A Petition Pertaining to NBN in Australia - Lets get FTTH

Discussion in 'Networking, Telephony & Internet' started by Schnooper, Sep 11, 2013.

  1. caspian

    caspian Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Messages:
    10,146
    Location:
    Melbourne
    our research lab did. I don't have the results available any more but there was a fairly "normalised" distribution as I recall. the data was three dimensional in that it was also necessary to take into account line attenuation - noise tends to accumulate in line with line length, simply because the opportunities for noise attraction do so.

    that's why I burr up when people say xDSL performance *will* deteriorate with distance - it does so only on the basis of an averaged sample. that's great, but Joe Average doesn't think in terms of averages, he thinks in terms of what's applicable to him personally.

    statistics can only predict the likelihood of that, not dictate it. since 50% of the Joes are going to disappointed by being below the average, and particularly since there's not the ones posting pissed-off "why is my connection slow?" threads, it seems very counterproductive to post a "yes" message when in reality the answer is "statistically yes, but in your case, maybe not". Joe doesn't understand that.

    if performance "graphs" contained a nice fat band of "normal" ranges of performance (let's say out to about 2SD) from "average" then I would be more comfortable with them.

    now bear in mind that against a bellcurve, >2SD means < 5% of the total sample. excessive? hell, let's cut it to 1SD - that means over a full third of people are still outside the median... cut that in half (because the ones over are not the ones bitching) and that's still one in every six unhappy.

    I don't think this makes anyone more serene about their outcome, which is, after all, just statistical.

    you get what you get. if people stopped ranking themselves in meaningless comparisons the problem would go away. sync speed is not an e-penis competition.
     
  2. leighr

    leighr Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2002
    Messages:
    561
    Location:
    Richmond, Melbourne
    Oh please. Have you seen how many replies there are to the measure your internet connection sticky at the top of this page?
     
  3. m0n4g3

    m0n4g3 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2009
    Messages:
    3,638
    Location:
    Perth, WA
    LIES! This is Oh Cow, we must compare e-peens! :D

    On topic. I signed... i really hope that we do get a FTTP, not for the speed, but just for reliability purposes. If we get FTTN, i'd definitely be paying for FTTP striaght up, but what happens when you move? do you have to pay for FTTP again at the new residence?
     
  4. AthlonMan

    AthlonMan (Banned or Deleted)

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2002
    Messages:
    11,416
    Location:
    QLD.
    Yep. And you're sh*t out of luck if you rent.
     
  5. leighr

    leighr Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2002
    Messages:
    561
    Location:
    Richmond, Melbourne
    Of course. The fee charged is an installation fee, which is to cover the works required to connect an individual dwelling to the network. It's not to connect me to the network, wherever I may roam. Any future connection would obviously incur the same cost. I can't see why people find this unreasonable.
     
  6. flinchy

    flinchy Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2007
    Messages:
    6,345
    Location:
    Northlakes
    oh, so you think you should have directly paid for every upgrade you've ever recieved for your internet?

    i hope you're on dialup, because you don't have an attitude that deserves anything faster...

    uhhh my argument isn't being proven wrong

    how is 'lol you can pay for it' proving me wrong? it's an idiotic counter to be making on your behalf lol

    yes, i'd be happy to receive it last, as long as it still happens. i'm 100% for benefitting the entire country.. but there's a certain point where 'later' does become a little too ridiculous (decade(s))


    I also don't understand where you're inferring that i'm not being civil... at least i'm not coming up with utterly ridiculous arguments, disagreeing with someone then coming up with information that effectively contradicts yourself.. it's like you're here just to troll and argue with people?

    as for how i'm doing in comparison? I dunno, i've worked on it physically, handled the copper, run tests... that's gotta count for something decent right? :)


    so you haven't done the sums where short-term FTTN is BARELY cheaper (and much less cost EFFECTIVE), and long term FTTP is much MUCH cheaper. many billions...

    i take it the answer will be no.

    or where every other industry professional (field, office, lecturer) has come to the same conclusion.. except you.. huh.. i wonder who is wrong there?


