NBN Discussion

[exceladdict]

FTTB was presented to five residential towers in our neighbourhood in late Sep 2015, with our OC committee agreeing to acquiring FTTB by late November (other OCs are arguing(?) with TPG over the power consumption, one OC wanting a separate power point and wiring back to a separate meter). Fibre was pulled from the street into our MDF during the last week in March 2016. All installation was completed in week after Easter.

FTTB in our building went live on 11-April. Our OC covers a residential tower, townhouses and apartments. The townhouses and apartments have separate street addresses. This created a problem as only the tower address was listed in the TPG/Wondercom database. I shot off an email to the TPG manager who initially presented the system to us and the new addresses were added to the database over the weekend of 23-25 April.

I signed up for Wondercom Tuesday 26th at 10.00am.
By 3.00pm an email advised that the modem was coming via Startrack.
At 3.45pm, I received a phone call from a Wondercom techie advising me to ring him as soon as modem arrives.
Wednesday modem arrives. I ring TPG techie who was happy to install that afternoon! First available morning appointment was Friday 900am.

Techie rocks up Friday morning, cuts us over to Wondercom in 5 minutes. Our home is approx 100m from MDF (following the conduits in garage ceiling and allowing 5m for cabling inside our residence to the modem).

Below is the speedtest from Exetel just before cutover and FTTB after cutover: we've gone from "slower than 69%" to "faster than 98%" of Australia.

View attachment 69545

Service was fast, communications were excellent. We've gone from an Exetel ADSL2+ $59 unlimited plan (paying for phone calls) to the TPG/Wondercom 100/40 unlimited plan with all but calls to mobiles thrown in for $69. Meanwhile here at work in Sunshine ADSL runs at 3-4 Mbps and fails every 9 months or so due to corroded / failing copper in the pit outside. No fibre of any description till 2019 (I think we're in the last tranche - HFC?).

Nice. On the COO of my building, have approached TPG myself. They're still due to scope my building, it sounds like the entire process with TPG for you happened faster than it took for NBN to reply to one of my emails.

My recent technical advice is that you cannot run two VDSL service providers in the same building due to crosstalk. It's more likely NBN will be lazy and just compulsorily buy up these TPG assets eventually.

TPG have advised me that they have installed FTTB at buildings that already have NBN FTTB with no issue.

 

[coriander]

Nice. On the COO of my building, have approached TPG myself. They're still due to scope my building.

The five towers would contain around 600 residences; the fibre was always going to run along the street outside. Plus I was on the OC committee at the time and have really pushed for this. The meeting of the tower OC representatives at which TPG presented their proposal was interesting: two reps said they would actively argue against TPG's installation because they wanted to wait for "proper" better NBN (and weren't convinced that NBN FTTB would be same or worse than TPG). Another said fibre was obsolete and the 4G wireless data such as his smartphone or dongle was the way of the future. I won people over by mentioning the words they wanted to hear: "improved resale value" or "improved tenancy/rentals".

The power consumption of the TPG cabinet (about the size of a microwave oven is ~3kWh/day). TPG offered a free data connection to the resident manager's office or to pay $365 per year. One of the towers has baulked at these options and wants TPG to install their own power point wired back to a separate meter to power the cabinet. Needless to say, their tower doesn't have FTTB yet!

TPG have advised me that they have installed FTTB at buildings that already have NBN FTTB with no issue.

Whirpool.net.au users quote several buildings in both MEL and SYD with both NBN FTTB and TPG FTTB without issue.

 

[Pleb Status]

My recent technical advice is that you cannot run two VDSL service providers in the same building due to crosstalk. It's more likely NBN will be lazy and just compulsorily buy up these TPG assets eventually.

My building has both TPG and NBN FTTB. So I would say rubbish to the above.

The TPG connection was completed about 18 months ago and NBN connection about 2 months ago. With unlimited data at $70/month, you cannot beat TPG/Wondercom FTTB.

 

[drsmithy]

Only if you think one has to be a 'climate scientist' to express a sceptical opinion on (anthropomorphic) climate change .

NBN is a matter of social nation building policy.

Climate change is a matter of science.

Kind of like the difference between asking someone whether or not they like a song vs measuring how loud it's being played.

 

[drsmithy]

The question is not whether you have an opinion, it is whether it is an informed opinion you have derived or whether you are just regurgitating something someone else said, be it factual or otherwise? Do you derive only the facts that back up your pre-conceived opinion or do you derive your opinion from a well balanced analysis of the facts?

Yeah... I think you've missed the point.

