The NBN 'spin'

Discussion in 'Networking, Telephony & Internet' started by vladtepes, Jul 19, 2019.

  1. clonex

    clonex Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2001
    Messages:
    23,901
    Location:
    north pole
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2019
  2. BelowAverageIQ

    BelowAverageIQ Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2011
    Messages:
    859
    Perfectly good? How come there was a "stop sell" for many months whilst it was repaired/replaced and removed. How many billions did the government waste buying the crappy network from Telstra and Optus? How many more billions wasted has there been fixing the existing HFC cable and lead ins?

    You dont have to be a fibre zealot to know that it is basically the only LONG TERM choice for a broadband network. Why pour billions into copper when it will HAVE TO BE replaced sooner rather than later?

    Yes these are all GOVERMENT decisions, but it has kept you in a job for quite a while, with a very nice pay packet and benefits as well. You want to keep the VDSL copper thing going as long as possible, to keep you in a job. I get that. Doesnt make it the right choice in technology.

    It must have been a sigh of relief when old mates Abbott and Turnbull came up with the steaming pile of shit that is the MTM. Keep playing with your wet string. About all NBN Co and you and your VDSL team are good for.

    https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2015/12/nbn-is-paying-telstra-to-fix-its-own-network/
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2019
  3. caspian

    caspian Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Messages:
    11,437
    Location:
    Melbourne
    if only a set of stonkingly expensive satellites didn't still had to be put up to service the users in those areas, heavily subsidised by the users in the more dense areas...
     
  4. caspian

    caspian Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Messages:
    11,437
    Location:
    Melbourne
    cry me a river. some minor maintenance got done, at a tiny fraction of the cost (and time) of overbuilding with fibre.

    the networks that the government wanted those telcos to stop using so they would move their users to the NBN to provide an ongoing revenue base? that network they needed to provide those services? that network that would have cost significantly more and taken years longer to overbuild with fibre, when it provides a perfectly adequate service?

    not even a tiny fraction of that.

    another unrealistic fibre zealot. no other solution could possibly be adequate, nothing else will ever be good enough. that's why nobody in power listens to your opinions anymore than any of the other nothing-but-fibre loons. you don't have the experience or the balance of judgement required to make the decisions required, which is why others do it for you.

    had you on my ignore list as having nothing worth listening to for some time, this is just one of those times where I revalidate the original decision. plonk.
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2019
  5. @sia@home

    @sia@home Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,480

    Nice spin. So why not start out with reasonable goals? Look for a hyperbolic answer to a reasonable question... Greater Melbourne and Adelaide have 80% of their states population by number. So lets fibre the shit out of there. Oh Greater Brisbane has 58% of QLD. Lets fibre the shit out of that. QLD Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast, Sydney, Newcastle, Coffs, Port Douglas. You can do a pretty good job working off Switzerlands land area by targetting it into useful areas of Australia where tech startups like to put themselves.

    Here is some fact for you in my attachment.
     

    Attached Files:

    clonex likes this.
  6. elvis

    elvis Old school old fool

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    42,799
    Location:
    Brisbane
  7. JSmithDTV

    JSmithDTV Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2018
    Messages:
    8,249
    Location:
    Algol, Perseus
    Now c'mon logic like this has no place here... /s :rolleyes:


    JSmith
     
  8. dirkmirk

    dirkmirk Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2002
    Messages:
    5,416
    Location:
    Shoalhaven - Gods Country
    You theirs a chance Caspian and NBN don't know what they're doing:eek:?
     
  9. mesaoz

    mesaoz Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2015
    Messages:
    6,982
    Location:
    South East QLD
    nbn employee defends nbn while everyone else remarks on how shithouse nbn is
     
  10. elvis

    elvis Old school old fool

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    42,799
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Devil's advocate: when you're inside a shit organisation trying to make it better, sometimes you get a little bit irrationally defensive.

    The NBN is highly politicised. NBNCo leadership are a bunch of pricks. caspian is a good bloke, tries hard, and goes out of his way to help fellow OCAUers. I'm certain he puts in 100% at work, and is doing everything in his power to improve a business in a challenging role.

    I took the piss a bit with the popcorn gif above. But I've got a good mate who works for NBNCo, and I've learned to keep my ranting down a bit when I chat to him, because I know it divides a room. Like caspian, my mate tries hard to make a shit org a little better from "inside the belly of the beast".

    Ultimately, we're all stuck with the NBN. At least there's a handful of folk working within it who give a shit. Maybe (very likely) that's not enough, but I'm thankful for it.
     
    clonex, Rod911, Ratzz and 1 other person like this.
  11. caspian

    caspian Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Messages:
    11,437
    Location:
    Melbourne
    I'm one of the very few people here who actually knows what they are talking about on the subject. too many people's understanding of it comes from places like Whirlpool, where biased inaccuracies are repeated ad nauseum until they become lore.

    if people want to live in ignorance, that's their choice - they go into the same "dealing with a fool" category as flat earthers, antivaxxers and the few people who still continue to smoke. the same as people who can't take the minimal time and effort to differentiate between what the government directed NBN to do, and how NBN enacted that guidance.

    elvis - no offence taken. I get pissed off when people for whom picking a new video card is a major life choice think they can extrapolate that to planning billions of dollars of communications network rollout.
     
  12. elvis

    elvis Old school old fool

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    42,799
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Totally understand this too. As I tried to explain to my previous management who were frustrated when their own staff rejected their new technical direction, sometimes it's just not worth trying to explain the physics and scale of distant stars to the ancient tribes who worship astrology. Sometimes, for your own sanity, you just have to step back and let them do what they do.

    (And I realise the irony of the most ranty person on OCAU giving you life advice to "not engage". That's not lost on me :) ).
     
    TheWedgie likes this.
  13. rireland

    rireland Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Messages:
    164
    Isn't the major cost component of the rollout the labour which is only going to increase with time. So when what is sufficient now has to be replaced in 5 years cause it is no longer adequate, it ends up costing more than if it had been done with fibre in the first place.
     
  14. caspian

    caspian Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Messages:
    11,437
    Location:
    Melbourne
    I have no idea of the cost breakdown (really doesn't interest me, see below for why) but like any project done in stages, it would no doubt be cheaper in equipment, manpower and a bunch of factors to go directly to the end state. but there are other considerations, such as what you need now, what you can afford now, and how fast you can deliver an acceptable interim stage. here's a brief illustration:

    you're a new entrant in the housing market and need somewhere to live. your end-state ideal is a nice two storey house with 4 bedrooms and a double garage in a nice suburb. it will take you about 10 years to afford this, but in the meantime you need a solution to live in. do you:
    (1) buy a smaller house in a more distant suburb, knowing that it's not as good as you'd like, and will delay even further your ideal house, but it gives you a solution that allows you to work towards the future for the meantime, or
    (2) refuse to accept anything other than perfection, and camp in a tent for the next 10 years, because it gets you to your desired end-state as soon as possible, regardless of the extreme discomfort in the meantime.

    any rational person would choose option 1.

    let's do the same thing again, with an additional middle-of-the-range option:

    you need a way to get to work. the train sucks, you want a car, but the car you really want is a BWM M5. anything else just seems a bit plebian and substandard. do you:

    (1) continue to take the train to work every day for the next 5 years, hating it every day, but sustaining yourself with the thought that you'll be able to afford the M5 at the end.
    (2) buy a Camry, and travel to work in perfectly adequate comfort, just not outright luxury and extreme performance, in the knowledge that the cost of the Camry pushes the dream M5 out to 10 years away at least.
    (3) refuse to spend a red cent that doesn't directly contribute towards the dream M5, and trenchantly ride a bike to work every day in the traffic, heat and rain for 3 years, which is the quickest possible way towards your goal despite the inconvenience in the meantime.

    I know what my pick is, interested in what you would go with?


    a lot of large infrastructure projects get delivered in stages, like freeways and shopping centres and train networks - they grow as required, and no doubt the users curse the disruption and say "why couldn't they have just done that from the outset?" every time.

    in 5 years, you'll probably want a desktop PC that would make what you have now look like a wooden abacus. you'll probably want at least a quad-CPU Intel Core i9 9980XE with a terabyte of RAM and a petabyte of local solid state storage, and enough graphics processing to run a full-wall VR experience at beyond human eyeball resolution (which is about 576 megapixels).

    if course, that's not available yet, so let's just say the best PC you could possibly spec out. that would probably cost around $5-6000 at the moment.

    why aren't you buying that now, surely it would be cheaper to not spend money on hardware in the meantime that is only a stepping stone? or is it that you can't afford that, don't need it, and by the time you do the gear will be obsolete?

    the reality is that people make a cost-benefit decision as to what they need now, what they can afford, and other factors like upgrade path in the future. that works for PCs, cars, houses, shopping centres and telecommunications networks - the numbers just get more zeros on the end.


    obviously I can only speak personally, but it has been my experience that there's very little internal conflict over direction, because everyone involved (at least the ones making decisions) is both a professional a pragmatist, and differentiates clearly between ultimate managerial guidance (i.e. government policy) and how to achieve it. if nothing else, it saves energy for the fights over the latter. :lol:
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2019
    garnet likes this.
  15. elvis

    elvis Old school old fool

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    42,799
    Location:
    Brisbane
    I think you'll find most people here aren't critical of the work done, but rather the policy that dictated the work.

    You've mentioned several times the extra cost associated with different policy decisions (fibre vs other). Given how much debt we go in to for all sorts of things, I think you'll find many here are willing to go into debt for said technologies.

    I played devil's advocate on your side. Now I'll swing the other way for a moment. You've criticised others for not understanding the cost associated with alternatives to what we have today. What if people *do* understand the costs, but are willing to wear them as a nation? What if people here voted that way, but ended up missing out on their preferred policy because of a particular election being about other things, and our future communications network just got lost in the noise?

    Again, I can see people arguing past each other in this thread. Yourself, arguing for the quality of what is under current policy, and others, arguing for the quality of what could have been under different policy.

    I mean, we can't change the policy (not immediately, at least). But folks are welcome to criticise the policy (while understanding and accepting the cost difference).
     