    ... I guess i just realized you're really just here to start fights and troll people - yeah you've been in the industry, but your posts are far too contradictory and inflammatory to be anything else.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2013
  7. flinchy

    flinchy Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2007
    Messages:
    6,345
    Location:
    Northlakes
    your first statement doesn't really make any sense.. distance is a part of the equation, you can work it back with it.. how much attenuation you have, you can work out your distance :/.. how much distance you are away, you can work out your attenuation ... well, your theoretical attenuation.

    and yes i'm aware that different frequencies, different cable properties... that's not what i'm talking about in-depth though?

    either way, i'm not sure how that changes the fact that there's signal loss over distance.. you.. going slightly more in depth in explaining just how it works...
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2013
  8. itsmydamnation

    itsmydamnation Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2003
    Messages:
    10,320
    Location:
    Canberra

    completely incorrect just because

    a*b=c
    c / b =a

    doesn't mean you can start with C. that is my point. the reason for that is A is defined by standards and B is defined by the stuff already in the ground and D is EMI and E is RF and G is the shitty join at the pillar. Thus in the real world C or distance is the result. When talking about transmit theory wavelength is the most important "base" variable, distance is a result. In the context of what i quoted what i have been saying is completely correct.

    the problem for judging this stuff based on distances is it isn't a 3 operand equation it is a variable operand equation. Thus you end up with what caspian has been talking about in terms of graphs.

    Once you start doing some serious work with complex transmit ( mine is from highend 802.11) you will see why people like Caspian are steadfast in something that you see as nitpicking, because inthe real world its the difference between something working correctly and something not at all.
     
  9. caspian

    caspian Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Messages:
    10,146
    Location:
    Melbourne
    I have. it's a waste of time, space and electrons.

    pretty sure I did one way or the other, yes.

    100Mbps fibre, thanks for asking.

    ooh I think you'll find that it has been. you just haven't realised it yet.

    sorry, but bullshit. by then everyone else would be clamouring for the latest technology and you'd be making precisely the same complaint about being on the trailing edge of the performance bell curve.

    ---------

    here's a question for you: I bought a new TV last week. I had a choice between a really nice HD 3D LCD and a jaw-droppingly good 4K unit.

    which one should I have bought, and why?
     
  10. ir0nhide

    ir0nhide Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Messages:
    4,211
    Location:
    Adelaide
    Flinchy, while Caloundra may be a beautiful part of the country to live, please understand the following: anywhere north of Brisbane is goddamn awful for cheap, high speed services. The further you move away from a state's capital, the more expensive high speed services get. Your options are in order of effectiveness:

    1: Pay more money for a business-critical service so your business can continue to operate where it is, or
    2: Move your office.

    Do not pass go, do not collect $200. You can bitch and moan all you like and fool yourself into thinking you're entitled to more than you're getting, but a the end of the day no one can help you and/or gives a shit. If your business needs a faster link, then pay for it or move.
     
  11. Exige

    Exige (Banned or Deleted)

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2012
    Messages:
    515
    Of course that's the answer *smacks forehead*

    Every single business that needs a connection which doesn't stutter a single YouTube stream should just move into the capital cities !

    Wait, you need businesses to employ people and provide services to regional centres ? Quick, EVERYONE move back to the capital cities !

    Wait, what do you mean all the farmers and miners have moved away from their farms and mines respectively ? What do you mean that now we have to import all our resources we are experiencing hyper inflation and massive amounts of unemployment ? Now we have impossible social and population pressures encroaching on our cities because there is very little incentive to move away from the capital cities ?


    Wait, what do you mean it's already been happening for the last 30 years, and this continued attitude by successive governments and the public at large are going to make it a very interesting future for us all.
     
  12. Apokalipse

    Apokalipse Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2006
    Messages:
    4,250
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Faster internet access saves time. And time is money. For businesses and for individuals.
    Not having downtime because of rain causing dropouts saves money.
    If you don't consider that reason enough, I don't think anything will convince you.

