Continues from: /forum-replies.cfm?t=2554271&p=-1#bottom
HFC is a white elephant,
FTTN and derivatives white past the elephant making.. cooked books with budgets spiraling out of financial control...
no budget exists..
Malcolm, the lier, the banker, the lawyer, journalist so on and so forth has been cooking the books and lying to people for decades.. and has severe conflicts of invested interests..
we are slowly becoming a think tank nation and the reality was for the economic stability of the country as a whole fibre regardless of cost of install has to replace all the existing network failure to do so will cause trillions spent in a nonexistent repair state..
HFC is a white elephant,
HFC was purchased for a "large" amount of money.
I'm no expert.
But I know my access stuff. HFC is SAVING bucks. Even if you don't realise it.
(Sorry, but can't quote from part 86 from 85. Or can't be fluffed.)
Ah shit, I can't be bothered swapping between part 85 & 86.
NBN have halved the HFC footprint?
What a ridiculous statement.
The HFC is the financial saviour of the MTM. /s
They will bleed it for every bit they will get.
Or am I missing something?
Sorry CW, can't be bothered about swapping between 86/85, but
"Isn't that exactly what the "wait and see' approach achieves?"
That's exactly where the NBN is at.
Making stuff happen. It's irrelevant what happened 3 years ago. Even 1 year ago.
It's history.
The rest (FTTP,wireless and satellite) is due to Labors policy. How much progress have the Libs really made?
Mr Creosote, I couldn't give a rats arse about the NBN, I've been clear about that for many years.
Personally, I wish it had never been started. However now it is, I'm stocked.
Blind Freddy in NBN MK1 knew there was a fixed wireless and satellite component.
Subsidise it and the rural people will flock.
The rest of the NBN rollout has been a dream gone wrong.
HFC was purchased for a "large" amount of money.
I'm no expert.
But I know my access stuff. HFC is SAVING bucks. Even if you don't realise it.
(Sorry, but can't quote from part 86 from 85. Or can't be fluffed.)
Saving what exactly? the POS network was bought. Now they just decided half of it is not fit for purpose.
Seriously, the LNP and MTM is not defendable any more.
NBNv1 was a great nation building project with long term vision and benefits. the LNP and MTM has flapped it up. NBN was started in 2007.
We are in 2017 soon, what has been achieved in the first 6 years have been destroyed and flapped up by the last 4 by LNP/MTM and its still ongoing. We are watching this train wreck in front of us, we have had shit internet for 18 years now since 1998. Spare us the bullshit.
So the direction of it will not change now or never. Well the LNP / MTMco has declared war on this nation. When they try to sell off this mess and wash their hands away from it, I would suggest this community collectively gather all the articles links and everything over the past years and collate it as an information pack for any prospective buyers advising them against buying it. The LNP cannot wash their hands away and call it complete.
We are watching this train wreck in front of us, we have had shit internet for 18 years now since 1998. Spare us the bullshit.
Indeed, paying a hefty monthly fee per month on substandard internet access enough is enough.
Australian internet needs some serious quality control.
Fed up with the lies and the pathetic excuses on spending billion of dollars on an inferior internet infrastructure.
Any LNP member reading this thanks for screwing up something that would of been awesome for this country. You Luddites.
Indeed, paying a hefty monthly fee per month on substandard internet access enough is enough.
Australian internet needs some serious quality control.
If their was regulation and a body with teeth to enforce that Aussies only paid for the conenction quality they actually got I bet Telco's would start cleaning up their networks post haste.
But I know my access stuff. HFC is SAVING bucks. Even if you don't realise it.
From what I can guesstimate, the issue again is coming down to financials. The cost to perform the infills has been increasing dramatically for HFC, which would also be due to NBNCo drastically increasing the payments, guaranteed overheads and a raft of other benefits to deployment contractors. Why did they increase? Well, that would be a little something to do with FTTP :)
Once HFC CPP goes over FTTN, where it's already equal, NBNCo will fall back onto FTTN wherever it is deemed to be cheaper. They're out of money, the prospects of borrowing more money isn't looking great, so from here on in, it's going to be cheap, cheap & cheap. You can already see it with FTTN where their new deployment heavily relies on multiple DA's sharing a node, which means less cost but less speed for the end user.
