Do we even need a fibre National Broadband Network?

Wed Aug 18, 2010 5:28 am   

On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 03:53:48 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:


Decades in fact Roddles and the uptake it?
Note, we are talking about using data lines to do it and not shipping
company tapes via the courier.

Wed Aug 18, 2010 6:37 am   

terryc wrote

Nope, just something viable between your ears.


Nope.


Another pig ignorant lie on that last.


That aint a commercial service, fuckwit.

Wed Aug 18, 2010 6:39 am   

terryc wrote

Hell of a lot higher than flying cars, fuckwit.


You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist completely unemployable fuckwits ?

Wed Aug 18, 2010 10:57 am   

On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:20:17 +0000 (UTC), terryc <newsninespam-spam_at_woa.com.au>
wrote:

:On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 17:42:35 +0800, Ross Herbert wrote:
:
:
:> Putting fibre into every home is akin to putting a 6" diameter water
:> main into every home. There is no way in the world a home could use the
:> capacity of either a 6" waer pipe, and similarly so for fibre.
:
:The real problem with a 6" water main is that we do not have the capacity
:(water towers) to put the water down the pipe in any significant
:continuous flow.

Well, I was hypothesising as if the water delivery capability was similar to
that of the fibre.
:
:OTOH, FTTH doesn't rely on a single source of data. You use it or not.

It depends on what you intend to use it for though. I can't see any likelihood
of many households requiring the bandwidth capability of fibre. I hear that in
other countries one of the main uses of ftth is to download movies. Well, if
that is the case, then it is a sad waste of a valuable resource and is not what
fibre is intended for.

:
:The positive way to think about putting FO to every home (well 93%,
:maybe) is that you are really replacing the now limited copper with
:something that, hopefully, will be sufficient for data demands for
:decades.

Yes, I can see that but copper has sufficient bandwidth for 20 - 30Mbps provided
there is no more than 300m between the fibre node and the end user. There are
other advantages in favour of copper as well. For example, where a customer (eg.
a pensioner) has no interest in broadband, and only requires a reliable plain
old telephone service (POTS), they will be forced onto the fibre and then be
saddled with the ongoing cost of powering the ONT. They will also be burdened
with the upkeep and periodic replacement of a back-up battery in the PSU if they
should be so demanding as to want the POTS to keep working during mains outages.
That isn't the case now.

Here is an ADC Krone document showing the various network technology options and
capabilities
http://www-wsp.adckrone.com/asia/en/PDF/literature/carrier/whitepapers/FTTN_401116SG.pdf

From this it seems to me that the cheapest and best option would have been aan
integrated hybrid fibre coaxial network which would have allowed existing POTS
customers to carry on using their existing telephone with the same reliability
as previously.

Indeed, back in 1995 Telstra Research Labs produced this document
http://www.telepower.com.au/INT95a.PDF

The very first paragraph indicates the degree of importance Telstra placed on
providing a reliable "lifeline service" for a POTS over a broadband network.

"This paper outlines the contribution that powering
makes to the plain old telephone service (POTS)
availability on an integrated hybrid/fibre coax (IHFC)
customer access network. POTS reliability is
recognised as a highly important performance metric by
Telstra. Thus, new technologies such as those of the
IHFC architectures will need to exhibit an availability
performance that maintains the public's confidence and
perception of POTS as a lifeline service."

With the passive optical network we are getting all that goes out the window and
the customer no longer will have that reliable "lifeline service" provided and
maintained by the service provider.

:
:The real limitation is going to be the $30/month access charge (what %
:can afford that?), plus the $/Gb costs.
:

Yes. my guess is that that most homeowners will opt for something like 20 -
30Mbps at something like $60 a month. This would be equivalent to having a FTTN
NBN with the last 300m in existing copper.

Wed Aug 18, 2010 5:32 pm   

On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 15:37:31 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:



Oh, you use the pixie net. Wow!

Wed Aug 18, 2010 6:06 pm   

On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 17:57:39 +0800, Ross Herbert wrote:



Standard problem with using an analogy.


Lol, I think that same sad waste applies to what is on Radio and TV.
Unfortunately, IMO it is just get worse.



Which, in the suburbs really means your copper will just be from the
front footpath to you "phone" point. Might just be easier to take it all
the way. AFAIK, most (all?) suburban houses have cable in conduit from
the pit to the house.


Agree entirely.


Is that from when they wee required to do so? I think they now shuck the
community obligation load under the NBN.

Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:42 pm   

terryc wrote

Nope, its just included in the monthly charge I pay right now, fuckwit.

Thu Aug 19, 2010 2:33 am   

terryc wrote:

That information wasn't made public.

Thu Aug 19, 2010 2:33 am   

keithr wrote:

Ok, I asked:

Under what conditions one might get 1Gbps over LTE equipment?

He responded:

Not in the near future.

The next iteration of LTE (LTE-Advanced) will allow a 5x increase in speed. The max today is 150Mbps so 750Mbps is close to 1 Gbps. There is a possibility that LTE can be pushed to 300Mbps so LTE-A will get 1.5 Gbps.

You need lots of spectrum for a full LTE-A implementation though

Clifford Heath.

Thu Aug 19, 2010 5:12 am   

On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 15:06:27 +0000 (UTC), terryc <newsninespam-spam_at_woa.com.au>
wrote:

:On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 17:57:39 +0800, Ross Herbert wrote:
:
:
:> Well, I was hypothesising as if the water delivery capability was
:> similar to that of the fibre.
:
:Standard problem with using an analogy.
:
:> :
:> :OTOH, FTTH doesn't rely on a single source of data. You use it or not.
:>
:> It depends on what you intend to use it for though. I can't see any
:> likelihood of many households requiring the bandwidth capability of
:> fibre. I hear that in other countries one of the main uses of ftth is to
:> download movies. Well, if that is the case, then it is a sad waste of a
:> valuable resource and is not what fibre is intended for.
:
:Lol, I think that same sad waste applies to what is on Radio and TV.
:Unfortunately, IMO it is just get worse.
:
:
:>
:> :
:> :The positive way to think about putting FO to every home (well 93%,
:> :maybe) is that you are really replacing the now limited copper with
:> :something that, hopefully, will be sufficient for data demands for
:> :decades.
:>
:> Yes, I can see that but copper has sufficient bandwidth for 20 - 30Mbps
:> provided there is no more than 300m between the fibre node and the end
:> user.
:
:Which, in the suburbs really means your copper will just be from the
:front footpath to you "phone" point. Might just be easier to take it all
:the way. AFAIK, most (all?) suburban houses have cable in conduit from
:the pit to the house.
:
:> There are other advantages in favour of copper as well. For
:> example, where a customer (eg. a pensioner) has no interest in
:> broadband, and only requires a reliable plain old telephone service
:> (POTS), they will be forced onto the fibre and then be saddled with the
:> ongoing cost of powering the ONT. They will also be burdened with the
:> upkeep and periodic replacement of a back-up battery in the PSU if they
:> should be so demanding as to want the POTS to keep working during mains
:> outages. That isn't the case now.
:
:Agree entirely.
:
:> "This paper outlines the contribution that powering makes to the plain
:> old telephone service (POTS) availability on an integrated hybrid/fibre
:> coax (IHFC) customer access network. POTS reliability is recognised as a
:> highly important performance metric by Telstra.
:
:Is that from when they wee required to do so? I think they now shuck the
:community obligation load under the NBN.


Well, at the moment Telstra still must honour its CSO (now called Universal
Service Obligation - USO)as far as POTS is concerned. This obligation has only
changed since the inception of the current NBN proposal.

Here is what the government's policy says with regard to fibre and Telstra's USO
and POTS.
http://www.dbcde.gov.au/broadband/national_broadband_network/policy_statements

in brief it states;

Delivery of Universal Service Obligations within NBN Fibre Coverage Areas

Telstra will have a regulated obligation to continue to operate and maintain its
existing copper lines while the fibre network is rolled out, until the copper
exchange associated with that fibre area is decommissioned.

So, the old rules which included Telstra's obligation to provide a reliable
"lifeline service" POTS has now been relegated to the dustbin. It's every person
for themselves after FTTH and if you happen to be a senior citizen who relies
upon the POTS as a "lifeline service", well, "that's just too bad. You're on
your own and you must now take responsibility for supplying and maintaining your
ONT backup battery".

Just imagine the complexity entailed in the ONT itself, plus the UPS and its
backup battery, all required just so a person can have a POTS - which once used
to be a very simple system. And when something fails in that equipment, how does
the customer know which part is faulty if they non tech-heads? OK, you call up
NBNCo service and they determine (hopefully) whether the fault is in the ONT or
the UPS which they might fix for free, but if the fault is anywhere past that
point the customer is responsible. I know that is the case even now, but where
the POTS is a "lifeline service" which someone relies upon, this doesn't help
much. A particular case would be where the backup battery has died. The UPS
supplied with the ONT isn't a sophisticated unit which monitors the battery
condition and notifies the customer that it needs replacing, so it is unlikely
to be noticed until the power fails during a storm or bushfire and the customer
can't make that 000 call. Too bad.....

Thu Aug 19, 2010 5:31 am   

Here is Telstra's instruction to homeowners with their Velocity FTTH service
http://www.telstra.com.au/smartcommunity/assets/smartcommunitybattery_1108.pdf

The same will apply no matter which service provider is used unless the
government changes the rules and makes the provider responsible for the battery.
Can you imagine any service provider saying they will accept this
responsibility? I think there are something like 8 million homes in Australia.
Industry and commerce can afford to do it because they do so now with their
existing fibre networks, but it won't be acceptable to homeowners as far I as I
can see.

Thu Aug 19, 2010 8:55 am   

"son of a bitch" <bitchin_2008_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4c6a41fb$1_at_dnews.tpgi.com.au...

You do realise they propose to sell it eventually? And I'll bet money now it
will be at a loss!




Nope, it's because we have the lowest population density in the world,
outside of the major cities. And the HUGE cost of the NBN is so a few people
in the bush can get broadband too, subsidised by city taxpayers.




What crap. There are two fibres down every street in my area, and THREE
independant wireless networks!!
Wasteful duplication forces up costs, just as a public, OR private monopoly
does!

MrT.

Thu Aug 19, 2010 10:37 am   

Mr.T wrote

Thats a pig ignorant lie.


Another pig ignorant lie.


Another pig ignorant lie. What is down your streets is coax, not fibre.


More than that, actually.


But we have duplication of supermarkets, schools, petrol stations, etc etc etc anyway.

> just as a public, OR private monopoly does!

Thu Aug 19, 2010 10:44 pm   

Ross Herbert wrote:

The battery makers must be rubbing their hands with glee - another 8
million batteries to sell, plus replacements to all of them every 5
years or so.

[Joke]
Lead free ?
[/Joke]

--
Regards,

Adrian Jansen adrianjansen at internode dot on dot net
Note reply address is invalid, convert address above to machine form.