NBN Rollout Scrapped

[sptrawler]

I always used to think that a few Tasmanian politicians pushed the limits somewhat with their apparent knowledge of all things electric.

But never, ever did I expect to hear senior federal politicians talking about pits, conduit and cable. Never thought I'd hear that, ever. It just sounds too detailed really, and somewhat strange that we've come to this point. I guess that's what happens in a country where real technical knowledge and skills haven't been valued for a generation.

LOL, that's priceless, just warms the cockles.

 

[drsmith]

I always used to think that a few Tasmanian politicians pushed the limits somewhat with their apparent knowledge of all things electric.

But never, ever did I expect to hear senior federal politicians talking about pits, conduit and cable. Never thought I'd hear that, ever. It just sounds too detailed really, and somewhat strange that we've come to this point. I guess that's what happens in a country where real technical knowledge and skills haven't been valued for a generation.

I suspect the commentary MT has provided would be based from briefing material. It's accuracy would firstly be related to the quality of that briefing material and then obviously to any political spin that he adds.

On another front, it looks like Stephen Conroy hasn't been able to hoist the red underpants high enough in some trees.

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has conceded the national broadband network’s wireless rollout has been slower than expected, blaming tall trees and reticent councils for the delays.

http://www.afr.com/p/technology/trees_and_councils_slowing_nbn_wireless_2piSOSxUEjVhogO1Al6siN

 

[NBNMyths]

I wonder where all the "white elephant", "nobody want's it", "NBN takeup is pathetic" people are now?

....And I also wonder why the current takeup rates -which are by far the highest anywhere in the World- haven't made it into the mainstream media....

http://www.itnews.com.au/News/345123,nbn-cos-take-up-rates-soar.aspx/0
http://www.zdnet.com/au/nbn-maintains-rollout-forecast-shows-increase-in-up-take-rates-7000016156/

On average, NBN takeup is 1000-2000% higher than the takeup of ADSL in Australia 10 years ago.

Every NBN area that's been online for >12 months has exceeded the takeup rate of cable broadband in Australia (about 22% where available) after >10 years of availability.

After 2 years on line, some NBN areas have achieved over double the takeup rate of the 5-year-old US Verizon FiOS network.


That white elephant appears to be turning grey.

 

[IFocus]

I suspect the commentary MT has provided would be based from briefing material. It's accuracy would firstly be related to the quality of that briefing material and then obviously to any political spin that he adds.



http://www.afr.com/p/technology/trees_and_councils_slowing_nbn_wireless_2piSOSxUEjVhogO1Al6siN

Cannot wait for Coalition ministers taking responsibility for every issue a tradesman / tech screws up in their portfolios.

 

[Julia]

Cannot wait for Coalition ministers taking responsibility for every issue a tradesman / tech screws up in their portfolios.

A very reasonable point. It's so easy to criticise from opposition.
Likewise, if the boats continue to pour in after the Coalition takes office, we can only begin to imagine the squirming. Let's hope the Coalition actually has a real plan. We will see, I guess.

 

[drsmith]

That white elephant appears to be turning grey.

Grey and blue in recent weeks.

It might be black and blue by the time the dust has settled.

 

[drsmith]

Cannot wait for Coalition ministers taking responsibility for every issue a tradesman / tech screws up in their portfolios.

Can't wait for Labor to take responsibility for all their screw ups.

99 days to go. :

 

[drsmith]

Some interesting insights on the asbestos issue from the AFR,

http://www.afr.com/p/national/telstra_cops_it_hard_for_nbn_wP1fHwrAOhkTmmp2Rkj6pI

The following article from The Australian on the rollout itself is also an interesting read,

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-big-drag-on-nbn/story-e6frgd0x-1226658953643

 

[bigdog]

Looks like is should be changed

Statement from the Obama White House released yesterday on the way Americans are flocking to wireless broadband

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...rovides-another-boost-wireless-broadband-and-

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
June 14, 2013
Fact Sheet: Administration Provides Another Boost to Wireless Broadband and Technological Innovation

The President today announced several new Administration initiatives to bolster American leadership in wireless broadband and technological innovation, leveraging the latest advances in the wireless sector to accelerate job creation. These new initiatives are the latest in a series of actions the Administration has taken over the past four years to ensure American businesses and workers have the infrastructure they need to compete in the 21st century economy. Also, the White House released a report, Four Years of Broadband Growth, showing the vast progress we have made towards expanding broadband access in recent years, thanks, in part, to those actions. The report’s findings include that:

■ Since 2009, the percentage of American homes reached by high-speed broadband networks have more than quadrupled (from less than 20% to more than 80%) and average broadband speeds have doubled.
■ Between 2000 and 2010, the percentage of American households with a home connection to broadband has surged from 4.4% to 67%.
■ Annual investment in U.S. wireless networks grew more than 40% between 2009 and 2012, from $21 billion to $30 billion.

Today’s initiatives include a Presidential Memorandum directing Federal agencies to enhance the efficiency of their use of spectrum and make more capacity available to satisfy the skyrocketing demand of consumer and business broadband users. The Memorandum directs agencies to increase their collaboration and data-sharing with the private sector, so a full range of stakeholders can contribute its collective expertise to maximizing spectrum efficiency, including through greater sharing of spectrum between Government and commercial users. These efforts will provide access to more spectrum for wireless broadband providers and equipment vendors as they respond to increasingly rapid consumer adoption of smartphones, tablets, and other wireless devices.

The Memorandum also calls upon Federal agencies to increase public-private research and development (R&D) activities, emphasize spectrum efficiency in Government system procurements and spectrum assignments, and improve the accuracy and scope of their reporting on spectrum usage. It empowers a White House-based Spectrum Policy Team to oversee implementation of the Memorandum and make further recommendations. At the same time, the Memorandum requires appropriate safeguards to protect Government systems that rely on spectrum to keep Americans safe.

These actions build on the executive action the President took last week by launching ConnectED, a program that will build high-speed digital connections to America’s schools and libraries, ensuring that 99 percent of American students can benefit from advances in teaching and learning. The Administration will continue to take action and build on our multi-faceted wireless agenda that is helping American innovators and entrepreneurs unleash productivity in all sectors of the economy and society while introducing an avalanche of apps and services for the convenience and benefit of consumers.

Other aspects of today’s announcements include:

Federal investments of $100 million in spectrum sharing and advanced communications: By September, the National Science Foundation will award $23 million in spectrum-sharing research and development (R&D) grants and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency will announce the first of an expected $60 million in spectrum-sharing contracts to be awarded over the next five years. In FY ’14, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) at the Department of Commerce will devote another $17.5 million towards spectrum and advanced communications research as well as accelerate public-private collaboration at Federal laboratories.

Technology Day: NTIA and NIST announced plans to co-host a Spectrum Technology Day to showcase advances in spectrum sharing and other innovations aimed at satisfying the Nation’s surging demand for wireless services and applications.

Background

A combination of American entrepreneurship and innovation, private investment, and smart policy has vaulted the United States to a position of global leadership in wireless broadband technologies. Annual investment in U.S. wireless networks grew more than 40% between 2009 and 2012, to $30 billion from $21 billion, and is projected to rise to $35 billion in 2013. The U.S. wireless broadband industry contributes more than $150 billion in GDP annually; the United States is home to most of the world’s subscribers to cutting-edge 4G wireless service; U.S. companies dominate the market for smartphone operating systems and produce about a quarter of all smartphones; and two U.S. companies are responsible for more than 80% of mobile application downloads. Continuing demand for wireless apps and services creates the opportunity for a virtuous cycle of greater productivity and innovation, but only if we make available sufficient spectrum to fuel that cycle.

Today’s announcements follow on a string of Administration initiatives and commitments to promote American leadership in wireless innovation:

■ In a June 28, 2010 memorandum, Unleashing the Wireless Broadband Revolution, the President directed NTIA to work with the FCC to repurpose 500 MHz of Federal and nonfederal spectrum to wireless broadband use within 10 years. Based on NTIA’s recommendations, the FCC could repurpose up to 335 MHz of federally assigned spectrum in the next couple of years.

■ In his January 2011 State of the Union address, the President committed to making cutting-edge 4G wireless broadband service available to 98% of Americans by 2016, a goal the Administration is on track to meet.

■ In the American Jobs Act, the Administration proposed an array of spectrum-related provisions, the substance of which was enacted as part of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. That legislation expanded the authority of the FCC to auction particular bands of spectrum to wireless broadband providers, including spectrum voluntarily relinquished by TV broadcasters via a reverse auction. The law also authorized the FCC to allocate more spectrum for innovative unlicensed uses, such as wi-fi, which is absorbing an increasing share of wireless data traffic and thus easing the crunch faced by commercial wireless providers. Further, the law established FirstNet, an independent authority within NTIA empowered to design and deploy””in collaboration with state, local, and tribal authorities””a nationwide interoperable wireless broadband network for first responders. FirstNet is directed to partner with the private sector to maximize the efficient and shared use of spectrum and infrastructure.

Today’s actions will create opportunities for more efficient and innovative approaches to spectrum policy in line with the recommendations made in a July 2012 report from the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology (PCAST), Realizing the Full Potential of Government-Held Spectrum to Spur Economic Growth and a new report from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and National Economic Council, Four Years of Broadband Growth, released today.

6823

 

[NBNMyths]

Looks like is should be changed

Statement from the Obama White House released yesterday on the way Americans are flocking to wireless broadband

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...rovides-another-boost-wireless-broadband-and-

snip

Just as here, wireless broadband in the US is complementary to fixed broadband. Wireless is great for low volume convenience use, but it cannot provide the bandwidth required for a high number of users downloading large files such as video.

There is not a single country in the World, including the US, where wireless broadband is proposed to replace urban fixed broadband.

The laws of physics simply prevent this from being possible. A single strand of optical fibre can carry 20,000 times more data than their entire radio spectrum combined, let alone the tiny portion of spectrum available for mobile broadband usage.

To illustrate the differing usage, here is the current data volume usage in Australia. According to the Cisco reports, this trend is typical worldwide:

 

[Smurf1976]

I understand the point NBNMyths is making about data volume on fixed versus wireless although I question the actual figures.

Looking at my own circumstances, going back 5 years very few people had anything resembling a "smart" phone. A phone was still used primarily to make calls and send texts. Sure, a few people employed in IT or in certain office-based professions had a BlackBerry but they were never a mainstream product used by the masses.

Now in 2013 smart phones are pretty much everywhere, to the point that it is generally assumed that a mobile phone is a "smart" one. Tablets are also increasingly common too.

Meanwhile, there has been a massive deployment of 3G / 4G communications devices across all sorts of industries. Everything from monitoring weather to controlling electronic road signs is going this way and the vast majority of those installations have been installed within the past 5 years, indeed the roll-out of such things is still in progress. Where once it would have been communicated by radio or fixed line, now there's just no point bothering with that if it's in a location where 3G is available.

4 years ago people took video at outdoor concerts, festivals and the like and uploaded it when they got home. Now they do it whilst they're still at the festival and the band is still playing. That's just one of the many things which are now using 3G / 4G data.

In short, I find it hard to believe that 3G/4G data volumes are trending flat to down. Agreed that there's still a need for fixed broadband, but I find those 3G / 4G figures hard to believe given what I see going on in my day to day life.

 

[drsmith]

What could be happening is that the number of plans involving mobile data could be rising much more quickly than the number of fixed line internet plans.

If that's the case, it could explain why data usage per mobile account is constant, but that would not necessarily be reflective of the overall trend in mobile data usage.

 

[sydboy007]

In short, I find it hard to believe that 3G/4G data volumes are trending flat to down. Agreed that there's still a need for fixed broadband, but I find those 3G / 4G figures hard to believe given what I see going on in my day to day life.

I think the problem with wireless internet stats is pretty much anyone on a mobile plan these days is included to have wireless internet connection as well.

I have 2GB limit with my plan each month, and only if I really try to use it do I get up to something like 500MB in a month.

Compare that to my house where 2 of the residents are streaming their Thai TV shows every day, and I'm watching a lot of streaming video, and we quite easily get through around 150GB of data in a month.

I'd say the majority of people who are wireless only for their internet are so because;

They have no choice
They don't really do much to warrant the cost of fixed line internet access
They rent so don't want the cost of connection ADSL each time they move

It would be quite interesting to know if any of the the people arguing that wireless will kill the NBN if they:

Use the internet a lot
Are they a wireless only internet user.

I'd expect most to say NO and NO.

It's quite easy to get internet plans on the NBN for around $1 a day, with the added worry free shapping should you go over your monthly limit.

Compare that to wireless plans which can end up costing you hundreds of dollars if you go over you monthly limit - stats can be up to 48 hours behind so the room for over use is quite high.