 

[TheRealTMA]

Another said fibre was obsolete and the 4G wireless data such as his smartphone or dongle was the way of the future.

I never cease to be amazed by the wunderkinders who have no science background and have sipped the cool aid or supped at the font of Malcolm and believe that fibre optic transmission is obsolete and 'wireless' is the future. How do they deliver 1G and faster speeds in Japan for example? By carrier pigeons?

 

[Pleb Status]

I never cease to be amazed by the wunderkinders who have no science background and have sipped the cool aid or supped at the font of Malcolm and believe that fibre optic transmission is obsolete and 'wireless' is the future. How do they deliver 1G and faster speeds in Japan for example? By carrier pigeons?

Wireless is far more cost effective to deliver a better service to more people in a shorter timeframe. If you are willing to pay the full cost of having fibre to your premises, than obviously that is a better solution but is extremely expensive overall.

I could download faster on Telstra 4G than any ADSL2+ connection I have ever had.....

 

[RooFlyer]

NBN is a matter of social nation building policy.

Climate change is a matter of science.

Kind of like the difference between asking someone whether or not they like a song vs measuring how loud it's being played.

OK, you kinda missed the point of my post; the wink might have given it away. But never mind.

I never cease to be amazed by the wunderkinders who have no science background and have sipped the cool aid or supped at the font of Malcolm and believe that fibre optic transmission is obsolete and 'wireless' is the future. How do they deliver 1G and faster speeds in Japan for example? By carrier pigeons?

An illustration of the main dichotomy of views. One, the focus on speed - only the fastest possible is good enough. OK, if that's what's needed and its cost effective. But there are many of us for whom the main issue is simple availability. I do not want to wait many years for a Rolls Royce service I don't need and that costs a fortune!

I don't think the comment was aimed in my direction, but simply wanting a decent service this year rather than in 10 years (maybe) doesn't mean I've 'drunk the cool aid' or been conned by anyone .

 

[drsmithy]

Wireless is far more cost effective to deliver a better service to more people in a shorter timeframe. If you are willing to pay the full cost of having fibre to your premises, than obviously that is a better solution but is extremely expensive overall.

Sure. But then when that wireless standard is obseleted a few years down the track you've got to go and replace all the wireless kit again. Then a few years after that you do it again. Then a few years later you do it again.

Not to mention the fundamentally lower reliability, consistency and performance of wireless over wired.

I could download faster on Telstra 4G than any ADSL2+ connection I have ever had.....

And you'd be able to download faster on fibre than any cellular connection ever.

The reason you put in fibre is because once it's there it's good for decades. It's like reserving a corridor for eight lanes of traffic even though you only need four today. But that sort of vision and planning seems to be considered toxic by contemporary politics.

 

[RooFlyer]

Sure. But then when that wireless standard is obseleted a few years down the track you've got to go and replace all the wireless kit again. Then a few years after that you do it again. Then a few years later you do it again.

Not to mention the fundamentally lower reliability, consistency and performance of wireless over wired.

<a quote>

And you'd be able to download faster on fibre than any cellular connection ever.

The reason you put in fibre is because once it's there it's good for decades. It's like reserving a corridor for eight lanes of traffic even though you only need four today. But that sort of vision and planning seems to be considered toxic by contemporary politics.

I think your analogy is flawed. Building optic fibre everywhere (or nearly everywhere) now is like building an 8 lane freeway everywhere, not reserving a corridor for it. The midlands highway in Tasmania is the main highway between Hobart and Launceston. Its currently one lane each way, with some overtaking lanes, and they are slowly adding more. What you are suggesting is that they build an 8 lane freeway now, to save the cost and trouble of doing it later. It would bankrupt the state and even making it a toll road (to be more akin to the NBN) would be a ridiculous waste of money. Sure, the hundreds of users a day will have a great experience, but its just not justified. Upgrades can happen later when demand requires it.

Sure, put in fibre where the population densities and business and school etc demand will sustain it. But just not warranted in many parts of the country and the 'future proofing' argument doesn't hold up.

 

[moa999]

The main issue with wireless is bandwidth availability...

You couldn't have everyone in the neighborhood downloading what they do on fixed connections.

Eg. The slow speeds on Telstra free data days

 

[drsmithy]

I think your analogy is flawed. Building optic fibre everywhere (or nearly everywhere) now is like building an 8 lane freeway everywhere, not reserving a corridor for it.

No it's not.

The fibre going into the ground is capable of tens or hundreds of gigabits/sec. But it can only actually achieve that with appropriate endpoints.

The fibre in the ground is the corridor. The endpoints are the two land road you need today (or the four lane road you need in ten years when you upgrade them).

Upgrades can happen later when demand requires it.

No, they can't. You do proper FTTP at the start, or you have to come back later and redo basically everything. That's the point.

 

[RooFlyer]

No it's not.

The fibre going into the ground is capable of tens or hundreds of gigabits/sec. But it can only actually achieve that with appropriate endpoints.

The fibre in the ground is the corridor. The endpoints are the two land road you need today (or the four lane road you need in ten years when you upgrade them).

<regarding upgrade>

No, they can't. You do proper FTTP at the start, or you have to come back later and redo basically everything. That's the point.

Well, we can disagree on the analogy; but the debate is whether you go the max up front, even though demand may not warrant it for years, if ever, or whether you install what's reasonable and affordable now. And of course you can upgrade later! An area serviced by Fixed Wireless can be upgraded to fibre later if demand warrants it. Yes, you have done things twice ( that said, a FW tower cost - what $1 mill?? Wow, big bikkies there!), but that's the same as the analogy between building a highway suitable for the immediate future now, and upgrade it to a freeway later, when traffic warrants it.

Do you build a school to service the community's needs for the next 5 or 10 years, or something like triple the size, most of it unused for now so you don't have to come back and "redo" everything? Do you build an airport the size of Heathrow at Adelaide now, so you don't have to "redo" it later? Do you build power stations sufficient for 60 or 100 million people in Australia now, or what's reasonable for the present and, say, 10 years?

Put it this way - for what other infrastructure does the philosophy of "build it once, built it largest/fastest/highest/biggest so it never needs upgrading" apply?

Are you seriously suggesting that - in my case - they lay optic fibre 50km to and reticulate it within some sleepy town where there might be a hundred domestic customers?? If you are, I have a hospital in Hobart that would like to say something about the cost. You know, a capital city's health and lives over some kid's ability to stream Netflix.

 

[whatmeworry]

Meanwhile, when the kids are on holiday or come home from school my net speeds are throttled by my ISP. The Netflick effect.

 

[Pleb Status]

No it's not.

The fibre going into the ground is capable of tens or hundreds of gigabits/sec. But it can only actually achieve that with appropriate endpoints.

The fibre in the ground is the corridor. The endpoints are the two land road you need today (or the four lane road you need in ten years when you upgrade them).



No, they can't. You do proper FTTP at the start, or you have to come back later and redo basically everything. That's the point.

How do you expect the company building all of this overconstructed infrastructure to get paid (for something that may not be used fully for decades)?

Even with the current $50 billion+ NBN project, many are paying a $30/mth premium to fund the uneconomic sections of the (trimmed back) network. This premium will most likely increase when the full cost of the NBN is realised.

As stated previously, I have a choice of TPG or NBN FTTB. I pay $70/mth on the fully commercially funded, for profit, fit for purpose TPG fibre network. I would pay TPG $100/mth for the same package on the over built, uneconomic NBN fibre network. Those who do not have a choice will be paying far more than required for years to come to fund your unused/underused infrastructure.

 

[drsmithy]

Put it this way - for what other infrastructure does the philosophy of "build it once, built it largest/fastest/highest/biggest so it never needs upgrading" apply?

That's not the philosophy being applied. The point is that if you're running wires, the cost for fibre vs copper is basically the same, but the capability of the former is orders of magnitudes higher, so not putting it in solely for political reasons is utterly moronic.

Are you seriously suggesting that - in my case - they lay optic fibre 50km to and reticulate it within some sleepy town where there might be a hundred domestic customers?? If you are, I have a hospital in Hobart that would like to say something about the cost. You know, a capital city's health and lives over some kid's ability to stream Netflix.

Well the fibre is going to get run the 50km to that town even if you go wireless within the town because the wireless has to connect to a backbone.

But this is an apples and oranges red herring. Nobody disagrees wireless is suitable for some situations like small and remote towns. However, something like 50% of the population live in ten cities and something like 80% in twenty-five cities. Those are the installations that should be FTTP, but which are going to be "mixed technology" rubbish that is inevitably going to have to be fixed later, at similar if not greater cost, or the people in those areas just left with coughpy service.

If you people had built the Sydney Harbour Bridge it would have been two vehicle lanes and a single rail line, and probably rebuilt twice since. No wonder the country is rooted with this sort of must-flip-it-next-year-for-a-profit short-sightedness.

 

[drsmithy]

How do you expect the company building all of this overconstructed infrastructure to get paid (for something that may not be used fully for decades)?

Maybe they could ask those guys who are going to build the submarines ?

I mean, seriously ? Governments build infrastructure with lifetimes measured in decades all the time. That's one of the main reasons they exist, FFS, to deal with building things that are too long-lived or large scale for private industry.

 

[Pleb Status]

Maybe they could ask those guys who are going to build the submarines ?

I mean, seriously ? Governments build infrastructure with lifetimes measured in decades all the time. That's one of the main reasons they exist, FFS, to deal with building things that are too long-lived or large scale for private industry.

So you want a gold plated, non-essential service, but you do not know and/or want to know how to find the tens of billions of dollars required to pay for it. All so your Netflix will download a few minutes faster.

Some would agrue that the government should not even be involved at all, as private industry would most likely do a better job.

Fibre will come to most areas eventually, but it really should be rolled out over a twenty to thirty year timeframe. In the short to medium term, high speed wireless may provide cost effective access to most Australians where fibre is not economical at the moment.

Also, I remember a time when it was stated that the fastest data rate that a twisted copper pair could transmit was 33.6kbps. I am getting 100Mbps on my twisted copper pair (via VDSL2). So technology advances may help extend the life of the existing infrastructure for a few years yet.

 

[RooFlyer]

That's not the philosophy being applied. The point is that if you're running wires, the cost for fibre vs copper is basically the same, but the capability of the former is orders of magnitudes higher, so not putting it in solely for political reasons is utterly moronic.

<snip>

But we are not just running wires! There's Fixed Wireless and satellite as part of the current mix as well as using some existing copper. So in no way are we talking simply about running (installing) fibre vs running (installing) copper - I believe the whole premise of your argument is therefore a nonsense. I'm certainly not saying that satellite broadband (I've used it) or existing copper is a fantastic solution - but its entirely about getting a timely, cost effective solution for as many people as possible vs a blanket 'fibre to every building' which would cost the earth and take as good as forever.

But sure, those in the cities will be OK, no worries. Stuff the rest of us, who will have to share the cost of that indulgence without getting the benefit in our lifetimes.

<snip>

Well the fibre is going to get run the 50km to that town even if you go wireless within the town because the wireless has to connect to a backbone.

<snip>.

Sorry, incorrect. The Fixed Wireless service connects by microwave to the existing fibre node, in this case across a bay. The tower went up in 2 weeks, commissioned in a month and I now have a fast broadband service. Now. Not in goodness knows how many years time. I'm sure we would enjoy sharing a beer or a wine if we got together, but I suspect you can't appreciate the issues of those of us outside the large metropolitan areas and you don't appear to understand the technology being deployed outside of the beloved optic fibre (and I sure as hell don't either, but then I'm Ok with it).

<snip>

If you people had built the Sydney Harbour Bridge it would have been two vehicle lanes and a single rail line, and probably rebuilt twice since. No wonder the country is rooted with this sort of must-flip-it-next-year-for-a-profit short-sightedness.

And it 'you people' had built the Sydney Harbour Bridge in 1930-odd, it would have been 8 lanes each way, bankrupted NSW, never rebuilt since, and we would STILL need other harbour crossings because funnelling everything down one corridor we find doesn't really work that well !

Maybe they could ask those guys who are going to build the submarines ?

I mean, seriously ? Governments build infrastructure with lifetimes measured in decades all the time. That's one of the main reasons they exist, FFS, to deal with building things that are too long-lived or large scale for private industry.

First, submarines are not infrastructure. And yes governments do built infrastructure with lifetimes measured in decades. So why would one now insist on a continent-wide fibre-optic network that is final, that's it, never needs touching again?

 

[whatmeworry]

So you want a gold plated, non-essential service, but you do not know and/or want to know how to find the tens of billions of dollars required to pay for it. All so your Netflix will download a few minutes faster.

Some would agrue that the government should not even be involved at all, as private industry would most likely do a better job.

Fibre will come to most areas eventually, but it really should be rolled out over a twenty to thirty year timeframe. In the short to medium term, high speed wireless may provide cost effective access to most Australians where fibre is not economical at the moment.

Also, I remember a time when it was stated that the fastest data rate that a twisted copper pair could transmit was 33.6kbps. I am getting 100Mbps on my twisted copper pair (via VDSL2). So technology advances may help extend the life of the existing infrastructure for a few years yet.

In the businesses I have worked for, the biggest problem is up speeds. I remember once I had to email a 30mb file that the boss requested (who was offsite) and it took a few hours till he got it.

Another work place, a customer was complaining why it was taking so slow for files to be received. Had to explain we were limited because of net speeds.

The copper network is limiting productive.