National Broadband Network

[Morkel]

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.

No, the equivalent is why build an 8 lane freeway in every local street just on the off-chance that 4 cars want to drive the same way simultaneously and side-by-side.

 

[Nashy]

No, the equivalent is why build an 8 lane freeway in every local street just on the off-chance that 4 cars want to drive the same way simultaneously and side-by-side.

Nah, it's not. Because even our fastests speeds are absolutely nothing compared to most countries on this Earth.

I get it though. If you'd rather build a cheap and nasty roof at your house because it hasn't rained in year, that's your prerogative. But don't complain when you have to rebuild parts of the roof because you didn't think about the possibility of it raining in the future.

You're all about saving money, but you suggest a plan which is going to cost more money, then admit as such, then jump back on an invalid argument from two years ago.

You're cray. Sometimes I think you argue just to give your fingers a work out.

 

[Morkel]

Nah, it's not. Because even our fastests speeds are absolutely nothing compared to most countries on this Earth.

I get it though. If you'd rather build a cheap and nasty roof at your house because it hasn't rained in year, that's your prerogative. But don't complain when you have to rebuild parts of the roof because you didn't think about the possibility of it raining in the future.

You're all about saving money, but you suggest a plan which is going to cost more money, then admit as such, then jump back on an invalid argument from two years ago.

You're cray. Sometimes I think you argue just to give your fingers a work out.

But it won't cost more money if private businesses or home owners are incentivised to chip in. That's my point.

Again, a more apt analogy would be putting a cyclone-rated roof on every property. In the next few years. Even houses with roofs that were only built 10 years ago and are perfectly functional.

 

[Morkel]

As for the arguing, I always like to look from all angles of an opinion. The obvious thing that sticks out to me is that the majority of people on here are nerds. Of course nerds are going to be drawn to the benefits of super fast interwebs. I, on the otherhand, am a tightarse. You've probably noticed.

 

[Porthoz]

But it won't cost more money if private businesses or home owners are incentivised to chip in. That's my point.

Again, a more apt analogy would be putting a cyclone-rated roof on every property. In the next few years. Even houses with roofs that were only built 10 years ago and are perfectly functional.

The copper network is a bit older than that... and it is definitely NOT perfectly functional.

Do you deliberately ignore the fact that any other country who started FTTN, stopped and went over to FTTP? They must all be really stupid.

You forget or ignore what a better, faster interwebs means for Australian business and economy. Having a fast reliable connection to every home in Australia means that large multinationals that rely and need (or will soon need) those connections, will invest in the Australian market. Having a technology that is now already touted as obsolete is the opposite of a draw card for those companies to invest here (and there are many more of them than you think!).

 

[Morkel]

The copper network is a bit older than that... and it is definitely NOT perfectly functional.

Do you deliberately ignore the fact that any other country who started FTTN, stopped and went over to FTTP? They must all be really stupid.

You forget or ignore what a better, faster interwebs means for Australian business and economy. Having a fast reliable connection to every home in Australia means that large multinationals that rely and need (or will soon need) those connections, will invest in the Australian market. Having a technology that is now already touted as obsolete is the opposite of a draw card for those companies to invest here (and there are many more of them than you think!).

So all these estates that popped up around me had fibre installed 10 - 15 years ago, did they?

I've already stated that I see the value in fttp, I don't see the value in it being paid by taxpayers beyond where it is for an essential service or new industrial areas that are predominantly used for technological and developmental research. It's not like fttp and fttn are separate, incompatible networks.

 

[Nashy]

So all these estates that popped up around me had fibre installed 10 - 15 years ago, did they?

I've already stated that I see the value in fttp, I don't see the value in it being paid by taxpayers beyond where it is for an essential service or new industrial areas that are predominantly used for technological and developmental research. It's not like fttp and fttn are separate, incompatible networks.