When I've been on holidays I've tethered my mobile to provide internet access on my laptop. The lag is quite noticeable compared to ADSL. I'd definitely not want it as my primary connection.

 

[NBNMyths]

I understand the point NBNMyths is making about data volume on fixed versus wireless although I question the actual figures.

Looking at my own circumstances, going back 5 years very few people had anything resembling a "smart" phone. A phone was still used primarily to make calls and send texts. Sure, a few people employed in IT or in certain office-based professions had a BlackBerry but they were never a mainstream product used by the masses.

Now in 2013 smart phones are pretty much everywhere, to the point that it is generally assumed that a mobile phone is a "smart" one. Tablets are also increasingly common too.

Meanwhile, there has been a massive deployment of 3G / 4G communications devices across all sorts of industries. Everything from monitoring weather to controlling electronic road signs is going this way and the vast majority of those installations have been installed within the past 5 years, indeed the roll-out of such things is still in progress. Where once it would have been communicated by radio or fixed line, now there's just no point bothering with that if it's in a location where 3G is available.

4 years ago people took video at outdoor concerts, festivals and the like and uploaded it when they got home. Now they do it whilst they're still at the festival and the band is still playing. That's just one of the many things which are now using 3G / 4G data.

In short, I find it hard to believe that 3G/4G data volumes are trending flat to down. Agreed that there's still a need for fixed broadband, but I find those 3G / 4G figures hard to believe given what I see going on in my day to day life.

The problem with mobile data is cost for volume. It has always been the problem, and it will always be the problem. The cost is high for two reasons:
1. The cost of spectrum is high.
2. Carriers have to make the cost high in order to keep the networks viable. If mobile broadband was cheap or unlimited, then the networks would collapse under the strain, because more people might think it was a good idea to dump their fixed line. Hence the carrier's spectrum would be insufficient for the amount of bandwidth being demanded.

Your comment about people uploading video at an event indicates that you've never tried to do it. I was at Bathurst last year, and despite being with the best 3G network (Telstra), and their installation of a temporary cell tower 50m from my location, it took a good hour and several attempts to upload a single photo to Facebook. A video would have taken days. I'd suggest you go to a major sporting event or concert and try to upload a video via cellular and see what happens.

And that example is exactly the problem with mobile as a replacement. It is simply unable to cope with a high number of simultaneous users. It's great for low volume things like road signs, traffic lights etc. It's acceptable for low population density rural areas. But it is no good for urban home or business usage in an era where 1080p video is the norm, and 4k/8k is around the corner. A single 1080p movie download would consume the entire amount of Telstra's biggest consumer 4G mobile broadband plan (15GB), at a cost of $110/month.

I don't think there's any reason to doubt the numbers in the graph. How many people do you know that use more than 1.5GB/month on their mobile plan? Telstra don't even offer more data than that until you hit their $100/month phone plan, and they are the clear market leader.

What could be happening is that the number of plans involving mobile data could be rising much more quickly than the number of fixed line internet plans.

If that's the case, it could explain why data usage per mobile account is constant, but that would not necessarily be reflective of the overall trend in mobile data usage.

Yes, that is the case. Fixed broadband is almost a saturated market. Almost everyone already has it, although the number of subscribers is still growing at about double the number of new premises each year. But each user typically doubles their consumption each year.

Mobile broadband, on the other hand, is an emerging market where the number of connections is growing very rapidly. This is partly because many people don't have a connection, and partly because many people and households are adding multiple connections.

In my household we only have 1 fixed line connection, but we have a total of 5 mobile broadband connections. But the fixed line gives a total of 400GB/month, while all the mobile connections combined only give 2.5GB/month.

 

[NBNMyths]

Compare that to wireless plans which can end up costing you hundreds of dollars if you go over you monthly limit - stats can be up to 48 hours behind so the room for over use is quite high.

When I've been on holidays I've tethered my mobile to provide internet access on my laptop. The lag is quite noticeable compared to ADSL. I'd definitely not want it as my primary connection.

You're not wrong. After installing Mountain Lion last month, I forgot to disable automatic software update downloads. Next night at work, I had my iPhone tethered and the laptop downloaded 1.9GB of software updates in the background. It wasn't until the next day that my phone alerted me to the fact I'd used 190% of my monthly data in one sitting.

Ouch. That'll be an extra $90, thanks.