NBNCo always reminds me of this quote from Marge Simpson of all people. Aim low. Aim so low no one will even care if you succeed
Given this info got lost in the last thead in an outpouring of emotions, Chorus NZ released their financial results for last year (https://www.chorus.co.nz/financial-results).
FTTP CPP is now down to NZD $2698 with forecast as low as $2500 for the next financial year. 54% of their fibre plans are now >= 100mbps.
Makes a mockery of NBN and their statements on both cost and demand.
FTTP CPP is now down to NZD $2698 with forecast as low as $2500 for the next financial year. 54% of their fibre plans are now >= 100mbps.
If you build it, they will come.
There is a huge appetite for *reliable* bandwidth.
You can already see it with FTTN where their new deployment heavily relies on multiple DA's sharing a node, which means less cost but less speed for the end user.
This is precisely what I see in my area, 1 node installed between 2 pillars. This more or less halves the installation cost and time however substantially reduces speeds available to the point where I actually wonder if they can hit their 50Mbps to 90% minimums.
I have the node less than 40m away but due to this 1 to 2 watering down only see about 35Mbps due to >900m os copper. Yes it hits the 25Mbps target, but I cant imagine surrounding homes seeing >50Mbs.
Even people adjacent to the pillar in the best case scenario are still going to have a minimum of >400m of copper; again this is best case. At what point does 50Mbps become unattainable 700m of copper? More than 10% would have distances greater than 700- 800m.
I feel this is watering down an important thing we should be bringing to our government's representatives attention. I doubt they understand this as this is not just a FttN is worse than FttP argument, it is a "the FttN they are rolling out is now cheaper and nastier that the FttN they talked up and we expected
FttN was already a bad decision, this just makes it an even worse waste of our money. I can't help but feel this goes beyond cutting cost and cheapening the NBN to US actively being ripped off
I have the node less than 40m away but due to this 1 to 2 watering down only see about 35Mbps due to >900m os copper. Yes it hits the 25Mbps target, but I cant imagine surrounding homes seeing >50Mbs.
This is a property in my local area. The node is literally visible from the back of their house, around 30m away, but the pillar they are on in the opposite direction is being shared off their node, rather than getting their own
http://i.imgur.com/WEZ1E0g.jpg (Green: Node. Red: path to pillar. Blue: path to premise)
This is a property in my local area. The node is literally visible from the back of their house, around 30m away, but the pillar they are on in the opposite direction is being shared off their node, rather than getting their own
http://i.imgur.com/WEZ1E0g.jpg (Green: Node. Red: path to pillar. Blue: path to premise)
Just farcical. The stupidity of Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull, Bill Morrow and the whole nbn� Board (I'm looking at you in particular Simon Hackett (Simon Who?) as you should've bloody known better) knows no bounds.
I actually wonder if they can hit their 50Mbps to 90% minimums.
someone is claiming that the 90% has been reduced to 86% for 50mbps
see extract in this post whrl.pl/ReHAl7
54% of their fibre plans are now >= 100mbps.
afict that's a 100/50 PIR with a CIR of 10/2.5 (no cvc charges) for $55 NZ pm. That's roughly the equivalent price of the NBNCo's 100/40 with about 1Mbps of CVC (ie. 100:1 contention). That looks much the same to a non-techie like me.
I'm finding it hard to compare retail plans/prices because I don't know how their RSPs match up to ours with regard to budget vs premium providers. Is anyone able to do a like-for-like comparison?
Indeed, paying a hefty monthly fee per month on substandard internet access enough is enough.
I wonder if some people, confronted with high price for rubbish speed and non-existent reliability as the only availability, say pigs to that and don't have an internet connection at all.
I'm finding it hard to compare retail plans/prices because I don't know how their RSPs match up to ours with regard to budget vs premium providers. Is anyone able to do a like-for-like comparison?