Well they are separate networks. One of which is century old technology. Perhaps given your standards of Internet, you simply don't realise the need, because you're so used to the shit that you're being served, you see the awful "good" ADSL2+ speeds and thing, wow, what a time to be alive.

Like Port said, and you ignored. Your idea of having someone pay to run fibre from the exchange down the street isn't fair on the people you're going to make pay for it, given everyone after that don't have to pay, as the cable is already there.

I am not against your fibre to the pit idea, and residents pay to replace their copper.

 

[Morkel]

Well they are separate networks. One of which is century old technology. Perhaps given your standards of Internet, you simply don't realise the need, because you're so used to the shit that you're being served, you see the awful "good" ADSL2+ speeds and thing, wow, what a time to be alive.

Like Port said, and you ignored. Your idea of having someone pay to run fibre from the exchange down the street isn't fair on the people you're going to make pay for it, given everyone after that don't have to pay, as the cable is already there.

I am not against your fibre to the pit idea, and residents pay to replace their copper.

By compatible, I mean that the fibre that's been run to the node is still the fibre that will carry the signal if & when it's extended to the property. As opposed to people with fttn requiring an entire new connection back to the exchange when an upgrade is required. That would be silly. No new areas need to be dug up & replaced a second time, except around the pit or whatever it is at the node.

Agree regarding the difficulty in providing a fair way to divvy up the costs in the fttn example, which is why the fibre to the pit makes the most sense to me. There's probably a very complicated and long-winded agreement that can be put in to legislation between private contractors and the gummint, I don't have the head space right now to elaborate.

 

[Nashy]

By compatible, I mean that the fibre that's been run to the node is still the fibre that will carry the signal if & when it's extended to the property. As opposed to people with fttn requiring an entire new connection back to the exchange when an upgrade is required. That would be silly. No new areas need to be dug up & replaced a second time, except around the pit or whatever it is at the node.

Eh? FTTN won't require upgrades for many, many generations. And even then, the same fiber will be able to be used. Their connections aren't all the way back either.

The fiber runs down the street, and they look into that from the pit to the house. It's bascially the same setup as copper, with different cable in the ground.

The issue with the money is that we are doing backhaul work, and digging, but not running the cable up the street, so later, we will need to come back, dig it up, rip out all the bits that convert it from fiber to copper, replace it with fiber, then pay to get more of those little conversion boxes (I don't know the name) and install them on every house not committed to paying for a couple meters of fiber, which then costs more money. We are then operating two different types of connections again.

Our providers need to train to support both straight fiber, and VDSL (copper setup). That's customer care costs, equipment costs, the costs of different modems and devices, marketing different networks, technicians to be trained in both diagnosis, and fixing, equipment to test etc.

Then the question is, who is responsible for the copper? You can be sure as hell NBN Co don't want anything to do with it, and you can be certain Telstra won't give a shit once the copper network is shut down completely. So now we need techs and electricians who can work on the 100+ year technology. May not sound like a big deal now, but in 10, 20 odd years time when those who are working on it, have very little training on it, you will see the issues.

 

[abashii]

Eh? FTTN won't require upgrades for many, many generations. And even then, the same fiber will be able to be used. Their connections aren't all the way back either.

The fiber runs down the street, and they look into that from the pit to the house. It's bascially the same setup as copper, with different cable in the ground.

The issue with the money is that we are doing backhaul work, and digging, but not running the cable up the street, so later, we will need to come back, dig it up, rip out all the bits that convert it from fiber to copper, replace it with fiber, then pay to get more of those little conversion boxes (I don't know the name) and install them on every house not committed to paying for a couple meters of fiber, which then costs more money. We are then operating two different types of connections again.

Our providers need to train to support both straight fiber, and VDSL (copper setup). That's customer care costs, equipment costs, the costs of different modems and devices, marketing different networks, technicians to be trained in both diagnosis, and fixing, equipment to test etc.

