Discussion in 'Tech Talk' started by kaidenshipley, Dec 11, 2013.
What ning said. I have FTTN at work too, so it's easy.
Ah yeah, you're both right, my bad!
I forgot about the different network types
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
We got the shitty Turnbull invented the Internet version.
Struggling terribly for speed I see.
When you consider people with those speeds in some countries get laughed at like we laugh at yours, it's still pretty woeful.
But don't worry. 28 hours down, and I've downloaded 300+GB. I can't complain for a few more years yet.
[MENTION=1848]ningnangnong[/MENTION] - Have you worked out how to change the DNS in this awful modem yet?
Which is why my opinion is skewed towards this being an Internet-speed-dick-measuring contest (and Australia has a small pecker) rather than any legit practical requirement.
Except that FTTP is more future proof. FTTN relys on a decreipt copper network thats a bottleneck and, as we are finding out now, it's not any cheaper to build. FTTN costs just as much, it's slower and it's going to cost more to replace/upgrade in the future.
Anytime you build infrastructure like this people find out a way to use it beyond what it's envisioned for.
This whole mess came about because of the old fogeys in the liberal party who print out their emails have absolutely no vision for the future beyond the bottom line.
And it should all be built with chinese equipment.
Sincerely, Australian man.
Negative. I tried tweaking a few different settings, but in the end I had to reset it back to factory as I somehow managed to half disable the VoIP.
The "it's no cheaper" is a nothing argument. It's not cheaper than what Labor SAID fttp would cost, but that's because they had little-to-no industry consultation. They basically made up the figures. Fttn is still going to be cheaper than what fttp would have been.
No it won't. Because when the copper needs to be replaced, they're going to have to pay overs to get that done. You can argue with the LNP all you like, but you, like them, are flat out wrong.
Don't bother posting an essay either.
I found it. But it seems to come and go? I checked everything a few times, not there, came back later, there is was under LAN.
Alright, I'll summarise:
* fttp and fttn are not mutually exclusive. So using fttn does not mean it can't be extended to the premises later.
* if we had a surplus I'd be okay with it. But we're borrowing money to do it. Which has the short term effect of artificially raising interest rates. While our economy is shitting itself. I think people would rather be employed with slow internet than have super fast interwebs with which to frantically job search.
* let early-adopters pay for the fttp themselves - for businesses it would be a sound investment, for households it'll add resell value. Or bragging rights. In any case, new "Technology parks" will be built with fttp anyway, and vital services, like hospitals and schools will get it anyway.
* to summarise let taxpayers pay for the vital areas that will benefit immediately. Let private enterprise invest in the connection from the node to the premises if it's going to benefit them. Let early adopters pay if they want it in their house while fttp is a luxury and fttn is perfectly ample.
No. Because it is public infrastructure. Just some people aren't prepared to accept that.
When we decided it was time to upgrade from gravel roads, we didn't tell people to pay for their own streets to be upgraded. When we needed an electricity network, we didn't tell people they had to pay to have lines run down their streets. When we wanted a telephone network, we didn't tell people that to increase the value of their home, they have to lay the copper. I bet they weren't told that in 100 years time, you would still be using that same copper either.
I'm not going to debate why surplus in government is just dumb. You really want you tax dollars sitting in a bank account doing nothing, just so you can say the books are in the black? If so, that's just silly. Surplus is in control. And as stated, the way we are going about it, will cost Australia more money. Simple as that.
It really is as simple as that.
This has been proven in other countries, and even Turnbull knows it.
A lot of people seem to have a very short vision, and forget how quick anything related to communications, computers or internet evolves.
What may be regarded as luxury today, will be a requirement tomorrow, and not only will we be late as usual, it will cost a mint to bring us up to where we should've already been for much less!
Maybe not in the city, but if your in a rural area, then there's a good chance you could have to pay for connection to power & phone services.
I remember years ago at a rural school that the teacher ended up putting in poles for 2kms just to get a phone connection because helstra said there was no economic benefit to do it.
Granted that was way before mobile phones & internet, but infrastructure has been paid for privately
Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
It's not like people will be being denied a service. They stil get their telecommunication service. I think of it like somewhere between 3-phase power and Foxtel. If people want above and beyond the standard service, they can pay for it.
As for the "it'll cost more in the long run", that doesn't take in to consideration that it's not just the upfront costs to do it, it's the fact we'll (as a nation) be also paying interest on those costs, as it'll be borrowed from OS, and we'll all be paying more by way of increased interest rates. Consider that along with the fact that the total numbers requiring connection will be decreased by the people who stump up their own money to get it (you'd expect if it's as vital as you're making out, plenty of businesses and people who need it to work from home would be in this group), it could end up with a considerable saving.
The other argument is one I've made before. In that with all this talk of redundant technology, that's exactly what you're getting if you in the lines from the node to the premises right now. While the increased speeds are not currently necessary, all the more reason to benefit from potential newer technology that is more efficient or easier to install with the benefit of a couple more years worth of development?
Actually it does take that into consideration. It also takes into consideration how much interest the costs from upgrading from FTTN to FTTP will bring with it.
FYI, FTTN is already considered obsolete in most western countries, and will definitely be obsolete by the time of its estimated completion in Australia.
This is what the foremost specialists in Australia had to say about it in response to a Senate inquiry:
'FTTN Makes No Sense': The State Of The NBN, According To The Experts | Lifehacker Australia
Reading through that, then I'm going to change my answer to "fibre to the footpath" or whatever. It makes what I've suggested (user pays) much more viable.
But what I said a couple of years ago was true. Had most of you had your way, fttp would have been rolled out quick-smart. In such a short time new technology has been developed that fibre-to-the-footpath can support 1gbps.
In saying that, no one actually gave reasons why X speed is not enough and Y speed is crucial. It keeps coming down to the same argument that it's only good enough if it's what everyone else has. And again, it completely overlooks the fact that vital services and modern commercial & technological developments will in fact have fttp. Listen to the guy that constantly uses the word "innovation". It needs to be fast to keep up with innovation. We can't be as innovative as other countries and be left behind! Oh noes! It's the same bullshit people that talk about "the ideas boom", because they have no idea what needs to be achieved and no idea how to achieve it, but moar internets will fix it!
Why have 4 lane motorways at 100 Kph, when we could perfectly drive in 1 lane at 10 Kph. That's pretty much the gist of your argument...
Btw, the cost of the technology to convert fibre to copper at each address is probably not that much cheaper than actually take the fibre directly to the premises.
Separate names with a comma.