Discussion in 'Networking, Telephony & Internet' started by Schnooper, Sep 11, 2013.
Analogy is kind of incorrect in describing the situation
Think of it more like this
You’re a couple thinking looking at getting a car you’re not planning on reselling the car and sometime in the future you may also have kids currently you have two choices.
1)a second hand 10-15 year old two door v8 ute costing $25,000 that you can pick up tomorrow
2)a brand new family v6 commodore costing $35,000 but you will need to wait 1-2 weeks for the dealership to get it in.
What one would you get keeping in mind the following pros and cons
Second hand Ute
-cheaper up front cost
-you can get it fast
-second hand meaning maintenance will need to be carried out straight away
-higher running cost
-the ute is getting old and may not last much longer
-no room for expansion
The new commodore
-being new maintenance will be minimal
-the commodore will be cheaper to run
-being brand new the commodore is covered under warranty and can be expected to last for some time yet
-room for expansion if you do decide to have kids
-more expensive upfront cost
-you need to wait a few weeks for it to arrive
I suppose the real issue here do we need FTTx to post tortured car analogies any faster?
Except that the difference is not 15k->25k, more like 30b->80b. The difference is more than the combined cost of the NDIS, coalitions "expensive" materinity plan, a new dental scheme etc etc.
Start adding up what could be bought for that amount and it seems that the proposed benefits of the few do not outway the huge cost that could be spent elsewhere to help the many.
I personally am happy with the new arrangement, plus I get it quicker. If I want the alleged Gb speed, then I can pay for it, otherwise 25Mb/s is fine for probably 95%+ of the population.
To me the main difference in infrastructure is 25Mb/s for no apparent cost, and 1Gb if I want to pay, compared to 1Gb with the government paying for everyone. No brainer, user pays, put the money where it will do most good.
There is a reason most people don't care about NBN. It is because it just won't make any difference to 90%+ of the population. But people care about hospitals and stuff.
Might have helped if the project had reasonable reporting and timelines. As usual the execution of the policy helped detroy it, but I seriously doubt there would be widespread support if the real timelines and cost had been disclosed.
An intersting question for those who support the NBN. If under fttn it costs say $3000 to pay for the increased speed, from 25Mb/s to 1Gb, surely based on your arguments of increased benefit, you will all be signing up for the increase? Isn't it fair to make people who want it pay for it, and people who don't give a rats (the taxpayer) just get as much (arguably more) than they need?
80 billion now? How do you figure?
I know the new PM pulled a 90 billion figure out of his arse a few weeks ago, but he'll freely admit he just makes shit up on the fly.
Also, how does 30 billion somehow equate to no apparent cost, especially as they've just undermined the whole mechanism for the scheme to pay for itself by allowing competition?
Meh, After seeing Malcolms reply to the petition last week, probably going to go out and buy some carrier pigeons theyd be more reliable that Helstras copper in the bush.
regardless of all the FTTN v FTTH conversation. this would have been the first time in over 40 years regional infrastructure would have recieved some much needed attention. im sure the new liberal plan will have scrapped all that and also redefined the term "regional" to cover everything outside of the major metropolitan cities
I see you've fallen victim to Malcom Turnbull's lie.
No, you won't. The Liberal's plan is based on a lot of flawed assumptions. It will not be on time, it will not be under budget, and it will not even be 25mbps on average let alone minimum.
Plus, it doesn't improve reliability of the copper network.
Your 4K TV analogy just doesn't work, and I've pointed out why in another post.
• The difference in price (as a percentage) is not nearly as much between the sticker prices of both NBN proposals (though the FTTN proposal is far more likely to be over budget).
• TV's are probably not going to pay for themselves
• There is no mention of running and maintenance costs
• No mention of reliability / quality. A better analogy would be that you don't know what resolution your TV will have; it's a lottery, and they go "up to 1080p". But on average, it's really ~360p-480p, and with varying degrees of "snow" clouding the picture.
• Your claim that there is no use for it is false. People with the NBN really do use 100mbps, right now. And it's not only a matter of how much they want to download. For most people, it's a matter of how long it takes to download.
If you know what's involved, and you know the state of the copper network, you'll know FTTN will not be completed on time, it will not be completed under budget, and it will not achieve 25mbps minimum.
The reality is, Telstra can't wait to get rid of their copper network. It's already a huge maintenance problem as it is with ADSL2+. It just won't meet the spec for VDSL2.
Caspian, I'm curious. What would you have done if the 3D 1080 set was only 20% cheaper, but used 300% more electrical power and stopped working every time it rained?
What would you have done if the cheaper set was some randomly determined number of pixels between 480 and 1080p?
please pardon me if my statements are somewhat simplistic - I'm trying to pitch them in line with the demonstrated understanding of the subject of some people. to be blunt, if they understood the subject, the discussion would not be necessary.
what a marginal segment of the market wants is not relevant. I'd like a railway station and line built to service my house, conveniently close but just far enough away I don't have to put up with any noise. ooh, that's not going to happen either.
since that's not the case, I don't see much point in answering. it's easy to poke minute holes in analogies looking for marginal points of argument. the concept remains valid.
that said, the price is nothing like 20%, because the ALP costs of the fibre overbuild are clearly pulled out of someone's colon. I couldn't care less about electrical power, numbers like 300% sound really scary but 3 times bugger all is still bugger all. and as for speed, so what? the LNP plan defines a minimum level of performance. that's what will be delivered. if anyone thinks a fibre NBN would deliver 100% of max possible rated speed at all times, I quite assure you that this is very, very much not the case for a range of reasons. setting expectations on the possible performance levels of a single component of the entire service is a bit like saying my car should perform like a fighter jet because it's got one titanium bolt fitted to it. pity about the rest of the car.
the argument also remains quite pointless. it was quite clearly communicated to the NBN staff yesterday that FTTN is coming. people need to deal with this.
Especially when it's as fundamentally flawed as yours.
I disagree. Your analogy is significantly flawed in many ways.
Do you think they're too high or too low? By how much? Do you think the LNP projected costs are equally colontastic?
Interesting. Why do you think the power consumption of a node is bugger all? I'd expect you, of all people, would know exactly how much power a node consumes.
Indeed. Such a pity that its enourmous price does not reflect its extensive shortcomings.
So the leaked NBNco draft 2013 plan has an average completion cost per connected premises in the Tasmanian trial sites at $1100-1400 per dwelling. Annual maintenance costs are forecast at $60.
Estimates for each connected FTTN dwelling is $900, not based on actual results. Annual maintenance costs are forecast at $90.
Not exactly a gigiantic difference.
Based on that and a 20 year lifespan, we are $600 per household worse off with FTTN.
From a maintenance point of view given the climate and location I live in, FTTN is going to be a disaster.
The weather conditions here are as follows:
- Bloody hot.
- Bloody hot with 100% humidity.
- Bloody hot with 100% humidity and pissing down with rain.
- Bloody hot with 100% humidity and pissing down with rain with things underwater.
These climate conditions are not electrical device friendly. The quality of an internet connection drops the closer you get to wet season and then with consistent drop outs when it rains because the pits constantly flood. An active powered cabinet is going to have a bloody hard time working if it's under 3 feet of water in a flash flood.
A FTTP GPON system as far as my research is aware is a passive system and completely submerged will operate happily (I'm happy for somebody to confirm/deny this) which is far as I'm concerned makes it the superior option given the unique environment up here.
We are still in a rollout process where I live with the Darwin CBD being live with FTTP which is a 3 minute drive away. I'm hoping that things will continue enough before it all gets screwed up that most of the Darwin metro area gets FTTP.
As long as water doesn't break the seals and get into the actual connectors, it's not vulnerable in the same way active electrical ones are to water. In a flood you've got all sorts of shit flowing past so you can't rule out physical damage to either.
Quick question... New housing estates... Will they still be FTTN, even though it would be easier and cheaper to run the fibre direct to the house (I assume - given that to use FTTN you would still need to run fibre most of the way, build the node, then run copper the rest?)?
IIRC the policy was to run FTTP to greenfields estates. There's a caveat for that, you might end up with someone other than NBNco doing this, and it's not clear if that means you'll get stuck with a local retail monopoly or not.
At this stage Greenfields will continue to be FTTP as they are now. This is unlikely to change unless fibre is scrapped altogether.
Whats the Cost and Time of a Copper repair vs a fibre repair?
We used to get fibre terminated/tested for ~$80/end with a 3 day turnaround, vs a 0 day turn around and $0 cost for copper retermination
Will 3m release fibre scotchlok soon .
One of the assumptions behind the claimed maintenance costs is that they are exclusive of repairing damage caused by some drongo putting a backhoe through a cable. How'd you manage to get it that there's no labour cost in repairing a copper break?
I'll bet that 3m or some other bunch of clever dicks are working on something like that. Maybe this counts as prior art and Agg can license it to them.
I'm sure you're right.
I do. it's bugger all.
FTTN is coming. argue, rationalise, construct geek angst arguments all you like.
it's not going to change, deal with it.