Then the question is, who is responsible for the copper? You can be sure as hell NBN Co don't want anything to do with it, and you can be certain Telstra won't give a shit once the copper network is shut down completely. So now we need techs and electricians who can work on the 100+ year technology. May not sound like a big deal now, but in 10, 20 odd years time when those who are working on it, have very little training on it, you will see the issues.

Telstra don't givea shit now. I used to have adsl, live about 1k from the exchange and used to get up to about 800k ob a good day. In the dry. When it rained I didn't have any internet connection. Telstra's opinion was that this was acceptable as you could still get a shitty scratchy tin can quality phone connection.

If my copper is so stuffed why should it be replaced with more copper? That'll cost just as much as using fibre anyway? And if they did replace mine with fibre but my neighbour's is just good enough to keep how is that fair?

Far better to just build the right network once rather than the right core with the last mile being a random hodge podge of hit and miss solutions. From the broader perspective I work in an organisation deploying and maintaining socially critical nationwide infrastructure. Having multiple classes of service splits a network up and makes it very difficult to assume any coherent baseline utility.

Imagine if everyone has a freeway to their suburb then depending on their luck and willingness to pay extra get either another freeway to their house, or a shitty little one way sealed road, or a muddy goat track. That has far reaching implications for everyone else beyond the person in each house; emergency services, utilities workers and how many other use cases are impacted? As the network maintainer now I need to look after a number of different asset classes each with their own materials and specialist knowledge and equipment required.

 

[Morkel]

Telstra don't givea shit now. I used to have adsl, live about 1k from the exchange and used to get up to about 800k ob a good day. In the dry. When it rained I didn't have any internet connection. Telstra's opinion was that this was acceptable as you could still get a shitty scratchy tin can quality phone connection.

If my copper is so stuffed why should it be replaced with more copper? That'll cost just as much as using fibre anyway? And if they did replace mine with fibre but my neighbour's is just good enough to keep how is that fair?

Far better to just build the right network once rather than the right core with the last mile being a random hodge podge of hit and miss solutions. From the broader perspective I work in an organisation deploying and maintaining socially critical nationwide infrastructure. Having multiple classes of service splits a network up and makes it very difficult to assume any coherent baseline utility.

Imagine if everyone has a freeway to their suburb then depending on their luck and willingness to pay extra get either another freeway to their house, or a shitty little one way sealed road, or a muddy goat track. That has far reaching implications for everyone else beyond the person in each house; emergency services, utilities workers and how many other use cases are impacted? As the network maintainer now I need to look after a number of different asset classes each with their own materials and specialist knowledge and equipment required.

I am coming around to the fttp cause. It's a stubborn ship though, it takes some turning.

In the example above, I would expect that, as the copper ages, it gets replaced with fibre (not just "fixed" with new copper until an official rollout). I would imagine there are quite a few areas like you describe - I have the exact same problem - so anything in that state would be replaced as the fibre gets rolled out in the primary stage anyway.

Slowly turning though... creeeeeeekkkkk.

 

[Porthoz]

I am coming around to the fttp cause. It's a stubborn ship though, it takes some turning.

In the example above, I would expect that, as the copper ages, it gets replaced with fibre (not just "fixed" with new copper until an official rollout). I would imagine there are quite a few areas like you describe - I have the exact same problem - so anything in that state would be replaced as the fibre gets rolled out in the primary stage anyway.

Slowly turning though... creeeeeeekkkkk.

That ship will either turn or sink coming Saturday! :thefinger:

 

[abashii]

I am coming around to the fttp cause. It's a stubborn ship though, it takes some turning.

In the example above, I would expect that, as the copper ages, it gets replaced with fibre (not just "fixed" with new copper until an official rollout). I would imagine there are quite a few areas like you describe - I have the exact same problem - so anything in that state would be replaced as the fibre gets rolled out in the primary stage anyway.

Slowly turning though... creeeeeeekkkkk.

Ok. Do you think it would be more cost effective to do it house by house, effectively at random, over an undefined period by any numbet of contractors with no real planning or coordination? Or as part of a planned network build where the infrastructure was actually coherent so we avoid situations like putting in an expensive powered node only for everyone connected to it to pay for a fibre upgrade after 3 years anyway, resulting in the node being junked and possibly wasting more than it would have cost to lay fttp on the first place? Or where all bar 2 holdouts have upgraded to fibre, meaning the significant oncosts of a node and copper are split across two users and costing more than the fibre upgrade would have but you can't upgrade them for free because it'd royally piss off everyone else who had to shell out $5k for theirs? Or where every 6 months another connection in each street deteriorates to the point that it gets replaced with fibre anyway so you have to visit each node 100 times before the final copper cable is disconnected.

 

[Morkel]

That ship will either turn or sink coming Saturday! :thefinger:

Are you determined to change my mind before you pass away from old age?

 

[Nashy]

I am coming around to the fttp cause. It's a stubborn ship though, it takes some turning.

In the example above, I would expect that, as the copper ages, it gets replaced with fibre (not just "fixed" with new copper until an official rollout). I would imagine there are quite a few areas like you describe - I have the exact same problem - so anything in that state would be replaced as the fibre gets rolled out in the primary stage anyway.

Slowly turning though... creeeeeeekkkkk.

I don't think they would. They would still patch it. But we are yet to find out.

 

[Morkel]

Ok. Do you think it would be more cost effective to do it house by house, effectively at random, over an undefined period by any numbet of contractors with no real planning or coordination? Or as part of a planned network build where the infrastructure was actually coherent so we avoid situations like putting in an expensive powered node only for everyone connected to it to pay for a fibre upgrade after 3 years anyway, resulting in the node being junked and possibly wasting more than it would have cost to lay fttp on the first place? Or where all bar 2 holdouts have upgraded to fibre, meaning the significant oncosts of a node and copper are split across two users and costing more than the fibre upgrade would have but you can't upgrade them for free because it'd royally piss off everyone else who had to shell out $5k for theirs? Or where every 6 months another connection in each street deteriorates to the point that it gets replaced with fibre anyway so you have to visit each node 100 times before the final copper cable is disconnected.

Yep.

No. Like I said, I'm coming around to the realisation that there doesn't seem to be a viable way. I've explained previously why I've resisted, and that's to span the expenditure over a longer period of time, which in theory makes sense as the speeds fttp promises is not required in any great hurry. It presents the perfect opportunity, in that private businesses and households can partially fund it, saving taxpayer money. You want the speeds now? Pay up. Don't want to pay? Wait your turn. I reckon there'd be heaps of businesses that could justify the costs, as well as a decent chunk of your traditional early-adopters that happily shell out big money just for the bragging rights of being one of the first to have something in their home.

It's dawning on me though that the theory just isn't matching up with reality. Slowly turning.

 

[gordjw]

Add to all that, once FTTP is installed, the upgrade process for the foreseeable future becomes:
- put new transmitters/relays in at the exchanges
- people buy new modems

No digging, and now we're talking order of magnitude faster speeds. I believe there's been terabit tests done already (in the labs).
We just gotta get the fibre in first!

 

[Nashy]

I just upgraded my modem/router to a Netgear D7000 Nighthawke. The shitty Huawei that TPG gives you is rubbish, and doesn't have a good enough WiFi spec to achieve my full 100Mbps, and the missus got pretty over the modem and router on the bench deal.

It's getting me better speeds, and the rang is far better now. I was going to run with the D7800, but there are heaps of reports of sync issues on FTTN NBN.
[MENTION=1848]ningnangnong[/MENTION] - Pretty good deal. Head to Officeworks, get them to match MSY (Show them they are in stock in their stores) and you will save yourself nearly $100. Picked it up for $274.55. Bargain.

 

[ningnangnong]

Looks boss, but I need VoIP capabilities!

 

[Nashy]

Boooo