 

[Smurf1976]

I see that I've made an error in not noticing that the graph shows usage per connection. I looked at it and thought it was referring to total volume, not per customer. So I'll stand corrected on that one. I'm pretty sure that total volume would be strongly growing however.

In terms of uploading videos etc at events, correct that I haven't done it personally. I have however watched the videos uploaded by others whilst the event is still in progress so it can be done certainly.

I see all of this as being a bit like building 10 lane highways to cope with the traffic. It facilitates growth certainly, but for what actual purpose? If we've got this massive growth in data volume then what, exactly, is it achieving? How much of it is bloat that doesn't serve an actual purpose (eg the way certain news websites operate)? And how much is actually useful?

Take banking for example. In terms of the data actually needed to do banking transactions, there's no reason why an old 9.6K modem shouldn't suffice. But in practice, even a 256K connection seems slow due to the huge amounts of bloat in the data being transmitted. You could take out 90%+ of that data with no practical effect on the ability to do banking online. The same goes for a lot of other things too.

 

[drsmith]

I see all of this as being a bit like building 10 lane highways to cope with the traffic. It facilitates growth certainly, but for what actual purpose? If we've got this massive growth in data volume then what, exactly, is it achieving? How much of it is bloat that doesn't serve an actual purpose (eg the way certain news websites operate)? And how much is actually useful?

The utility value of capacity relative to cost.

That's a point I've heard someone else make.

 

[NBNMyths]

I see that I've made an error in not noticing that the graph shows usage per connection. I looked at it and thought it was referring to total volume, not per customer. So I'll stand corrected on that one. I'm pretty sure that total volume would be strongly growing however.

In terms of uploading videos etc at events, correct that I haven't done it personally. I have however watched the videos uploaded by others whilst the event is still in progress so it can be done certainly.

I see all of this as being a bit like building 10 lane highways to cope with the traffic. It facilitates growth certainly, but for what actual purpose? If we've got this massive growth in data volume then what, exactly, is it achieving? How much of it is bloat that doesn't serve an actual purpose (eg the way certain news websites operate)? And how much is actually useful?

Take banking for example. In terms of the data actually needed to do banking transactions, there's no reason why an old 9.6K modem shouldn't suffice. But in practice, even a 256K connection seems slow due to the huge amounts of bloat in the data being transmitted. You could take out 90%+ of that data with no practical effect on the ability to do banking online. The same goes for a lot of other things too.

The total volume graph isn't much different. It shows that while total mobile volume doubled between 2009 and 2012, fixed volume quadrupled:


No doubt it's true that there's a lot of 'fluff' on websites that isn't technically required to do the job or display the required information.

However, we've shown as a species that we like such things. We like pretty, interactive, visual displays. Otherwise we'd still be using DOS and websites wouldn't be media-rich. By all means, you could suggest to a bank that they revert to minimalist, practical, graphic-free layouts, but I don't think they'd be very popular!


I saw an interesting comparison a while back between a ~1985 Mac Plus and a ~2000 Power Mac G3. Performing similar operations in Word and Excel, the old Mac was actually faster in many tests, because the software had become so bloated and pretty over the years that it was gobbling up the processing power advantage.

 

[bellenuit]

I saw an interesting comparison a while back between a ~1985 Mac Plus and a ~2000 Power Mac G3. Performing similar operations in Word and Excel, the old Mac was actually faster in many tests, because the software had become so bloated and pretty over the years that it was gobbling up the processing power advantage.

Yes, another variation of Parkinson's Law. Without necessarily adding much functionality, apps will expand to use up the CPU power available. Microsoft Word being a great example. Probably 98% of the functionality most users require was already in the earlier versions, but each new release adds little of value while at the same time requiring more memory and CPU to run the program.

 

[sydboy007]

Yes, another variation of Parkinson's Law. Without necessarily adding much functionality, apps will expand to use up the CPU power available. Microsoft Word being a great example. Probably 98% of the functionality most users require was already in the earlier versions, but each new release adds little of value while at the same time requiring more memory and CPU to run the program.

I'll partially agree with that statement, though a couple of years ago I was using Office 2010 quite a bit, having been a 2003 user for an extended period of time.

Took me about an hour to get used to the new way to do things, and then I found I was using the more advanced features simply because they were easier to find. Common tasks were also done much faster.

Certainly I'd love to see s/w companies maybe bring out a new version without any new features, but just something that works faster and requires less resources. Ain't gonna happen because the average punter wont pay for it.