pshepvic
Established Member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2006
- Posts
- 2,072
I've heard and read and seen a lot of things in the media about NBN that are totally inaccurate as well!
NBN Discussion
- Thread starter wafliron
- Start date
I've heard and read and seen a lot of things in the media about NBN that are totally inaccurate as well!
markis10
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2004
- Posts
- 30,557
- Qantas
- LT Gold
Usually accompanied with a picture of a JQ 717!
pshepvic
Established Member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2006
- Posts
- 2,072
Lol - even in our lift at work yesterday, the screens (which I assume are run by no news based on the content) had a news article about Air NZ, with a photo of 3 Cathay Pacific aircraft!
Re: The Lounge Wi-Fi Speedtest Thread
That is probably their logic for not tearing it down (combined with the high level of support in the electorate for a proper broadband solution for Australia), but I doubt it's the reason they're not going back to wireless. Wireless was never, ever a feasible solution for rolling out super-fast broadband to the whole of the country - and I'm sure the libs knew that, despite pushing it for a while for political reasons.
C'mon, you guys are smarter than to swallow that "$96B" line. The NBN may well end up over budget - I hope not, but I obviously can't say for certain either way (and neither can either of you, nor anyone else with any degree of certainty at this point). But if it does, it's not going to be to the tune of $50B+. Whatever you might think about the current Labour government, the people running NBNCo are very smart, and are experts in this field - they're not going to get the costing wrong by that much. Not to mention they've already proved themselves quite adept at reining things in when they threaten to get out of control, even if it's at the expense of schedule (talking about some of the tendering for fibre pulls early in the pilot rollout).
While I'm not 100% up to speed with this aspect of the NBN (and hence may have this wrong!), I'm under the impression that the NBN NTUs (the box at your house that the fibre connects to) have PSTN and ADSL emulation ports, meaning they can be wired straight into your existing phone cabling (by NBNCo, and at their cost) to maintain your current services if that's all you want. So... assuming I have that right, it shouldn't cost you anything to keep what you have now (in fact you will probably save money due to cheaper net / phone plans), and you can then re-wire if and when you want to access anything faster than 24Mbit.
If it truly will be "good for you", then yes, probably
But it's much better if you (or anyone else) come to understand why it'll be good for you, and also come to want it, rather than having it forced upon you.
I'm not sure if that was a dig at me, or NBN supporters in general?
Anyway: Turnbull is a lawyer and businessman who part-owned, and was chairman of, a retail ISP a long time ago. He's also a very smart man. Those factors probably makes him more knowledgeable in this field of rolling out a nation-wide broadband network than the average Joe punter, but it absolutely does not make him an "expert" at it (nor anything remotely close). He's not an engineer, nor a computer scientist, nor qualified or experienced in any field related to an undertaking like this. The ISP he was involved with was a retail reseller (i.e. it did not own nor build any sort of infrastructure of it's own). And that involvement ended almost 15 years ago - hell, ADSL wasn't even available in Australia at the time!
More importantly, the second half of your sentence is just flat-out wrong. The people who are experts in this area are in almost universal agreement that FTTH (whether it be exactly Labour's model, or something similar) is the right choice for a national broadband network, and also the most cost effective over the long run. And for the sake of clarity, by "experts" I do not mean myself, politicians, journalists nor random internet commentators.
And comments like that are just silly - any start-up business begins with more staff than customers, and continues that way for a while in the case of a massive enterprise like NBNCo. Disagree with the NBN if you like, but at least use logical arguments to support said disagreement.
What mismanagement are you referring to? The early parts of the rollout have gone a little slower than projected (and it really is a little slower in the scale of a project this big, with a lot of catching up happening now), and there have been a few silly decisions made along the way (e.g. not making the connections opt-out from the start), but nothing I can think of that could reasonably be constituted as "laughable mismanagement".
Can I ask why you think this? Personally I'm in two minds about this aspect of the network design.
