NBN Discussion

[drsmithy]

The NBN "brand" never attained any cachet. There is no trust or loyalty and a chasm of disconnect - a very bad way to run a "business"

a) Exactly as intended by the architects of the current model.
b) The NBN should not be considered a "business".

 

[drsmithy]

Thats the thing, what can most consumers do with 200 Mbps that you cant do with 25-50?. (I understand that eventually some built in overhead for the future is prudent).

Twenty years ago the same statement was made ad nauseum about 56k dialup vs 256k ADSL.

 

[Quickstatus]

Twenty years ago the same statement was made ad nauseum about 56k dialup vs 256k ADSL.

But the question remain..what would most consumers need 200Mbps for? Agree that the world moves forward, but I think such speeds are really only for marketing purposes and serve no current practical value. Its all contended anyway so real speeds are likely to be less. Will it have practical value in the future? Who knows but based on history most likely yes.

 

[marki]

But the question remain..what would most consumers need 200Mbps for? Agree that the world moves forward, but I think such speeds are really only for marketing purposes and serve no current practical value. Its all contended anyway so real speeds are likely to be less. Will it have practical value in the future? Who knows but based on history most likely yes.

My friends in New York pay extra for 1Gigabyte Per Second connection .....he showed me the time it took to download a movie........after clicking the link it was on his hard drive in full 4 K splendour and therefore had more time to be idle and relax. I cannot wait for faster connections and playing on line games where the response time is linked to ping speed is also very important. I want my movie download, skype HD, or whatever working quickly all the time. No to 56K modem's no to 12-25 or 50.......aim for at least 100. In his case it helped that the head of AT&T was his next door neighbour at the time, They had put special fiber in just to his house.

 

[drsmithy]

But the question remain..what would most consumers need 200Mbps for? Agree that the world moves forward, but I think such speeds are really only for marketing purposes and serve no current practical value. Its all contended anyway so real speeds are likely to be less. Will it have practical value in the future? Who knows but based on history most likely yes.

What do most consumers "need" paved roads for ? Any sort of internet at all ? Same argument.

People talking about how a "business" operates should also take a look at places around the world where businesses are putting in high speed internet - none of them are doing FTTN (or similar), and most of those that have in the past are already replacing it with FTTP.

 

[marki]

http://www.smh.com.au/business/do-y...at-nbns-apartment-upsell-20170714-gxbil6.html


Not sure but posting this just in case I left it out for those of us contemplating higher speeds fttp is a mus

 

[Quickstatus]

My friends in New York pay extra for 1Gigabyte Per Second connection .....he showed me the time it took to download a movie........after clicking the link it was on his hard drive in full 4 K splendour and therefore had more time to be idle and relax. I cannot wait for faster connections and playing on line games where the response time is linked to ping speed is also very important. I want my movie download, skype HD, or whatever working quickly all the time. No to 56K modem's no to 12-25 or 50.......aim for at least 100. In his case it helped that the head of AT&T was his next door neighbour at the time, They had put special fiber in just to his house.

My friends in New York pay extra for 1GPS connection .....he showed me the time it took to download a movie........after clicking the link it was on his hard drive in full 4 K splendour and therefore had more time to be idle and relax. I cannot wait for faster connections and playing on line games where the response time is linked to ping speed is also very important. I want my movie download, skype HD, or whatever working quickly all the time. No to 56K modem's no to 12-25 or 50.......aim for at least 100.

Sure do what is important to you. We all should. Some buy a CAR and others buy a car.
Interestingly it used to be small businesses taking the commercial risk to open a movie rental shop, now we want the government to be on the hock just so we can download movies superfast.

One downside with NBN is it is impossible for the small number of end users who want superduperfast speeds to be on a binding Service level Agreement which guarantees download and upload speed at whatever tier they want to pay.

Lets look at the superfast download of the 4kmovie.
Thats about 100-160GB in total. Lets say 150Gb. And the sync speed of your NYC friend is 1Gbps most likely according to the marketing blurb he was given and probably done a speed test to some server. It is impossible to get a stable 1Gbps link between an enduser and a streaming movie service at 1Gbps. How long did it actually take? At a stable 1Gbps it would have taken 20-30min. Does it really need to be downloaded first before the relaxation or consumption of movie? Why not just buffer which will require less speed. 4K netflix streaming only needs a stable 30Mbps down.

Online games need superfast latency. Here fibre does not necessarily win out.

How much are you willing to pay?
I can tell you where you can get an uncontended 100/100 service at $3000 per month.

 

[coriander]

But the question remain..what would most consumers need 200Mbps for? Agree that the world moves forward, but I think such speeds are really only for marketing purposes and serve no current practical value. Its all contended anyway so real speeds are likely to be less. Will it have practical value in the future? Who knows but based on history most likely yes.

My car can do 200 km/h but it seems to be contended back to 60, 100 or rarely 110 km/h..........

 

[Quickstatus]

What do most consumers "need" paved roads for ? Any sort of internet at all ? Same argument.

People talking about how a "business" operates should also take a look at places around the world where businesses are putting in high speed internet - none of them are doing FTTN (or similar), and most of those that have in the past are already replacing it with FTTP.

I think the better analogy is most want paved roads but most do not need or want a 3 lane dual carriage freeway to their driveway.
Yes business will do what they need to do. But most endusers will be consumers and most dont want 100. The majority of FTTP endusers have not signed up to 100/40.
No business will put in private FTTN because that requires an interaction with the government/state telecom infrastructure. B2B is easiest via FW or fibre.

I do agree however, the small business proprietor who may need a stable 100/40 at all ties wont be able to get it even if more $$$ is paid as the CVC is applied to the POI and not specifically to the end user.

I am waiting for a quote for 50/50 1:1 contention fixed wireless (non NBN) with unlimited data and a 99.97% SLA. Initial discussions are about $750-1250 per month.

This is the only way to get service at stable speed. Anything else like NBN is just consumer internet


............

My car can do 200 km/h but it seems to be contended back to 60, 100 or rarely 110 km/h..........

This morning my average speed for 45km was 45km/h. Including on a section of road which is a tollway. Should we build roads that guarantee the speed limit? Or should we build roads that guarantee that all vehicles can drive on them at their max speed limit. After all if I can get home quicker i can get into relax mode much faster and watch the 4K movie
There is an argument that the toll should be prorated to the average speed at the time.

 

[drsmithy]

Sure do what is important to you. We all should. Some buy a CAR and others buy a car.
Interestingly it used to be small businesses taking the commercial risk to open a movie rental shop, now we want the government to be on the hock just so we can download movies superfast.

One downside with NBN is it is impossible for the small number of end users who want superduperfast speeds to be on a binding Service level Agreement which guarantees download and upload speed at whatever tier they want to pay.

You repeatedly and disingenuously make these arguments.

The point of the NBN is not to be able to download movies quickly, that is simply a side effect. Much like the intent of putting in the telecommunications infrastructure the first time was not to allow people to ring up sex chat lines, them being able to was just a side effect.

Nobody is arguing consumers should be getting uncontended, SLA-guaranteed "superduperfast" speeds. They are arguing they should not be as contended as they are, and if new infrastructure is being installed that new infrastructure should not be crippled from the get-go with scalability limits that barely meet current demands when far better solutions exist for little additional cost.

 

[drsmithy]

I think the better analogy is most want paved roads but most do not need or want a 3 lane dual carriage freeway to their driveway.

No, it's not, because turning an unpaved road into a three lane highway is a massive undertaking, whereas increasing FTTP bandwidth from 100Mb to 1Gb is not.

Yes business will do what they need to do. But most endusers will be consumers and most dont want 100. The majority of FTTP endusers have not signed up to 100/40.

Twenty years ago most endusers weren't signing up to 512k ADSL or cable because theur 56k modem was fast enough.

No business will put in private FTTN because that requires an interaction with the government/state telecom infrastructure. B2B is easiest via FW or fibre.

Which part of "overseas" did you not understand ?

Let me be clearer. Places that initially put in FTTN have been replacing it with FTTP. Yet here we are putting in new FTTN instead of FTTP.

I am waiting for a quote for 50/50 1:1 contention fixed wireless (non NBN) with unlimited data and a 99.97% SLA. Initial discussions are about $750-1250 per month.

This is the only way to get service at stable speed. Anything else like NBN is just consumer internet

How is this relevant ?

