because they are "in an NBN area" which doesn't yet have the NBN. That's not a good sign in my opinion - how do they plan on connecting millions of homes in Sydney and Melbourne if they're struggling to finish Midway Point (Tas)? Something doesn't seem right with the way this is being carried out...

 

[NBNMyths]

I am sitting in a hotel room right now by myself (travel for work) killing time online.

It took me about a 2 minutes to take the laptop out of the bag, plug the mains power lead in, start it up and get online.
....
I don't doubt that technology will change radically over the next 20 years just as it has over the past 20. But what I'm not convinced about is that this technology will be tied to a cable. As I said, I'm sitting in a hotel room right now and the only cable connected to the computer is the mains power lead. I didn't even need anyone to help me carry the computer up the steps, and nobody's likely to question what I'm doing or why.

I don't doubt the technical abilities of fibre, it's just the need to run it straight to the device inside the home that I'm questioning given that the general trend does seem to be in the opposite direction with wireless networks etc.

The NBN isn't about putting a cable to every device. It's just as much about improving the wireless networks you're (probably) using - WiFi (as opposed to long-range cellular wireless networks that are touted as being an NBN replacement).

WiFi can currently keep up with NBN speeds, so long as there aren't many users on your WiFi network and there aren't too many WiFi networks nearby. It can do this because of its very short range, meaning cellular wireless drawbacks such as obstructions, weather and the lack of spectrum is not much of an issue.

There's absolutely no doubt that WiFi (and soon WiGig) networks will boom in the future, but they require fibre to the premises before they can do so.

 

[sptrawler]

For a wireless technology to eclipse optical fibre would mean that everything we know about the physics of radio and light must be wrong. A rather unlikely outcome.


Speed isn't the issue per se. Radio waves also travel at ~the speed of light.

It is the size of the light spectrum v the radio spectrum, combined with the inherent loss of an unshielded medium that gives fibre a higher capacity.

Isn't that what I said, the optical system will be the backbone, whereas the downstream delivery may be an alternative technology?
I defer to your superior knowledge on the subject, but lets not get over the top.

 

[NBNMyths]

Isn't that what I said, the optical system will be the backbone, whereas the downstream delivery may be an alternative technology?
I defer to your superior knowledge on the subject, but lets not get over the top.

Yes, you are right about that. Just being pedantic about the reason. It's not the speed of the signals, but the capacity that makes the difference.

Think of it as a road. You can do 100km/h down a single lane road or on a freeway. But a freeway can carry 6x as many cars all doing 100km/h.

Radio and light both travel at ~the speed of light. But an the light spectrum can carry 20,000 times more data than the radio spectrum for any given period of time

 

[sptrawler]

Yes, you are right about that. Just being pedantic about the reason. It's not the speed of the signals, but the capacity that makes the difference.

Think of it as a road. You can do 100km/h down a single lane road or on a freeway. But a freeway can carry 6x as many cars all doing 100km/h.

Yes, I agree 100%, just can't see the point of running it out to some of the places I have worked.
Most will still spend the time, down the pub or the park. Ends up being a lot of outlay for sod all benefit.

It all works well in yuppyville, doesn't count for anything in a lot of places. Just wasted money.
To use your analogy, think of it as a freeway that can carry 6x as many cars to somewhere that nobody goes to.

 

[Smurf1976]

The NBN isn't about putting a cable to every device. It's just as much about improving the wireless networks you're (probably) using - WiFi (as opposed to long-range cellular wireless networks that are touted as being an NBN replacement).

Agreed and I do comprehend the "backbone" nature of a fibre network as it relates to WiFi or similar systems.

But if connection to the actual device is going to be wireless anyway (and that's certainly the way it seems to be going) then do we really need to take the cable inside the average house in the first place? Has there been a proper evaluation of options to leave the equipment "out on the street" and communicate to that via wireless?

Putting a cable along a street is one thing. Taking it into every house is sure to add lots of $ - is that really necessary especially if it's not even going to be directly connected to anything other than a wireless router?

Maybe what is proposed really is the best way, but I'm not convinced that there's been a proper analysis done.