Which is just flat-out wrong, and typical of much of the cough that has been spewed about the NBN since it was announced. The fibre part of the NBN (where most of the cost is) has been designed for a minimum lifespan of about 50 years, and will likely last even longer.
That is probably their logic for not tearing it down (combined with the high level of support in the electorate for a proper broadband solution for Australia), but I doubt it's the reason they're not going back to wireless. Wireless was never, ever a feasible solution for rolling out super-fast broadband to the whole of the country - and I'm sure the libs knew that, despite pushing it for a while for political reasons.
C'mon, you guys are smarter than to swallow that "$96B" line. The NBN may well end up over budget - I hope not, but I obviously can't say for certain either way (and neither can either of you, nor anyone else with any degree of certainty at this point). But if it does, it's not going to be to the tune of $50B+. Whatever you might think about the current Labour government, the people running NBNCo are very smart, and are experts in this field - they're not going to get the costing wrong by that much. Not to mention they've already proved themselves quite adept at reining things in when they threaten to get out of control, even if it's at the expense of schedule (talking about some of the tendering for fibre pulls early in the pilot rollout).
While I'm not 100% up to speed with this aspect of the NBN (and hence may have this wrong!), I'm under the impression that the NBN NTUs (the box at your house that the fibre connects to) have PSTN and ADSL emulation ports, meaning they can be wired straight into your existing phone cabling (by NBNCo, and at their cost) to maintain your current services if that's all you want. So... assuming I have that right, it shouldn't cost you anything to keep what you have now (in fact you will probably save money due to cheaper net / phone plans), and you can then re-wire if and when you want to access anything faster than 24Mbit.
If it truly will be "good for you", then yes, probably
But it's much better if you (or anyone else) come to understand why it'll be good for you, and also come to want it, rather than having it forced upon you.I'm not sure if that was a dig at me, or NBN supporters in general?
Anyway: Turnbull is a lawyer and businessman who part-owned, and was chairman of, a retail ISP a long time ago. He's also a very smart man. Those factors probably makes him more knowledgeable in this field of rolling out a nation-wide broadband network than the average Joe punter, but it absolutely does not make him an "expert" at it (nor anything remotely close). He's not an engineer, nor a computer scientist, nor qualified or experienced in any field related to an undertaking like this. The ISP he was involved with was a retail reseller (i.e. it did not own nor build any sort of infrastructure of it's own). And that involvement ended almost 15 years ago - hell, ADSL wasn't even available in Australia at the time!
More importantly, the second half of your sentence is just flat-out wrong. The people who are experts in this area are in almost universal agreement that FTTH (whether it be exactly Labour's model, or something similar) is the right choice for a national broadband network, and also the most cost effective over the long run. And for the sake of clarity, by "experts" I do not mean myself, politicians, journalists nor random internet commentators.
And comments like that are just silly - any start-up business begins with more staff than customers, and continues that way for a while in the case of a massive enterprise like NBNCo. Disagree with the NBN if you like, but at least use logical arguments to support said disagreement.
What mismanagement are you referring to? The early parts of the rollout have gone a little slower than projected (and it really is a little slower in the scale of a project this big, with a lot of catching up happening now), and there have been a few silly decisions made along the way (e.g. not making the connections opt-out from the start), but nothing I can think of that could reasonably be constituted as "laughable mismanagement".
Can I ask why you think this? Personally I'm in two minds about this aspect of the network design.
Which is just flat-out wrong, and typical of much of the cough that has been spewed about the NBN since it was announced. The fibre part of the NBN (where most of the cost is) has been designed for a minimum lifespan of about 50 years, and will likely last even longer.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2004
- Posts
- 47,515
- Qantas
- Platinum
- Virgin
- Platinum
- Oneworld
- Emerald
- SkyTeam
- Elite Plus
Re: The Lounge Wi-Fi Speedtest Thread
This article from the ABC indicates the Coalition policy cost is achievable, while pointing out:
If you have anything other than a "Vanilla" set up, then it is likely gunna cost: ( Preparing for the NBN )
May be so, but at what cost?If it truly will be "good for you", then yes, probably
This article from the ABC indicates the Coalition policy cost is achievable, while pointing out:
A NBN under the KRudd evisagement might be nice, but I doubt our country can afford it currently.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2004
- Posts
- 47,515
- Qantas
- Platinum
- Virgin
- Platinum
- Oneworld
- Emerald
- SkyTeam
- Elite Plus
Re: The Lounge Wi-Fi Speedtest Thread
May I remind you of post #72: (http://www.australianfrequentflyer....ground/nbn-discussion-37098-2.html#post659406)
"a lot of catching up happening now"???
Australian Election 2013: Where will the NBN and data retention be?
A little slower???
May I remind you of post #72: (http://www.australianfrequentflyer....ground/nbn-discussion-37098-2.html#post659406)
"a lot of catching up happening now"???
Australian Election 2013: Where will the NBN and data retention be?
Last edited:
SteveK64
Junior Member
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2013
- Posts
- 18
markis10
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2004
- Posts
- 30,557
- Qantas
- LT Gold
Re: The Lounge Wi-Fi Speedtest Thread
Not sure where you get your facts from but his company was not a retail reseller purely because they did not exist when it started ( as you point our ADSL was in its infancy when Ozemail was sold, which was the product that evolved pure retail ISPs), it very much had its own infrastructure just like its peers, at the time having 16 POP across Australia when they listed on the NASDAQ. I note you also missed his involvement in Webcentral, etc.
As someone who has been in the IT/ Telco industry for 30 years, I don't need Wikipedia to tell me someone's background when I have experienced it myself, his knowledge of the industry and what works is not something you get at uni, and his bank account is no doubt a pn indicator of how well that knowledge has been applied.
Not sure where you get your facts from but his company was not a retail reseller purely because they did not exist when it started ( as you point our ADSL was in its infancy when Ozemail was sold, which was the product that evolved pure retail ISPs), it very much had its own infrastructure just like its peers, at the time having 16 POP across Australia when they listed on the NASDAQ. I note you also missed his involvement in Webcentral, etc.
As someone who has been in the IT/ Telco industry for 30 years, I don't need Wikipedia to tell me someone's background when I have experienced it myself, his knowledge of the industry and what works is not something you get at uni, and his bank account is no doubt a pn indicator of how well that knowledge has been applied.
Last edited:
Re: The Lounge Wi-Fi Speedtest Thread
Isn't that exactly what I was saying though - and a "solution" to the issue you have with it potentially costing you money for the install? i.e. you can continue with what you have now (well, likely actually better, as you'll get a full-speed 24Mbit ADSL connection from the emulation port on the NTU) with the included, free install, and then pay for the extra wiring if/when you want anything more? Or have I misunderstood you?
At what cost indeed, as that seems to be the one remaining commonly raised objection to the NBN (i.e. arguments about whether it is the best technical solution, whether Australia actually needs better broadband, etc, appear to have finally all fallen by the wayside).
I haven't read any economic modelling around the coalition's FTTN proposal, so I can't comment on that, but in the case of the NBN, at it's budgeted cost, it's a money-maker - ergo, not a cost. As has been said over and over, and as many seem to choose to ignore. So, if it turns out to be that simple, we clearly can afford it.
I'm sure that your insta-response to that will be that it will go severely over-budget and hence end up costing money, despite the economic modelling and revenue it will generate. The reality is that that is currently an unfounded assertion, despite it being oft-repeated by some politicians and journalists. However, let's assume for a second that it does turn out to be true to some reasonable extent.
The economic modelling that has been done around the NBN - the modelling which shows it generating a profit over the medium-to-long term - is extremely conservative, once you dig into the detail. Plus, it only counts the direct revenue that the NBN will generate, and does not even contemplate wider econonic benefits (which will be significant by any measure), nor social benefits, nor benefits to health, nor benefits to eduction, and so on.
It's impossible for anyone to say with certainty whether these indirect benefits would be sufficient to make up for any potential increase in the NBN's cost, but based on what we already know about how access to increasingly-faster-and-more-prevalent internet access has changed our economy and society already, it's fair to say that there is a lot of leeway for the NBN's price to increase before it truly starts to "cost" our nation anything.
While on the topic of cost, now that we finally know what the coalition plans entail, I think it's worth a quick comparison of the two options side-by-side:
On the one hand we have a FTTH network that is budgeted to cost ~$38B, and on the other a FTTN network that is budgeted to cost ~$30B (again, I'm using the budgeted costs here, because these are the best figures we have right now - and if you want to argue that the FTTH cost is wrong, the same argument can equally be applied to the FTTN cost).
The former is capable of a guaranteed 1,000Mbps right now (technically capable now, retail availability later this year), and far, far more in the future. The latter will be capable of a guaranteed 25Mbps at launch, a guaranteed 50Mbps in six years time... and realistically not a whole lot more (if anything) beyond that. The former is a game-changing (or should I say nation-changing) difference in speed, the latter is just spending a lot of money for a marginal improvement over the status quo.
The former offers high upstream bandwidth as well as high downstream, whereas the latter almost certainly will not (I say "almost certainly" as I don't believe the coalition have said what type of DSL they will use, but even if it's VDSL2 there will need to be sacrifices made on the upstream speed to guarantee the downstream speed). You might not get why now, but this is important.
The former is reliable, and being built to last 50+ years without significant maintenance, whereas the latter is reliant upon the ancient, under-maintained and unreliable copper network for the last-mile - a copper network which already does, and will continue to, require constant and expensive maintenance. I'd be interested to know whether the FTTN budget includes the cost of maintaining the copper - I strongly suspect it doesn't, and if you include this the ~$30B figure is set to get a lot higher.
The former is incredibly upgradable and won't require changes to the expensives parts of the infrastructure (the cables) over its lifespan, whereas the latter is a short-term, stop-gap solution, that will require another round of spending / upgrades (to FTTH) in the not-too-distant-future. This one is pretty important, as it makes the true cost of the FTTN proposal greater than the cost of the FTTH proposal - it just defers some of this cost for a period of time.
I could go on, but I think that's probably enough.
Given the many complaints that the NBN is wasteful (and many of those complaining now supporting the FTTN proposal), I think the real irony is that it is actually FTTN which is the truly wasteful option.
The NBN costs more in the short-term, but for that extra money we get something truly revolutionary (in the space of broadband at least, even if you don't believe it will have a huge impact on the wider economy / our society). FTTN, on the other hand, still requires the government to spend 75% of the NBN's price - ~$30 billion dollars - and what we get in return is something barely better than the status quo. Now that is a giant waste.
The only sensible / non-wasteful alternative to the NBN would be to not build a new network at all (and perhaps invest a much smaller amount of money fixing blackspots, improving backhaul, etc), but that is no longer an option given the contracts already signed by the NBN, and the two competing pieces of policy in play. So, our choice now is not whether to spend $0 or $38B, it's whether to spend ~$30B on FTTN (and more later upgrading it to FTTH) or ~$38B on FTTH. An $8B difference. It's hard to even imagine a logical argument that the difference between the two isn't worth spending the extra $8B on now.
(new emphasis mine)
One person saying something does not make it true, especially when he doesn't provide any real data to back up his assertions. Not to mention, the author of that article loses all credibility when he writes something as stupid as the bit I've bolded above. /facepalm
I must say that I also find it interesting that you are quick to dismiss the costings / schedule for the NBN as unachiveable, but equally quick to assume that the costings / schedule of the FTTN option are achievable? I can understand scepticism of budgets / schedules associated with government infrastructure projects (or any large infrastructure project for that matter), but not being selective about said scepticism?
Yes, a litter slower. NBNCo is two years into a ten year rollout plan - one which has a rapid ramp-up in roll-out rate about a third-to-half of the way through. In that (true) context, they're going a little slower than originally planned.
I'm (genuinely, not flippantly) not sure which part of that article you are referring me to?
But yes, a lot of catching up happening now. The rollout has accelerated again over the past month or two.
Sorry, you are of course correct re Ozemail not being a retail reseller at that stage - what I intended was to draw a comparison between what Ozemail was in Turnbull's time, and the retail ADSL resellers of today. Ozemail did have it's own POPs (as did all larger dial-up ISPs back then, and most ISPs now, although they "look" a little different - as I'm sure you know), but like the retail ADSL retailers of today they did not own nor build nor operate infrastructure that in any way resembles that which is involved in a national wholesale broadband network. As I'm also sure you know.
I didn't miss it - I simply didn't mention it because it has no particular relevance to Turnbull's expertise in the field of the NBN (or equivalent proposals). Web hosting != wholesale broadband infrastructure. Again, as I'm sure you also know.
Neither do I (although I will admit to referring to Wikipedia to check the exact year he exited Ozemail) - and I'd add that personal jibes don't really contribute to a constructive discussion.
I'll repeat what I said before: Turnbull's experience makes him far more knowledgeable and authoritative than average in this field (designing and implementing a national broadband network). But it does not make him an "expert". And even if it did, his opinion is far, far outweighed by the number of "experts" who support a FTTH model. And, to again repeat what I said earlier, by "experts" I do not mean myself, politicians, journalists nor random internet commentators. I'll also add "people who just went to uni" to that list, if you like.
EDIT: Fixed reference to FTTH in the final paragraph - originally typoed "FTTN", meant "FTTH".
Isn't that exactly what I was saying though - and a "solution" to the issue you have with it potentially costing you money for the install? i.e. you can continue with what you have now (well, likely actually better, as you'll get a full-speed 24Mbit ADSL connection from the emulation port on the NTU) with the included, free install, and then pay for the extra wiring if/when you want anything more? Or have I misunderstood you?
At what cost indeed, as that seems to be the one remaining commonly raised objection to the NBN (i.e. arguments about whether it is the best technical solution, whether Australia actually needs better broadband, etc, appear to have finally all fallen by the wayside).
I haven't read any economic modelling around the coalition's FTTN proposal, so I can't comment on that, but in the case of the NBN, at it's budgeted cost, it's a money-maker - ergo, not a cost. As has been said over and over, and as many seem to choose to ignore. So, if it turns out to be that simple, we clearly can afford it.
I'm sure that your insta-response to that will be that it will go severely over-budget and hence end up costing money, despite the economic modelling and revenue it will generate. The reality is that that is currently an unfounded assertion, despite it being oft-repeated by some politicians and journalists. However, let's assume for a second that it does turn out to be true to some reasonable extent.
The economic modelling that has been done around the NBN - the modelling which shows it generating a profit over the medium-to-long term - is extremely conservative, once you dig into the detail. Plus, it only counts the direct revenue that the NBN will generate, and does not even contemplate wider econonic benefits (which will be significant by any measure), nor social benefits, nor benefits to health, nor benefits to eduction, and so on.
It's impossible for anyone to say with certainty whether these indirect benefits would be sufficient to make up for any potential increase in the NBN's cost, but based on what we already know about how access to increasingly-faster-and-more-prevalent internet access has changed our economy and society already, it's fair to say that there is a lot of leeway for the NBN's price to increase before it truly starts to "cost" our nation anything.
While on the topic of cost, now that we finally know what the coalition plans entail, I think it's worth a quick comparison of the two options side-by-side:
On the one hand we have a FTTH network that is budgeted to cost ~$38B, and on the other a FTTN network that is budgeted to cost ~$30B (again, I'm using the budgeted costs here, because these are the best figures we have right now - and if you want to argue that the FTTH cost is wrong, the same argument can equally be applied to the FTTN cost).
The former is capable of a guaranteed 1,000Mbps right now (technically capable now, retail availability later this year), and far, far more in the future. The latter will be capable of a guaranteed 25Mbps at launch, a guaranteed 50Mbps in six years time... and realistically not a whole lot more (if anything) beyond that. The former is a game-changing (or should I say nation-changing) difference in speed, the latter is just spending a lot of money for a marginal improvement over the status quo.
The former offers high upstream bandwidth as well as high downstream, whereas the latter almost certainly will not (I say "almost certainly" as I don't believe the coalition have said what type of DSL they will use, but even if it's VDSL2 there will need to be sacrifices made on the upstream speed to guarantee the downstream speed). You might not get why now, but this is important.
The former is reliable, and being built to last 50+ years without significant maintenance, whereas the latter is reliant upon the ancient, under-maintained and unreliable copper network for the last-mile - a copper network which already does, and will continue to, require constant and expensive maintenance. I'd be interested to know whether the FTTN budget includes the cost of maintaining the copper - I strongly suspect it doesn't, and if you include this the ~$30B figure is set to get a lot higher.
The former is incredibly upgradable and won't require changes to the expensives parts of the infrastructure (the cables) over its lifespan, whereas the latter is a short-term, stop-gap solution, that will require another round of spending / upgrades (to FTTH) in the not-too-distant-future. This one is pretty important, as it makes the true cost of the FTTN proposal greater than the cost of the FTTH proposal - it just defers some of this cost for a period of time.
I could go on, but I think that's probably enough.
Given the many complaints that the NBN is wasteful (and many of those complaining now supporting the FTTN proposal), I think the real irony is that it is actually FTTN which is the truly wasteful option.
The NBN costs more in the short-term, but for that extra money we get something truly revolutionary (in the space of broadband at least, even if you don't believe it will have a huge impact on the wider economy / our society). FTTN, on the other hand, still requires the government to spend 75% of the NBN's price - ~$30 billion dollars - and what we get in return is something barely better than the status quo. Now that is a giant waste.
The only sensible / non-wasteful alternative to the NBN would be to not build a new network at all (and perhaps invest a much smaller amount of money fixing blackspots, improving backhaul, etc), but that is no longer an option given the contracts already signed by the NBN, and the two competing pieces of policy in play. So, our choice now is not whether to spend $0 or $38B, it's whether to spend ~$30B on FTTN (and more later upgrading it to FTTH) or ~$38B on FTTH. An $8B difference. It's hard to even imagine a logical argument that the difference between the two isn't worth spending the extra $8B on now.
(new emphasis mine)
One person saying something does not make it true, especially when he doesn't provide any real data to back up his assertions. Not to mention, the author of that article loses all credibility when he writes something as stupid as the bit I've bolded above. /facepalm
I must say that I also find it interesting that you are quick to dismiss the costings / schedule for the NBN as unachiveable, but equally quick to assume that the costings / schedule of the FTTN option are achievable? I can understand scepticism of budgets / schedules associated with government infrastructure projects (or any large infrastructure project for that matter), but not being selective about said scepticism?
Yes, a litter slower. NBNCo is two years into a ten year rollout plan - one which has a rapid ramp-up in roll-out rate about a third-to-half of the way through. In that (true) context, they're going a little slower than originally planned.
I'm (genuinely, not flippantly) not sure which part of that article you are referring me to?
But yes, a lot of catching up happening now. The rollout has accelerated again over the past month or two.
Sorry, you are of course correct re Ozemail not being a retail reseller at that stage - what I intended was to draw a comparison between what Ozemail was in Turnbull's time, and the retail ADSL resellers of today. Ozemail did have it's own POPs (as did all larger dial-up ISPs back then, and most ISPs now, although they "look" a little different - as I'm sure you know), but like the retail ADSL retailers of today they did not own nor build nor operate infrastructure that in any way resembles that which is involved in a national wholesale broadband network. As I'm also sure you know.
I didn't miss it - I simply didn't mention it because it has no particular relevance to Turnbull's expertise in the field of the NBN (or equivalent proposals). Web hosting != wholesale broadband infrastructure. Again, as I'm sure you also know.
Neither do I (although I will admit to referring to Wikipedia to check the exact year he exited Ozemail) - and I'd add that personal jibes don't really contribute to a constructive discussion.
I'll repeat what I said before: Turnbull's experience makes him far more knowledgeable and authoritative than average in this field (designing and implementing a national broadband network). But it does not make him an "expert". And even if it did, his opinion is far, far outweighed by the number of "experts" who support a FTTH model. And, to again repeat what I said earlier, by "experts" I do not mean myself, politicians, journalists nor random internet commentators. I'll also add "people who just went to uni" to that list, if you like.
EDIT: Fixed reference to FTTH in the final paragraph - originally typoed "FTTN", meant "FTTH".
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2012
- Posts
- 15,588
- Qantas
- LT Gold
- Virgin
- Red
Re: The Lounge Wi-Fi Speedtest Thread
To add to your argument, the FTTN also requires powered nodes to get the signal the last mile, whereas FTTH does not. Although I expect they will both need powered exchanges in each suburb, much as we have now.
In your last paragraph did you mean FTTH instead of FTTN?
To add to your argument, the FTTN also requires powered nodes to get the signal the last mile, whereas FTTH does not. Although I expect they will both need powered exchanges in each suburb, much as we have now.
Re: The Lounge Wi-Fi Speedtest Thread
I did - thanks for picking that up. Too many uses of very similar acronyms in one post!
That's an interesting one. Power is clearly needed at each node in a FTTN model, and also wherever the FTTN backhaul connections terminate (current telephone exchanges?). Under the NBN FTTH model, I'm not sure if the FDHs (Fibre Distribution Hubs - kinda analogous to a node in the FTTN model) need power or not, but I suspect they probably do. Either way, I doubt location of powered equipment is a big factor in the cost or complexity of each proposal.
I did - thanks for picking that up. Too many uses of very similar acronyms in one post!
That's an interesting one. Power is clearly needed at each node in a FTTN model, and also wherever the FTTN backhaul connections terminate (current telephone exchanges?). Under the NBN FTTH model, I'm not sure if the FDHs (Fibre Distribution Hubs - kinda analogous to a node in the FTTN model) need power or not, but I suspect they probably do. Either way, I doubt location of powered equipment is a big factor in the cost or complexity of each proposal.
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2012
- Posts
- 15,588
- Qantas
- LT Gold
- Virgin
- Red
Re: The Lounge Wi-Fi Speedtest Thread
I don't believe the FTTH hubs need power, much like the current copper phone hubs. There may not be much difference in cost but reliability may become an issue when you add power and back up batteries etc.
pshepvic
Established Member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2006
- Posts
- 2,072
FDH's (fibre distribution hubs - technically not even a "node" in the labour model - the node is at the "exchange") do not require power, they are entirely passive equipment. They are also a third of the size of one of Liberal's nodes, and one serves 200 homes instead of 50 like a node.
The power to run these is estimated to be two large power stations nationally, but I'm not sure of the exact figures. FDH's use ZERO power. The power used at the "exchange" (which is now actually known as a FAN or Fibre Access Node) wouldn't change much between either model. Note that power consumption should be reduced as NBN is only constructing approximately 1000 nodes compared to the current 4000+ Telstra exchanges. Most of these FANs will be in existing Telstra Exchange buildings.
The power to run these is estimated to be two large power stations nationally, but I'm not sure of the exact figures. FDH's use ZERO power. The power used at the "exchange" (which is now actually known as a FAN or Fibre Access Node) wouldn't change much between either model. Note that power consumption should be reduced as NBN is only constructing approximately 1000 nodes compared to the current 4000+ Telstra exchanges. Most of these FANs will be in existing Telstra Exchange buildings.
Thanks for clarifying that. Do the GPON loops terminate therefore terminate at the FAN, not at the FDH? I had assumed they terminated at the FDH, and hence also assumed electrical switching between the GPON loops and backhaul fibre would be required at that point. Or do they terminate at the FDH, but the GPON -> backhaul switching can be performed optically (passively)?
Wow, that is a surprisingly large amount of power - although now that I think about it, under a FTTN model (or our current model) you do have a lot of copper phone lines that need power. Plus there's all the extra battery arrays, cooling equipment, etc, needed for current / FTTN. Sounds like FTTH is the "green" option too
Out of interest, where does that "two large power stations nationally" figure come from?
pshepvic
Established Member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2006
- Posts
- 2,072
Thanks for clarifying that. Do the GPON loops terminate therefore terminate at the FAN, not at the FDH? I had assumed they terminated at the FDH, and hence also assumed electrical switching between the GPON loops and backhaul fibre would be required at that point. Or do they terminate at the FDH, but the GPON -> backhaul switching can be performed optically (passively)?
Wow, that is a surprisingly large amount of power - although now that I think about it, under a FTTN model (or our current model) you do have a lot of copper phone lines that need power. Plus there's all the extra battery arrays, cooling equipment, etc, needed for current / FTTN. Sounds like FTTH is the "green" option too
Out of interest, where does that "two large power stations nationally" figure come from?
I can't remember where I read the power station figures - was a news article in a tech site I think but not totally sure. Have also been told this by an NBN expert.
I'm also not 100% sure on the technicalities, but my understanding in the GPON loops terminate at the FAN, as that's where the patching between the "passive" (non-powered) and "active" (powered) network occurs.
Righto - thanks for clarifying.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2004
- Posts
- 47,515
- Qantas
- Platinum
- Virgin
- Platinum
- Oneworld
- Emerald
- SkyTeam
- Elite Plus
Re: The Lounge Wi-Fi Speedtest Thread
You have indeed misunderstood - due to the type of telephone set up I current have it will cost ME more due to a requirement to PAY for rewiring. And that is all I care about. The FTTN solution resolves that issue.
markis10
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2004
- Posts
- 30,557
- Qantas
- LT Gold
Re: The Lounge Wi-Fi Speedtest Thread
An interesting event coming up:
Hangout with Turnbull and Conroy on ZDNet
Summary: On May 6, between 9:30 and 10:30am AEST, OurSay and ZDNet will host a Google Hangout with Australia's Communications Minister Stephen Conroy and Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull. Here's your chance to ask all your NBN questions.
http://www.zdnet.com/au/hangout-with-turnbull-and-conroy-on-zdnet-7000014432/
An interesting event coming up:
Hangout with Turnbull and Conroy on ZDNet
Summary: On May 6, between 9:30 and 10:30am AEST, OurSay and ZDNet will host a Google Hangout with Australia's Communications Minister Stephen Conroy and Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull. Here's your chance to ask all your NBN questions.
http://www.zdnet.com/au/hangout-with-turnbull-and-conroy-on-zdnet-7000014432/
Re: The Lounge Wi-Fi Speedtest Thread
I can't understand why [you'd need to paying for re-wiring], given that AFAICS connecting the FTTH NTU's PSTN and ADSL emulation ports to your existing internal telephone wiring exactly replicates (inside the house) both the current phone network setup, and what it would look like with FTTN. If you're happy to share it, I'm interested to understand what your setup looks like... and understand if I'm missing something, and if so what that something is.
I can't understand why [you'd need to paying for re-wiring], given that AFAICS connecting the FTTH NTU's PSTN and ADSL emulation ports to your existing internal telephone wiring exactly replicates (inside the house) both the current phone network setup, and what it would look like with FTTN. If you're happy to share it, I'm interested to understand what your setup looks like... and understand if I'm missing something, and if so what that something is.
Read our AFF credit card guides and start earning more points now.
Become an AFF member!
Join Australian Frequent Flyer (AFF) for free and unlock insider tips, exclusive deals, and global meetups with 65,000+ frequent flyers.AFF members can also access our Frequent Flyer Training courses, and upgrade to Fast-track your way to expert traveller status and unlock even more exclusive discounts!
AFF forum abbreviations
Wondering about Y, J or any of the other abbreviations used on our forum?Check out our guide to common AFF acronyms & abbreviations.