 

[Quickstatus]

No, it's not, because turning an unpaved road into a three lane highway is a massive undertaking, whereas increasing FTTP bandwidth from 100Mb to 1Gb is not.



Twenty years ago most endusers weren't signing up to 512k ADSL or cable because theur 56k modem was fast enough.



Which part of "overseas" did you not understand ?

Let me be clearer. Places that initially put in FTTN have been replacing it with FTTP. Yet here we are putting in new FTTN instead of FTTP.



How is this relevant ?

Yes 20 yrs ago all I needed was 56K. Why would I get something I don't need?. Now I calculate I need 25/25 min and so looking at 50/50 which apparently cost about same as 25/25. I could go FTTP private but 6km of fibre will be like the $200k Queenslander but why would I go FTTP (private)when I can get what I want on FW (private). But yet we want the taxpayer to fork out for it?. Not sure if I can realistically get 50/20 on FW NBN. The NBN SLA does not guarantee anything. Actually there is no proper SLA:shock:
So like everything if NBN/govt does not provide either a) make noise or go b) go private with an uncontended SLA service


Unpaved = dialup:shock:
paved = Adsl
Major arterial with traffic lights and varying speed limits= FTTN
Multilane dual carriage tollway = FTTP.

 

[drsmithy]

But yet we want the taxpayer to fork out for it?.

No, we want our telecommunications infrastructure to be properly built, scalable and publicly funded so we don't have to keep going back and rebuilding it.

Like it used to be.

Unpaved = dialup:shock:
paved = Adsl
Major arterial with traffic lights and varying speed limits= FTTN
Multilane dual carriage tollway = FTTP.

No, the disingenuity being promulgated here is that there's a massive cost and time difference between NBN as it's ended up being built, and NBN being done properly.
It also ignores that further scaling that multilane carriageway is an enormous undertaking, whereas increasing the capacity of existing fibre infrastructure is not (as opposed to increasing the capacity of FTTN, which IS complicated and expensive).

 

[moa999]

Elements of MTM were smart, others were dumb.
How much of this is the Lib govt and how much is stupidity within NBN management is another matter.

FTTP. My 17-story apartment building was connected with under 2 day's work, and no ugly cabling and boxes above each door. With g.fast and xg.fast it can be cheaply upgraded to gigabit.

HFC (Much of Sydney/Melbourne). Upgrading the ex-Foxtel cable to Docsis 3.1 provides gigabit, and only requires about 20-30% infill given the extensive Foxtel rollout (most houses have had Foxtel connected at some point in the area)

FTTN. Works for some areas where their is decent density and runs under 500m. But allowing areas with runs over 1km, or sharing nodes over two DAs or in areas of bad copper, bad/flood prone pits was dumb.

New builds. Not making NBN provider for developments over 20 builds - instead it's 100 - meaning many 'new' areas are still getting FTTN

 

[Quickstatus]

Elements of MTM were smart, others were dumb.
How much of this is the Lib govt and how much is stupidity within NBN management is another matter.

NBN wanted to deploy more FTTC instead of FTTN but the idea was shut down by the government because it was going to require an expanded timescale. Faster (as in deployment) and cheaper was the mantra.

They should have brought up to speed communities lacking basic connectivity first.

"Scalable infrastructure" is a mantra that is often mentioned. I don't think there is ever any piece of infrastructure that is really scalable. Even the submarine fibre optic cables are not scalable. They are funded and built for anticipated demand and have a finite life and new cables need to be laid. Most are 2x2 pairs. You would think they would lay a cable of multiple pairs but because of finite life and economics this scalability does not occur

But yes FTTP has much more overhead than other technologies Just not faster/cheaper unfortunately.

 

[JessicaTam]

Oh joy, my work connection has been upgraded to 4Mb/s.

 

[TheRealTMA]

Oh joy, my work connection has been upgraded to 4Mb/s.

Whoo, whoo. Don't download GOT all at once!

 

[whatmeworry]

So I got an inspection notice from the NBN to test my phone line.

The inspection date will be sometime between 25 September 2017 and 15 February 2018. :shock:

 

[Quickstatus]

So I got an inspection notice from the NBN to test my phone line.

The inspection date will be sometime between 25 September 2017 and 15 February 2018. :shock:

Whats the test for?

 

[serfty]

Whats the test for?

Patience