  16. caspian

    caspian Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Messages:
    11,437
    Location:
    Melbourne
    I'm pretty sure that Joe Average doesn't understand the costs at all. there's been a huge amount of criticism of NBN service costs from all quarters, which seems based on a reluctance to pay more than a legacy ADSL2+ service despite demonstrable benefits. if Joe can't build his bridge over his monthly cost going up $10 for a superior service, I cannot see him conceptualising the idea of multiple billions of dollars of investment that ultimately he will pay for, it all just blurs into a black hole labelled "gummint pays for that".

    that's why I asked above why someone wouldn't spend $5-6000 now for a desktop PC they couldn't possible derive the benefit of. it's a scale of numbers people can get to grips with. (grit your teeth, here comes a car analogy.) people will agonise endlessly over whether they should get the latest $1000 video card, or the minus-one variant which offers 95% of the performance for half the price... but not the retail therapy of knowing they have the latest and greatest. even when they can't use it all, and it's obsolete in a month - it's attainable for most people, even if a waste. now ask them if they'd get the $21k carbon bonnet upgrade for their Aston DB11, and the answer is an unhesitating "of course!", because they know it's not a decision they will likely ever be making, and the assumption is that if they are then they're storing spare money in swimming pools and cost is no longer a consideration. any answer you got under those circumstances is meaningless.

    in any case, it really doesn't matter, in that it's not a choice people really got. the government of the day set the policy they did, which is published for all to see. MTM costs less to deliver than an all-fibre network. other arguments outside that such as future upgrade paths, future costs, future needs etc are all absolutely valid concerns - but they are nothing to do with NBN. they are government policy concerns. NBN's job was, and is, to meet the SOE as set. when the government policy changes, NBN will deliver a solution to meet those changes, whatever they may be. and I guarantee that for every person complaining that that's not good enough, there will be someone complaining that it costs too much.

    if Joe and neighbours really did want an all-fibre NBN, at whatever applicable cost (and delivery time), they they should have elected a government that delivered that.

    I absolutely agree that's of some concern, but that's a shortcoming of our method of selecting a government and not something that's going to be solved here. our current system comes down to voting for whatever set of clowns seems to least-worst represent your collective set of interests at the time, and if you or anyone else has had the luxury of voting for a viable candidate* that actually met all of your points of interest then you're a lot luckier than I have been in the last couple of decades. I didn't even see the NBN *mentioned* in the last month of the campaign. Michelle Rowland was apparently told to STFU and not muddy the waters the adults were debating in, and the LNP campaigned on their battleground issues.

    * viable = actually stands a chance in hell of being elected, and being of any relevance if so.

    absolutely. criticise the policy as felt necessary one and all, and you won't see me defending it - I'm not a fan of it.

    all I ask is that people differentiate between policy and implementation.
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2019
    goodlet and elvis like this.
  17. clonex

    clonex Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2001
    Messages:
    23,901
    Location:
    north pole

    reusing copper is like resealing existing two lane freeways instead of making them 3 lanes or more.
     
  18. caspian

    caspian Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Messages:
    11,437
    Location:
    Melbourne
    not a good analogy. for starters we're only a small proportion of the total previous freeway length, in a scenario where length has a major impact on performance.

    also, while we're still using the same subsection of road, we're using a different variant of car which does in fact dramatically increase the number of usable "lanes", by a factor of 8 times over.
     
  19. caspian

    caspian Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Messages:
    11,437
    Location:
    Melbourne
    something else that just occurred to me while switching PCs...

    re Joe Average and costs and voting on the basis of them - this is the same Joe that flings himself on the ground in a tanty and wants an ACCC review when tasked with the choice of selecting a mobile phone plan or ISP account. because understanding the concepts of connectivity speed and download allowance are all too hard, but multibillion dollar level national infrastructure projects are something he can make a rational voting decision on. (Joe just bought a new PC with 1.2 gigahertz of RAM and two teraquads of disk, because the salesman said it would get him pussy. :rolleyes:)

    also, understanding the MTM plan and understanding that it meets the government SOE is a different concept to accepting the SOE itself. it's perfectly possible to do one but not the other, in the same way one can understand that the LNP's no-boats policy has achieved the stated objectives, even if you disagree with the objectives themselves. differentiating between policy and implementation is very important - because it's not the same people doing both. (someone should explain this concept to the people who insist on protesting outside the Border Force office in Melbourne; it achieves precisely nothing whatsoever in changing policies set by someone a thousand kilometres away.)
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2019
  20. elvis

    elvis Old school old fool

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    42,799
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Friend, this isn't limited to technology. Consider our very way of life is at the mercy of "the average voter", and you rapidly decline into a dark conclusion that benevolent dictatorship beats democracy.

    I get your frustrations. I really do. But just like most folk here are unqualified to make voting decisions on technology, so too are you (and I) unqualified to make voting decisions on countless other things. And yet, we do.

    Like it or not, this random collection of rank amateurs includes you and I. It's a shit system, but it's the best one we've got. Being a slave to the ignorant masses is ever so slightly better than being a slave to the corrupt few.
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: