NBN Discussion

[whatmeworry]

Looks like we are not getting NBN as our suburb (less than 8k from CBD) does not appear on the list.

Same here, but even closer to PER CBD

I guess the NBN thinks you guys live in the bush. Surprisingly parts of Sunbury north west of MEL will get FTTP.

 

[Buzzard]

I guess the NBN thinks you guys live in the bush. Surprisingly parts of Sunbury north west of MEL will get FTTP.

Actually, I do live in the bush.

 

[ComeFlyWithMe]

Just because the suburb says HFC doesn't mean all dwellings will be serviced by that technology. It will be for stand alone residences. MDUs will still be FTTB with VDSL tails over copper internally.

 

[RAM]

And then this all compares to the bleeding edge of technology in that world renowned city, Chattanooga

Chattanooga
City in Tennessee

Chattanooga is the fourth-largest city in the U.S. state of Tennessee, with a population of 167,674 as of the 2010 census, and an estimated population of 171,279 in 2012. It is the seat of Hamilton County.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...st-got-10-times-faster/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_tech

Residents can now sign up for a 10 gigabit-per-second plan, allowing them to download an HD movie in less than a second.

The plan certainly isn't cheap, at $300 a month. You might wonder why anyone would even want such a service. But as more of our everyday objects become smart appliances, our bandwidth consumption is set to exceed expectations. And this new service from Chattanooga offers more evidence that a national race to 10 Gbps is on.

OK, I understand for some EXTREMELY limited uses you need to be able to download an entire HD movie in 0.16 of a second (such as transmitting the images from the Hubble telescope) - but really.

Is this the new "my car's faster than yours" or "I went to XCCDVC on holiday" for politicians?

The bulk of down loads in EVERY country is non-business related, private or pirated video.

Subsidising the pay-TV industry does not seem a good reason to for tax payers to foot the bill in the build out of such networks.

Chattanooga REALLY needs 10 GB per second speeds for their residents.

Golden Hammer: Chattanooga chokes on too much fiber - Washington Times

Building the fiber network came at extraordinary expense to taxpayers, as well as Chattanooga electric customers.
Once the interest on the taxpayer-funded stimulus handout is paid and costs associated with a government bond to help fund the project are calculated, the final tally for EPB’s fiber optic infrastructure is estimated to top $550 million.


USD550,000,000 cost divided by 168,000 men, women and children
= $3,300 per capita or around $10,000 per family.

EPB officials have justified the spending by insisting the high-speed Internet would turn Chattanooga into the Silicon Valley of the South; luring high-tech businesses to the city, creating jobs and spurring an economic windfall, as a result. City officials hope to attract high-tech firms and jobs offering Internet speeds as 1 gigabit per second – about 50 times faster than the national average.

“We believe that access to true high-speed Internet connectivity is critical infrastructure needed for economic development and, ultimately, quality of life,” according to Danna Bailey, head of corporate communications for EPB.
But the bet hasn’t paid off: Few new companies have been lured to the city by the faster Internet and, according to publicly available records, only 11 commercial customers used the service as of January of this year.
Chattanooga shouldn’t expect things to get better in terms of its ability to draw high-tech companies to town because of its gig-speed Internet. Businesses now have many more choices. Twenty-four U.S. cities now offer gigabit Internet, according to PC magazine.
“There’s nothing that makes Chattanooga‘s gigabit Internet stand out from other places that also offer a gig,” Mr. Greene said. “The only difference is the ridiculous amount Chattanooga’s Gig project cost taxpayers.”


Finally, EPB, concerned about unflattering coverage about the cost and performance of its fiber service and the overbilling allegations, issued ultimatums to a number of Chattanooga media outlets stating that if negative coverage persisted, the utility would stop advertising with them.

EPB went through with the threat in at least two cases. The newspaper and a talk radio station both lost thousands of dollars as a result of continuing to report about EPB’s failures.

Ms. Bailey defended the tactics, stating, “The press is free to write stories about the topics of their choice. We are free to make business decisions regarding our advertising purchases and strategy.”

 

[moa999]

Question is - is every Australian prepared to write a check for $10,000 just for install.
Unlikely given if you look at the stats from Tasmania, something like 90% are selecting the lowest two speed tiers 12/1 and 25/5, which is in ADSL2 range (apart from the 5 upload)

Reality is everything in government is a tradeoff.

 

[drsmithy]

Question is - is every Australian prepared to write a check for $10,000 just for install.
Unlikely given if you look at the stats from Tasmania, something like 90% are selecting the lowest two speed tiers 12/1 and 25/5, which is in ADSL2 range (apart from the 5 upload)

Reality is everything in government is a tradeoff.

The point of FTTH is not to give everyone sooper-dooper speeds today. The point is to get fibre in so that speed can be scaled up as required for the next half a century without having to rip and replace the infrastructure again.

If the same people complaining about FTTH had built the harbour bridge, it would have been two lanes wide with a single train track.

 

[moa999]

Yes but existing tech can also do this with fairly minor upgrades.
HFC with Docsis 3.1 upgrades is reported to be able to deliver 10,0000/1000.
FTTB/FTTN is capable of 500+/100+ for runs up to 250m using g.fast

 

[drsmithy]

Yes but existing tech can also do this with fairly minor upgrades.
HFC with Docsis 3.1 upgrades is reported to be able to deliver 10,0000/1000.
FTTB/FTTN is capable of 500+/100+ for runs up to 250m using g.fast

And if most people already had HFC or were within 250m, that would be enough for another decade or so.

 

[Buzzard]

At 4.2k from the exchange, I just want internet that works.

 

[moa999]

And soon I suspect. Are you on the three year plan??

 

[whatmeworry]

At 4.2k from the exchange, I just want internet that works.

You can make a complaint about the rollout.

https://www2.nbnco.com.au/corporate-information/contact-us-form.html

 

[Buzzard]

And soon I suspect. Are you on the three year plan??

I'm not sure as our suburb is not listed. We might be tacked on to an adjoining suburb.

 

[ComeFlyWithMe]

The point of FTTH is not to give everyone sooper-dooper speeds today. The point is to get fibre in so that speed can be scaled up as required for the next half a century without having to rip and replace the infrastructure again.

If the same people complaining about FTTH had built the harbour bridge, it would have been two lanes wide with a single train track.

Not entirely correct. You need to rip and replace the infrastructure at both ends, both of which are significantly more expensive than copper based infrastructure.

The concept of FTTH is entirely sound, however geographically and financially it isn't viable in a country as vast as ours.

Perhaps if we weren't subsidising people who choose to live in the middle of nowhere and expect 100Mbs speeds, there'd be plenty of money to do FTTH in major metropolitan centres, but alas, it was a Labor policy where cross subsidisation is the name of the game.

Had NBNco done major cities first, the revenue would be bucketing in which would pay for the more geographically challenged installations, but no, favour was given to rural areas and Labor electorates.

 

[ComeFlyWithMe]

And then this all compares to the bleeding edge of technology in that world renowned city, Chattanooga

Way to cut and paste.

Our friends in Chattanooga would find it rather difficult to download a film at 10Gbps, unless it was from their neighbor. Even the US doesn't have that kind of backhaul, and neither do the content providers.

 

[drsmithy]

Not entirely correct. You need to rip and replace the infrastructure at both ends, both of which are significantly more expensive than copper based infrastructure.

The expensive part is not upgrading the endpoint equipment occasionally, it's laying fibre.

The concept of FTTH is entirely sound, however geographically and financially it isn't viable in a country as vast as ours.

Australia is one of the most urbanised countries on the planet. Something like 90% of the population live in a population centre of >10,000 people.

Perhaps if we weren't subsidising people who choose to live in the middle of nowhere and expect 100Mbs speeds, there'd be plenty of money to do FTTH in major metropolitan centres, but alas, it was a Labor policy where cross subsidisation is the name of the game.

Sounds like a straw man to me. Properly remote locations weren't going to get FTTH as far as I recall.

Had NBNco done major cities first, the revenue would be bucketing in which would pay for the more geographically challenged installations, but no, favour was given to rural areas and Labor electorates.

There's two fairly obvious reasons to give preference to rural areas, the first is because their current options are dismal across the board (dialup or satellite), whereas most city locations can get at least xDSL, and the second is that once it was rolled out to city areas, Liberal voters would do everything in their power to have it stopped.

 

[whatmeworry]

You must wonder who the geniuses who thought laying down new copper was better then laying fibre to the home... Oh wait one of them is now PM.

 

[RAM]

Australia is one of the most urbanised countries on the planet. Something like 90% of the population live in a population centre of >10,000 people.

... and the cost for dealing with the 10% that do not is immense. In reality it is the cost for dealing with about 1% that equals the cost for dealing with the next 7% which equals the cost for dealing with the next 32% of the Aust population.

Australia is unique in the distances between the rural population component - no other country comes close to the pop density per sq km for the rural (aka non-urban population).

For example with electricity supply - it is cheaper today to provide rural communities with free rooftop solar panels, 7 days worth of battery storage and a back-up generator (for that 0.05% chance) than to run the transmission wires etc. However, for some reason we don't normally. Finger in the dike stuff!

Sounds like a straw man to me. Properly remote locations weren't going to get FTTH as far as I recall.

There's two fairly obvious reasons to give preference to rural areas, the first is because their current options are dismal across the board (dialup or satellite), whereas most city locations can get at least xDSL, and the second is that once it was rolled out to city areas, Liberal voters would do everything in their power to have it stopped.

Well inner-city dwellers are notoriously Greens/ALP voters - so that argument seems a bit of a stretch.

The biggest supporter of the NBN are the large donors who's business models benefit from the tax payer taking away their cost of doing business (Pay TV, some phone companies, some internet providers, IPTV operators etc).

Valuation benefit to Foxtel is HUGE!

 

[drsmithy]

... and the cost for dealing with the 10% that do not is immense. In reality it is the cost for dealing with about 1% that equals the cost for dealing with the next 7% which equals the cost for dealing with the next 32% of the Aust population.

Australia is unique in the distances between the rural population component - no other country comes close to the pop density per sq km for the rural (aka non-urban population).

So you've made an argument why reaching the 10% of the population who live past the black stump should probably not have FTTH. Why isn't the other 90% of the population getting it ?

Switch out "NBN" with other utilities to compare. Does the ~90% of the population in urban areas have access to reticulated water ? Mains sewerage ? Mains electricity ?

For example with electricity supply - it is cheaper today to provide rural communities with free rooftop solar panels, 7 days worth of battery storage and a back-up generator (for that 0.05% chance) than to run the transmission wires etc. However, for some reason we don't normally. Finger in the dike stuff!

Probably because that equation has only recently become true.

Well inner-city dwellers are notoriously Greens/ALP voters - so that argument seems a bit of a stretch.

Yeah. The North Shore is completely dominated by Greens voters. ::eyeroll::

The urban area of cities goes a hell of a lot further than "inner-city".

The biggest supporter of the NBN are the large donors who's business models benefit from the tax payer taking away their cost of doing business (Pay TV, some phone companies, some internet providers, IPTV operators etc).

Valuation benefit to Foxtel is HUGE!

No, the threat to Foxtel is huge. That's why Uncle Rupert has been so adamantly against the NBN from day one. It will destroy Foxtel, which has a laughably inadequate and overpriced product once its distribution monopoly is removed. Throw in all the possibilities for individual-generated-content it enables and it's a double-whammy.

 

[moa999]

A working NBN is massively damaging to Foxtel/Austar which have a PayTV monopoly.

High speed internet allows anyone including the existing FTA carriers to offer a competing service

 

[jb747]

.....including the existing FTA carriers to offer a competing service

Does free to air still exist? They drove me off it years ago.