 

[NBNMyths]

Agreed and I do comprehend the "backbone" nature of a fibre network as it relates to WiFi or similar systems.

But if connection to the actual device is going to be wireless anyway (and that's certainly the way it seems to be going) then do we really need to take the cable inside the average house in the first place? Has there been a proper evaluation of options to leave the equipment "out on the street" and communicate to that via wireless?

Putting a cable along a street is one thing. Taking it into every house is sure to add lots of $ - is that really necessary especially if it's not even going to be directly connected to anything other than a wireless router?

Maybe what is proposed really is the best way, but I'm not convinced that there's been a proper analysis done.

There are a few issues with a wireless "last mile". WiFi (like all wireless) signals degrade over distance. The further you are from the base station, the worse the signal. In the case of WiFi, that's pretty deliberate. The shorter the range, the more users can use WiFi in the same vicinity. If you increase the range, you reduce the performance.

Having a WiFi base station on the street would deliver poorer service to your devices than having one inside your house. There's a longer distance and more obstructions. It would also make life hard for other WiFi networks in the area, because being out on the street would mean more interference from/to everyone else's networks.

In reality the average house has a mix of wired and wireless devices. Doing a quick count, I have 4 wired devices in my house (Computers, TV, network Printer) and 5 wireless devices (Laptop, Phones, iPad, airport express). By wiring the three big data consumers (the computers and the TV), it improves the performance of the wireless devices (reduced sharing of available bandwidth), and also improves the performance of the wired devices (Less lag + no sharing of bandwidth).

A wired connection will always offer better performance, so it makes sense to wire devices that don't need to be mobile, hence plugging the TV and computer into ethernet, even though both my computer and TV have wireless networking built in.

 

[dutchie]

Wireless or not wireless will be irrelevant.

1. NBN implemented by Labor - say no more.
(Actually will say more - bats, ber, clunkers, etc etc (list is too long))

2. No cost/benefit study. (private industry would be shot for even thinking about spending so much money
without a cost/benefit study).

3. Will go well and truly over budget (double budget if we are lucky).

4. Will go well and truly over roll out time.

 

[pilots]

Wireless or not wireless will be irrelevant.

1. NBN implemented by Labor - say no more.
(Actually will say more - bats, ber, clunkers, etc etc (list is too long))

2. No cost/benefit study. (private industry would be shot for even thinking about spending so much money
without a cost/benefit study).

3. Will go well and truly over budget (double budget if we are lucky).

4. Will go well and truly over roll out time.

5. A lot of people will make a load of money giving us some thing we DON'T need.

 

[NBNMyths]

5. A lot of people will make a load of money giving us some thing we DON'T need.

Speak for yourself. If you don't want it, don't connect. Simple.

 

[MrBurns]

Speak for yourself. If you don't want it, don't connect. Simple.

Fine dont use my taxes to pay for it then

 

[NBNMyths]

Fine dont use my taxes to pay for it then

They're not using your taxes.

The Government equity to the NBN is being funded from the issue of Government bonds, not from taxation revenue. The bonds (including the interest paid on them) will be repaid from network revenue, not from taxation dollars.

Therefore, it is the users of the NBN that will pay for it. If you don't connect, you won't contribute. Users who connect at the higher speeds, such as businesses, contribute far more than home users.


All that said, even if it were funded from tax dollars and generated zero revenue, the cost of the NBN is tiny when compared to other government expenditure. Over the same period we spend $27bn on the NBN, we'll spend $1.2Trillion on public health, $500bn on public education, $500bn on transport and $250bn on defence. The average yearly Govt investment in the NBN of $3bn represents about 1% of federal taxation revenue.

BTW, on a per-capita basis, the NBN costs less than the Govt spent to roll out the copper network.

Finally, the NBN has been policy for the last two elections and therefore has a mandate. Additionally, every poll ever taken on the topic shows that more Australians support the project than oppose it:
http://www.essentialmedia.com.au/opinion-of-nbn/
http://www.essentialmedia.com.au/opinion-of-nbn-2/
http://www.essentialmedia.com.au/opinion-of-nbn-3/
http://cci.edu.au/sites/default/files/sewing/CCi Digital Futures 2010 1.pdf

 

[MrBurns]

They're not using your taxes.