    This is simply false. FTTN is physically more complex and has more equipment to install. Not to mention, it's going to take some time just to get the rollout started, including assessing the state of the current copper network, renegotiating with Telstra, making a new plan, getting ACCC approval, etc...
    Basically, the coalition's estimate of being finished by 2019 is flat out not going to happen.

    The 8 year build time is not an argument against building it. It's really an argument that it should have been built many years ago.
    It needs to be built. And the more people delay it, the worse off we will be.
    It really is quite silly: "It will take too long to happen and people will suffer too much in the meantime, therefore it should not be built at all (and people will suffer anyway)"

    Which will be pretty much the same on the FTTN plan too. Except they'll be waiting 5 years for a service that's not much better than they already have instead of waiting 5 years for a service that's actually worth building.

    I'm hoping Malcolm Turnbull might use this as a "get out of jail free" card: "Looks like we are forced to build FTTP after all, because Telstra won't give us their copper".

    For 93% of the population, it is not that expensive to install it:
    [​IMG]

    People with much better knowledge than you or me have crunched the numbers, and found it to be perfectly viable, being able to pay for itself and providing a 7% return to the government.

    And yes, people will pay for it. That's what monthly access charges are for.

    And because it offers guaranteed connection speeds, people have the option of voluntarily paying more money for more speed - which allows them to subsidise everyone else, such that most users will be able to pay less for it.

    Actually I think he's saying he can't afford to pay that much for it. But he could easily afford an NBN connection.
    And under the NBN, people will pay for it. Even though the cost to the user is a lot less than Fibre on demand, it is economical to build it (economies of scale).
    Your suggestion that he should pay for it himself is a silly point, because that is exactly what he would be doing with the NBN.

    Today. Just like people once did not need more than 640KB of RAM.
    Also, even though it's not yet needed on average, there is certainly a benefit. And the benefit, combined with it being able to pay for itself, is reason enough to build it.
    If you don't consider that to be enough reason, then you need to consider future demand. There will be an average need for fibre in the future for most people. It is an inevitability. And it would be stupid to wait until after the need is already there to start building it.

    And this is one of the big problems with xDSL in general: the fact that you can't choose your connection speed. You can't even pay to increase your line speed if you're not satisfied.

    Not exactly a valid analogy to the current FTTP vs FTTN discussion, for the following reasons:
    • FTTP is not nearly as much more money over FTTN (as a percentage) as a 4K TV is to a 1080p TV. That's also if you take the coalition's cost to build FTTN at face value.
    • The TV's are probably not going to pay for themselves
    • No suggestion of running and maintenance costs. To improve the accuracy of the analogy, you could add in power consumption and say that the 4K TV would consume significantly less power and therefore over its lifetime would actually be significantly less costly than the 1080p TV.
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2013
  13. ir0nhide

    ir0nhide Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Messages:
    4,211
    Location:
    Adelaide
    Please don't confuse "These are your options accept it because it's reality" with "I completely agree with the situation and support lack of govt. investment".
     
  14. caspian

    caspian Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Messages:
    10,146
    Location:
    Melbourne
    and it's worth $36billion dollars?

    FTTN is considerably simpler, actually. yes there is more equipment, but the fibre rollout is what takes all the time.

    bear in mind I have considerable experience in both technologies, I'm not giving an armchair opinion.


    so, in other words, he's more than happy to pay a little more if the majority of the cost is paid for him by people who don't actually have a use for it? I have some doubts about the magnanimity of the gesture.

    at the time, they probably didn't. did anyone go out at the time and equip their PC with 512MB of RAM in case they needed it in 5 years? no, because they didn't want to pay for more than what they needed at the time.

    kinda struggling here with how there can be a benefit from something not needed. there's definitely a cost, and that will be here and right now.

    I have quite a bit of sympathy for the idea of going to FTTP, but there are a bunch of very good arguments against it too, and the marginal niche wants of the geek community are not going to dictate the outcome.
     
  15. Apokalipse

    Apokalipse Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2006
    Messages:
    4,250
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Yes. Even if it was a direct cost to the taxpayers, which it isn't, $36 billion would be more than worth it for a network that will scale into the future for many decades at least.
    Just like roads, there are indirect economic benefits which would be more than enough to make it pay for itself, even ignoring the direct return it provides.

    They are going to have to test each and every line under FTTN to make sure it meets the 25mbps minimum (assuming Malcom Turnbull is not lying). That's not going to take less time than rolling out Fibre, which is much easier to test (they literally only need to see the colour of an LED on the NTD once it's connected to make sure it's right).
    And it's much more likely there will be problems on the copper lines.
    And they are going to have to install a lot more nodes to get the 25mbps minimum than estimates suggest. Based on Germany, it will take about 330,000 nodes.

    Almost everybody that has experience with both technologies agrees that FTTN will not finish in 2019, especially due to the work they need to do just to get it started (whereas FTTP is already being rolled out right now).

    No. Economies of scale means the cost per premises is much lower to install. His monthly access charges will cover it, because the cost to install is lower.

    And most people do have a use for it (the time saved, the reliability, the applications that will be made possible). Some of it for actual work, some of it for entertainment. But even the entertainment tends to have an economic benefit.

    And this is where the analogy breaks down: comparing installing fixed amount of RAM against a technology that can scale to be much faster in the future. 100mbps or even 1000mbps barely scratches the surface of what the fibre itself can do.
    A better analogy would be comparing the R&D cost of increasing memory capacity that can be manufactured. Eg:
    "If nobody needs more than 640KB of RAM today, it's not worth spending money on R&D to increase the RAM capacity we can manufacture in the future."
    or
    "If nobody needs more than 640KB of RAM today, it's not worth designing an OS that has the ability to utilize more RAM than that (even if we expect the OS to be used far into the future)"

    One of the biggest problems with FTTN is the fact that the copper network just doesn't have the capability to scale much more into the future.

    How about an analogy: you don't need a car to get to work 3 km away, but you benefit from the significant times saving as opposed to walking.
    A company doesn't need an internet connection that's fast enough to back their data up off-site when they can mail a hard drive instead. But they would benefit a lot from the automation, the time saved, and not having to employ as many people.

    I've heard a lot of attempts at making arguments against it, and I have yet to hear one good one.
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2013
  16. AthlonMan

    AthlonMan (Banned or Deleted)

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2002
    Messages:
    11,416
    Location:
    QLD.
    I get the feeling Caspian is actually a brick wall.
     
  17. chip

    chip Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2001
    Messages:
    3,669
    Location:
    Pooraka Maccas drivethrough
    It seems to boil down to this:
    FTTN: 27 + X billion (X= currently 11 Billion for Telstra's CAN), up to 100Mbits, finished by 2019, higher operating costs, shorter effective lifespan. Great plan, sign me the fuck up!
    FTTP: 43 billion, >=1000Mbits, finished by 2021, longer lifetime, lower operating costs. Clearly an unsupportable folly only a lunatic would endorse. Something something ferrari.
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2013
  18. lennyc

    lennyc Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,421
    Still cheaper than paying for it twice.

    Higher maintenance, more points of failure, higher power consumption, lower aesthetics.

    Why does your view of the NBN differ so much from most other experts experienced with the technology?


    Last I looked a very large proportion of premises are connected to the current communication system we have. This would indicate to me that people do have a use for it, even if it's only for the phone. The savings in not having to maintain the current copper is significant.

    You are right I did not buy my pc fully populated with memory. I took advantage of the option to add memory at a later date when I needed it. Predictions on data usage are such that if FTTN can be completed by 2019 it will then need to be upgraded to FTTP.


    If telephones and internet where not needed today you would have a valid argument.

    I am not convinced there are any very good arguments against FTTP. Hopefully the LNP take heed of the advice experts in communications are providing.
     
  19. itsmydamnation

    itsmydamnation Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2003
    Messages:
    10,320
    Location:
    Canberra
    WTF are you smoking
     
  20. chip

    chip Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2001
    Messages:
    3,669
    Location:
    Pooraka Maccas drivethrough
    sorry, should be 'up to 100mbits', Turnull's been banging on about vectored DSL and g.fast and a goal of ~90% of copper connections able to do 100Mbit by 2019
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: