NBN Discussion

[moa999]

The original NBN plan was coming down in price everyday. Whereas Malcolm Turnbull's Frankenstein MTM, which was meant to be delivered this year, has gone from $29 billion to nearly doubling to at least the last count $56 billion.

Complete cough...

It missed every target and every budget, except for the very last plan which had almost no rollout and back ended everything, much like Gonski

Malcoms NBN was a 'complete by 2019' thing... Example the first Satellite which was signed by Labour, launched under the Libs has just added it's first subscriber. The second Sat hasn't even launched.

 

[moa999]

You have been able to get downloads like that since about 2009 and most cities would have it by now with no government spend except Labor wanted to waste $100bn instead. Woohoo. Thanks Kevin!!

Yes. I suspect about 75% of the population would have good FTTN/HFC/Fibre and probably $20/mth cheaper than NBN plans.

The rest would have no chance of ever getting decent Internet... The NBN was a massive cross subsidy in getting affordable internet connections everywhere. Unfortunately the plans were a little too pie in the sky and both parties have been back tracking ever since

 

[RooFlyer]

Can you elaborate on why it would make any sense to include, say, all the desert areas in central Australia in a population density comparison in this context (comparison to Portugal, or most other countries with relatively even population distributions, for running fixed infrastructure) ? Do you think we might be building lots of towns and cities in them any time soon ?

Pretty simple. Countries like Portugal, Korea etc with, as you say, relatively even population densities can justify having a uniform broadband system, and the cost of making it uniformly fibre (for example) is more justifiable.

A country like Australia, where densities are low over large areas, you are faced with the responsibility to provide better internet services where the customer base is low. Therefore come up with a plan to service those areas cost effectively and as soon as reasonably possible.

The last person who seriously advocated building cities out of towns in the 'bush' was Gough Whitlam, I recall. Its the fact that that was a stupid idea then, and still is, is part of the reason why a sensible plan for NBN considers the low population density in many parts of Australia alongside the situation in high density areas.

Although one can't get a decent latte in those 'desert areas', one can still respect them by not ignoring their particular situation.

 

[drsmithy]

Pretty simple. Countries like Portugal, Korea etc with, as you say, relatively even population densities can justify having a uniform broadband system, and the cost of making it uniformly fibre (for example) is more justifiable.

Nobody is suggesting everyone gets fibre.

Just the 80-90% that live in urban centres.

A country like Australia, where densities are low over large areas, you are faced with the responsibility to provide better internet services where the customer base is low. Therefore come up with a plan to service those areas cost effectively and as soon as reasonably possible.

Densities are not low over large areas. About 70% of the population lives in ten cities. 90% live in a population centre of around 25,000 or more.

Australia is very urbanised. "Urban planning" has been driving higher living densities for decades and social and economic policies have been concentrating more people into a smaller number of cities for about as long. It makes no sense whatsover to consider uninhabited and uninhabitable parts of the country when comparison population densities. None.

The last person who seriously advocated building cities out of towns in the 'bush' was Gough Whitlam, I recall. Its the fact that that was a stupid idea then, and still is, is part of the reason why a sensible plan for NBN considers the low population density in many parts of Australia alongside the situation in high density areas.

There are many good reasons to decentralise, from cheap land to lower concentration of political power, but that's an entirely different discussion.

Although one can't get a decent latte in those 'desert areas', one can still respect them by not ignoring their particular situation.

Just can't stop playing the man, eh ?

 

[RooFlyer]

<snip>

Densities are not low over large areas. About 70% of the population lives in ten cities. 90% live in a population centre of around 25,000 or more.

Australia is very urbanised. "Urban planning" has been driving higher living densities for decades and social and economic policies have been concentrating more people into a smaller number of cities for about as long. It makes no sense whatsover to consider uninhabited and uninhabitable parts of the country when comparison population densities. None.<snip>.

Run that past me again? "Densities are not low over large areas". Area of Australia: 7.7 mill sq km give or take. Take the area of all the cities and towns of 25K or more, then subtract it from 7.7 million.

I reckon that leaves you with a pretty big area - say 7 mill sq km, with is obviously too low - with, in your counting, 10% of the population.

So I'm pretty happy to say that Australia's population densities ARE low over VERY large areas.

I don't disagree re the urbanisation of Australia and putting fibre there as best can be afforded in a timely fashion. But I won't hear of those 'in the bush' simply dismissed as if no-one's there, or somehow count less than the city folk. And they shouldn't have to wait any longer than those in the cities for a better broadband service.

Just can't stop playing the man, eh?

Sorry, its not just about one person here.

 

[drsmithy]

Run that past me again? "Densities are not low over large areas". Area of Australia: 7.7 mill sq km give or take. Take the area of all the cities and towns of 25K or more, then subtract it from 7.7 million.

I reckon that leaves you with a pretty big area - say 7 mill sq km, with is obviously too low - with, in your counting, 10% of the population.

Indeed. But that area is not relevant to a discussion about fixed-line fibre connectivity and arguments using population density as a reason not to provide it.

I don't disagree re the urbanisation of Australia and putting fibre there as best can be afforded in a timely fashion. But I won't hear of those 'in the bush' simply dismissed as if no-one's there, or somehow count less than the city folk.

Clearly you'll hear whatever you want to hear, because I never suggested anything of the sort.

What I said, was, if you are going to use population densities for the purposes of comparing fixed-line fibre infrastructure, it makes no sense to include areas that are not, and will not, ever, have populations serviced by that technology.

And they shouldn't have to wait any longer than those in the cities for a better broadband service.

Yes ?

 

[PLANT]

Look when China starts developing the farm land(both cattle and agriculture) it has purchased, throw in a
detention centre or 10 next to the uranium mine and nuclear station...NBN will be regional..... What I still can't grasp is why put NBN in low income areas that could not afford it..... Other to iron out the issues.... Before getting it to those that want and will pay for it!
That being said I had a tradie who had it and said was slow and complicated..... Back to ADSL 2 and better speed????? In suburbia too

 

[drsmithy]

Look when China starts developing the farm land(both cattle and agriculture) it has purchased, throw in a
detention centre or 10 next to the uranium mine and nuclear station...NBN will be regional..... What I still can't grasp is why put NBN in low income areas that could not afford it..... Other to iron out the issues.... Before getting it to those that want and will pay for it!

Other than the obvious vote-buying, those are the areas that would be least likely to be serviced by private industry presently and in the future.

One of the points of NBN was "universal" access to high-speed connectivity. If you start with the rich areas, then the poor areas will inevitably be dropped off after those are serviced.

"Rich" areas are also - generally - already well served by high-speed connectivity (fibre, HFC, 4G, etc).

 

[PLANT]

I can tell you that a classed rich area can't even get bloody cable internet!
4G yes but the others nope not yet!

 

[whatmeworry]

Complete cough...

It missed every target and every budget, except for the very last plan which had almost no rollout and back ended everything, much like Gonski

Malcoms NBN was a 'complete by 2019' thing... Example the first Satellite which was signed by Labour, launched under the Libs has just added it's first subscriber. The second Sat hasn't even launched.

Good to see you can't actually reference any facts to back your so called claims. But let's look at the mess Mr Cayman Islands has left behind.

The MTM network has blown out twice in projected cost - first, from $29.5 billion to $41 billion, and then last year to "up to" $56 billion. And instead of delivering 25 Mbps by 2016, now the MTM network isn't expected to be finished until 2020 - only a year earlier than Labor expected to finish its rollout. NBN's own chairman has admitted meeting this 2020 target will require a "heroic" effort.

Oh Geez have a look at Malcolm Turnbull's numbers on the Labor NBN,

Forget Labor's numbers for a moment, Malcolm Turnbull's own strategic review in December 2013 came up with an estimate that the fibre-to-the-premises network would have cost $73 billion.

So now we can see the Labor's NBN actually looks spectacular compared to the mess Malcolm Turnbull has left behind.

For all that, Labor's all-fibre network would have been built, for somewhere between the NBN's contemporaneous costings of $44 billion and the Coalition's estimate of $73 billion. Once connected, it would have been a readily- and endlessly-upgradeable network with fibre servicing 93 per cent of homes and businesses, and would have been a highly-attractive proposition for institutional investors.

What has gone wrong with the NBN? - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)



A network communications engineer works on a new optic fibre connection - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

 

[RooFlyer]

Originally Posted by RooFlyer Run that past me again? "Densities are not low over large areas". Area of Australia: 7.7 mill sq km give or take. Take the area of all the cities and towns of 25K or more, then subtract it from 7.7 million.

I reckon that leaves you with a pretty big area - say 7 mill sq km, with is obviously too low - with, in your counting, 10% of the population.

Indeed. But that area is not relevant to a discussion about fixed-line fibre connectivity and arguments using population density as a reason not to provide it.
<snip>

But the maths is relevant. I still don't see how the statement "Densities are not low over large areas" (referring to Australia) can be supported, in any discussion. If we can get that bit explained, I might be able to see what the point is you are making.

<snip>

I don't disagree re the urbanisation of Australia and putting fibre there as best can be afforded in a timely fashion. But I won't hear of those 'in the bush' simply dismissed as if no-one's there, or somehow count less than the city folk.

Clearly you'll hear whatever you want to hear, because I never suggested anything of the sort. ?

Again, this discussion extends to people other than yourself. But as it was you that made the claim that population "Densities are not low over large areas" (referring to Australia) I gathered that you thought it was relevant. Maybe if you can expand on the reasoning behind that, I will understand the point being made.

<snip>A

And they shouldn't have to wait any longer than those in the cities for a better broadband service.

Yes ?

Yes. If you disagree, again I'm all ears. Not having to wait any longer than those in the cities wait means a mix of technologies for the NBN (he says, trying desperately to bring this discussion back on-topic) AND means that those in the cities don't all get a Rolls Royce delivered to their door, because of the cost of doing so.

If its so important, those that demand FTTheirP and aren't on the roll out for that can pay for it themselves, as we've established here. And if its so important their neighbours will agree, and share the cost. But they won't because when some-one else is paying for it, its terribly important to have a Rolls Royce. But if they have to pay part of the cost for their Rolls Royce, all of a sudden its not that important.

BTW my sister lives in a suburb in Hobart that was one of the first in the country to get FTTP in the NBN roll-out. This was when it was all laid on to everyone (whether they wanted it or not!) The take-up rate after 6 months or so was ... drum roll ... 33%. Two or three years later I think the take-up is 50%. My sister & family doesn't use the NBN but a Telstra 4G connection to a Wi-Fi distributor for their phones and tablets. So much for fixed line fibre connectivity.

Gosh, is that the time?

 

[drron]

Good to see you can't actually reference any facts to back your so called claims. But let's look at the mess Mr Cayman Islands has left behind.



Oh Geez have a look at Malcolm Turnbull's numbers on the Labor NBN,




So now we can see the Labor's NBN actually looks spectacular compared to the mess Malcolm Turnbull has left behind.



What has gone wrong with the NBN? - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)



A network communications engineer works on a new optic fibre connection - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Shot yourself in the foot with this quote-

Forget Labor's numbers for a moment, Malcolm Turnbull's own strategic review in December 2013 came up with an estimate that the fibre-to-the-premises network would have cost $73 billion.

So less than 3 months after TA won government and before MT had put into place his plan the project that you say was getting cheaper every day had blown out from 37.4 billion to 73 billion.And if you believe that that would have been the final cost then I guess you also wear red underpants on your head.It always got dearer not cheaper.
And quoting the ABC as the source of all truth on this is also frankly laughable.

 

[Moindardt]

And quoting the ABC as the source of all truth on this is also frankly laughable.

How dare you question our impartial National broadcaster?? They are the bastion of truth and honesty and integrity!!!

Just last week they had an amazing 3 part series on Rudd and the financial crisis and it showed what visionaries Rudd and Swan were. They knew about the financial crisis 10 months before anyone else and the reason they didn't do the fiscally responsible budget they had promised was they knew what was coming and had to protect the country. They patted the ABC on the back for their visionary reporting as well. I loved the part where they wished the rest of the world was as prepared as them. /*end sarcasm for certain people who still don't get it*

 

[drsmithy]

But the maths is relevant. I still don't see how the statement "Densities are not low over large areas" (referring to Australia) can be supported, in any discussion. If we can get that bit explained, I might be able to see what the point is you are making.

Again, this discussion extends to people other than yourself. But as it was you that made the claim that population "Densities are not low over large areas" (referring to Australia) I gathered that you thought it was relevant. Maybe if you can expand on the reasoning behind that, I will understand the point being made.

Firstly, this discussion has nothing to do with me.

Secondly, I'm really not sure how I can make it any clearer.

There are frequent arguments presented here (and elsewhere) that because Australia's population density is so low - usually accompanied by someone pasting maps of Australia over the top of maps of Europe or America - we couldn't possibly provide FTTP and therefore should abandon it.

This (to be generous) ignores the fact that the vast majority of the Australian population lives in urban centres with population densities similar to other countries. Ie: the population density of, say, Portugal, is comparable to the population density of Australia, in the context of providing fixed-line connectivity.

Australia is big, but it is mostly empty. It makes no sense whatsoever including the empty bits in the population density maths, unless you want to be deceptive and pretend that Australia's "real life" population density is anywhere near as low as a simple headline average would suggest.

This is not saying rural areas do not exist.
This is not saying rural areas should be ignored.
This is not saying rural areas should not have good connectivity provided by various wireless technologies.
This is not saying rural areas should be served later.

It is simply stating the fact that the areas of Australia relevant to a discussion on fixed-line connectivity which is the vast majority of the NBN have similar population densities to other countries, because Australia is an extremely urbanised society.

Yes. If you disagree, again I'm all ears.

LOL. I don't disagree in the slightest.

Look, you seem to have not noticed, but I am one of the few people here stating that high-speed connectivity should be as widespread, affordable and universal as possible, regardless of the "cost" or whether it is "economic". I don't mind "subsidising" your wireless connectivity. You need to leave the poor straw man alone, he's taken enough abuse on this point.

Not having to wait any longer than those in the cities wait means a mix of technologies for the NBN (he says, trying desperately to bring this discussion back on-topic) AND means that those in the cities don't all get a Rolls Royce delivered to their door, because of the cost of doing so.

It's not a Rolls Royce. It's a station wagon. It's building for the future, not the present.

If its so important, those that demand FTTheirP and aren't on the roll out for that can pay for it themselves, as we've established here.

Like you and your neighbours should have had to pay for your wireless, you mean ?

Where do you live anyway ? Do you have a 4G (or even 3G) signal ? Were you going to get wireless as part of the original NBN rollout ?

BTW my sister lives in a suburb in Hobart that was one of the first in the country to get FTTP in the NBN roll-out. This was when it was all laid on to everyone (whether they wanted it or not!) The take-up rate after 6 months or so was ... drum roll ... 33%. Two or three years later I think the take-up is 50%. My sister & family doesn't use the NBN but a Telstra 4G connection to a Wi-Fi distributor for their phones and tablets. So much for fixed line fibre connectivity.

Well, then. If that's good enough for your sister, I guess we can shut down the whole NBN project !

(But not before you get your wireless, I'm guessing...)

Maybe in thirty years when that same fibre infrastructure is delivering gigabits of bandwidth, you might understand the point.

 

[moa999]

By which time 8G wireless will probably be delivering the same thing.

 

[RAM]

(But not before you get your wireless, I'm guessing...)

Maybe in thirty years when that same fibre infrastructure is delivering gigabits of bandwidth, you might understand the point.

Well actually that is currently being achieved with 5G wireless as of March 2015. So perhaps the question may become - will the NBN be finished before it is obsolete?

This is a good explanation: What is 5G? 5G vs 4G and the future of mobile networks

What is 5G?

5G is a term used to describe the forthcoming fifth generation of mobile network technology.
Right now, it doesn't signify any particular type of technology. While 4G has become synonymous with LTE, there's been no publicly agreed upon standard for 5G networks. However, a couple of likely technologies are emerging.
The main quality of 5G networks compared to 4G will be speed. It's going to be many times quicker than what we have now, and by quite a way.

How fast is 5G?

Estimates have varied over recent years, but some of the industry's established players can give us an idea of where 5G's at.
We've actually seen claimed speeds of 7.5Gbps from Samsung and 10Gbps from Nokia (these days quite the network infrastructure specialist), while this time last year the University of Surrey managed to obtain a staggering 1Tbps - the same capacity as fibre optics. For a wireless network connection. Mental.
However, all of these tests were conducted under laboratory conditions. What we need in estimating the final speed of a 5G network is a practical field test.
Back in October we reported on just such tests conducted by China's Huawei and Japan's NTT Docomo network. They had managed to hit peak data speeds of 3.6Gbps using a sub-6GHz band.
Compare that to the 300Mbit/s currently offered by EE's LTE-A network, and you'll see that we're talking about a 12-fold speed increase over 4G here.
A realistic, nicely rounded final figure for 5G speeds, then, could be in the region of 10Gbps.

How fast is 5G? Low latency, high capacity

Besides raw speed, the other main benefits of 5G will be low latency and high capacity.
Low latency means that not only will download and upload speeds be fast, but the response times for starting those data transfers will be similarly snappy. There'll be less of a pause between pressing play on Netflix and that crisp 4K content starting to stream to your phone, in other words.
The other benefit relates to the biggest issue with current mobile network standards - a critical lack of bandwidth. The radio frequencies that our 3G and 4G networks operate on are overcrowded to say the least.
With more and more people and devices set to be connected over the next five years or so - 5G will likely be the network that has to handle the dawn of driverless cars - this will be a critical problem before too long. Whatever technology 5G employs, expect it to address this either through an all new spectrum, or through smarter use of the existing spectrum (only assigning the amount that's needed for each task).

[h=3]Why do we need it?[/h] One of the main benefits of 5G technology over 4G will not be its speed of delivery – which admittedly could be between 10Gbps and 100Gbps – but the latency. At present, 4G is capable of between 40ms and 60ms, which is low-latency but not enough to provide real-time response.

In years past, mobile data technologies were built around hardware, while 5G will be software driven. Software can be updated easily, hardware less so.

 

[drsmithy]

By which time 8G wireless will probably be delivering the same thing.

Anything's possible.

But the technology for that sort of performance over wireless doesn't exist yet, while for fibre it's old hat.

 

[drsmithy]

Well actually that is currently being achieved with 5G wireless as of March 2015. So perhaps the question may become - will the NBN be finished before it is obsolete?

No. Wireless connections are not going to "obselete" wired ones.

Those 5G hero numbers are coming under tightly controlled conditions and ideal circumstances.

 

[RooFlyer]

<snip>
This (to be generous) ignores the fact that the vast majority of the Australian population lives in urban centres with population densities similar to other countries. Ie: the population density of, say, Portugal, is comparable to the population density of Australia, in the context of providing fixed-line connectivity.
<snip>
It is simply stating the fact that the areas of Australia relevant to a discussion on fixed-line connectivity which is the vast majority of the NBN have similar population densities to other countries, because Australia is an extremely urbanised society.
<snip>

Reminds me of my debating coach at Uni - "Weak point, raise voice." (But please try to remember that this discussion isn't just about fixed wire connectivity.)

Look, you seem to have not noticed, but I am one of the few people here stating that high-speed connectivity should be as widespread, affordable and universal as possible, regardless of the "cost" or whether it is "economic". I don't mind "subsidising" your wireless connectivity. You need to leave the poor straw man alone, he's taken enough abuse on this point.

I have noticed, and that's what I'm arguing against. I also notice that "affordable" and ["regardless of the 'cost' " and "whether it is economic"] is an oxymoron, but I guess since the entire NBN as originally conceived on a beer mat was somewhat oxy and totally moronic, I can forgive it.

BTW, you and the urban lot aren't subsidising me, we non urban types are subsidising you. The government is buying you a Rolls Royce. Its buying me a very serviceable Commodore. That's OK, I'm happy with the Commodore and if you think you are entitled to a Roller, go for it. The rural based agricultural and mining sectors have always provided the country with its intrinsic wealth.

Like you and your neighbours should have had to pay for your wireless, you mean ?

Where do you live anyway ? Do you have a 4G (or even 3G) signal ? Were you going to get wireless as part of the original NBN rollout ?

I'm happy with what the government is providing, thank-you and happy that my hard-earned is going towards an efficient service and that its come this year. Its only those who bellyache about not having the very BEST, paid for by everyone else, who can trade up if they want to put their money where their whining is. (But they won't, because they usually believe the gov'mint should pay )

Where do I live? Rural Tasmania will do for the purposes of this conversation (that much may have been obvious already ...). We have 3G service here, and I catch some stray 4G from a tower up the coast. NBN coming later this year. At my other place, also rural Tasmania (more remote), there is 4G and a freshly commissioned FW service. Brilliant.

(But not before you get your wireless, I'm guessing...)

Maybe in thirty years when that same fibre infrastructure is delivering gigabits of bandwidth, you might understand the point

Got half my wireless, thanks. Rest will come this year.
Thirty years, eh? We come back to the point made earlier: No other infrastructure is built now to provide for service decades from now. not schools, roads, hospitals, bridges ... nothing. Why the NBN should be any different, you haven't explained (reminding you that submarines are not infrastructure).

Oh, and if you can explain your contention that "Densities are not low over large areas" (referring to Australia), that would be good. You can even put it in big, bold, italicised underlined writing, if that floats your boat.

 

[Moody]

How dare you question our impartial National broadcaster?? They are the bastion of truth and honesty and integrity!!!

Just last week they had an amazing 3 part series on Rudd and the financial crisis and it showed what visionaries Rudd and Swan were. They knew about the financial crisis 10 months before anyone else and the reason they didn't do the fiscally responsible budget they had promised was they knew what was coming and had to protect the country. They patted the ABC on the back for their visionary reporting as well. I loved the part where they wished the rest of the world was as prepared as them. /*end sarcasm for certain people who still don't get it*

Don't need the laboured tags, Moindardt. I have had 2 toddlers .....