The Government equity to the NBN is being funded from the issue of Government bonds, not from taxation revenue. The bonds (including the interest paid on them) will be repaid from network revenue, not from taxation dollars.

Therefore, it is the users of the NBN that will pay for it. If you don't connect, you won't contribute. Users who connect at the higher speeds, such as businesses, contribute far more than home users.


All that said, even if it were funded from tax dollars and generated zero revenue, the cost of the NBN is tiny when compared to other government expenditure. Over the same period we spend $27bn on the NBN, we'll spend $1.2Trillion on public health, $500bn on public education, $500bn on transport and $250bn on defence. The average yearly Govt investment in the NBN of $3bn represents about 1% of federal taxation revenue.

BTW, on a per-capita basis, the NBN costs less than the Govt spent to roll out the copper network.

Finally, the NBN has been policy for the last two elections and therefore has a mandate. Additionally, every poll ever taken on the topic shows that more Australians support the project than oppose it:
http://www.essentialmedia.com.au/opinion-of-nbn/
http://www.essentialmedia.com.au/opinion-of-nbn-2/
http://www.essentialmedia.com.au/opinion-of-nbn-3/
http://cci.edu.au/sites/default/files/sewing/CCi Digital Futures 2010 1.pdf

And if people dont take it up the money will come from taxes, after it all falls in a hole, we will pay, I dont get connected till 2014 the whole thing is just another Gillard "reforming Govt" jaunt.

You cant compare this to the health budget, get real.....

Good to see you earning your kickbacks from trolling for Gillards waste machine.

 

[Calliope]

Finally, the NBN has been policy for the last two elections and therefore has a mandate. Additionally, every poll ever taken on the topic shows that more Australians support the project than oppose it

Actually it is only the majority of Labor and Green supporters. Of course they would like to have the choice of a faster broadband service. They would also vote in favour faster services in every field, if asked.

The polls that you are continually throwing up are irrelevant.

 

[NBNMyths]

And if people dont take it up the money will come from taxes, after it all falls in a hole, we will pay, I dont get connected till 2014 the whole thing is just another Gillard "reforming Govt" jaunt.

You cant compare this to the health budget, get real.....

Good to see you earning your kickbacks from trolling for Gillards waste machine.

People will take it up. Takeup is already over 30% in some areas, after only being available for ~9 months. At this stage, forecast takeup was only about 12%.

The takeup of ADSL was only 3% after 18 months, and the takeup of Optus HFC cable is ~20% after 10 years in areas where it's available.

On top of that, 18 months after the fibre rolls through, the copper will be switched off and customers migrated across to the NBN by their ISPs. So unless you want to pay 10x more and get a wireless service instead, then takeup is essentially guaranteed.

I can compare it to anything I like.

I receive no pay, benefit or inducement of any kind for my opinion of the NBN, and I have no link of any kind to the NBN or anything related to it.

I have no idea when I'll be connected, unfortunately. In all likelihood it won;t be until 2030, because Turnbull will scale back to (already obsolete) FTTN after the next election, and it won't be until 2020 before people realise we've been completely left behind by the rest of the World, and we have to start rolling it out again.

Actually it is only the majority of Labor and Green supporters. Of course they would like to have the choice of a faster broadband service. They would also vote in favour faster services in every field, if asked.

The polls that you are continually throwing up are irrelevant.

While over 50% of labor/green voters support it, even amongst coalition supporters the supporters and opposers are evenly split, and it becomes more popular with them each poll.

Just look at the Kiama Downs trial site. Blue ribbon Liberal area, and the highest NBN takeup of anywhere in the country at 40% already.

Overall, amongst all Australians, many more people support the NBN than oppose it. I don't know how you think that is irrelevant.

 

[MrBurns]

I receive no pay, benefit or inducement of any kind for my opinion of the NBN, and I have no link of any kind to the NBN or anything related to it.

I cant think of any other reason someone would set up a specific and comprehensive blog on the subject and spend hours refuting every negative comment about it on ASF