Well Spark is the retail part of the Telecom New Zealand split (from which Chorus was formed). In theory it should be compared to Telstra
LAN | DL (Up To)| UP (Up to)| 80GB |UNLIMITED
Naked ADSL | 10Mbps | 1 Mbps | $74.99 | $94.99
Naked VDSL | 50Mbps | 10Mbps | $84.99 | $104.99
Naked Fibre 30 | 30Mbps | 10Mbps | $69.99 | $89.99
Naked Fibre 100 | 100Mbps | 20Mbps | $79.99 | $89.99
Naked Fibre 200 | 200Mbps | 20Mbps | $99.99 | $119.99
Naked Fibre 200 Plus | 200Mbps | 200Mbps | � | $139.99
Naked Gigatown Fibre | 1,000Mbps | 500Mbps | $79.99 | $99.99
Add another $20 for landline on the plans
NBNCo have already started overbuilding the Telstra HFC network in areas. And if it has low lead in, then maintenance would be low anyway.
but they just can't turn the HFC off if they choose not to use it, it has to remain functioning for the duration of the Telstra/Foxtel agreement, which might be to end in 2020 but no-one seems to know for sure, guess Telstra and Foxtel are treating that as CiC
but they just can't turn the HFC off if they choose not to use it, it has to remain functioning for the duration of the Telstra/Foxtel agreement
My understanding is nbn co need to provide pay TV carriage for Telstra for as long as Telstra desire.
If Telstra are making good money from foxtel it raises the question just how long they might want to continue to collect free money.
Whereas the Coalition:
Federal input capped at $29.5B
They may be walking the equity cap back now that it appears nobody wants to invest. It would look bad if the network 'Turnbull saved' falls over.
My understanding is nbn co need to provide pay TV carriage for Telstra for as long as Telstra desire.
I don't think thats right, but it was something stupid like a 10-20 year commitment IIRC
My understanding is nbn co need to provide pay TV carriage for Telstra for as long as Telstra desire.
And at no cost to maintain the connecting cables. ----------so who was suckered.
HFC has to be left on until they can cut user base over to to fibre..
They will have to install fibre prior to the cut off period
With FTTN and HFC NBNCo are only designing to a minimum of 25/5
I don't even come close to getting 25Mbps download during the evening on my Telstra 100Mbps FTTN connection.
Speed test result from last night:
http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/5591250266
Kiwi here, though I could add a little real world experience for this question. Hope you guys don't mind me butting in with this. I've been following the NBN rollout for a while, I'm a techie so find it pretty fascinating. You have my sympathy, NBN is everything I feared we would get stuck with prior to 2010.
Wholesale pricing is pretty similar, but our lack of CVC pricing makes a huge difference, contention is almost entirely dependent on what the ISP wants to pay for international transit. For most of them the end result is very low contention.
I have been on a cheaper provider (myrepublic, unlimited 200/200 $119pm) and it could get a bit problematic, drops to under 100mbit during peak hours.
I have since moved to another provider (bigpipe, unlimited 200/200 $129pm) and there is basically zero contention, usually speedtests at around 217/215 regardless of time of day. Sydney speedtest servers in peak hours are usually 215/215.
So it does vary a bit but in practice most providers are pretty close and fall in the range of 90-100% advertised performance for most of the day (with the exception of myrepublic who are just rubbish). There is usually no more than $10-$20 difference between plans of the same speed and bandwidth limit and most kiwi ISPs offer a few cheap plans with 80-200GB per month then straight to unlimited.
https://cdn.geekzo
edit: sorry, that was a reply to CMOTDibbler's question on page 1, apparently I dont know how this forum works.
So it does vary a bit but in practice most providers are pretty close and fall in the range of 90-100% advertised performance for most of the day (with the exception of myrepublic who are just rubbish). There is usually no more than $10-$20 difference between plans of the same speed and bandwidth limit and most kiwi ISPs offer a few cheap plans with 80-200GB per month then straight to unlimited.
Thanks for that, your 200/200 connection is awesome. We can only wish / hope one day we would catch up.
Would you say that a lot of kiwis are on plans higher than 100/xxx?
I find it absurd that our retarded government would say no one needs more than 25mbits. Clearly if you guys are signing up to 200/200 plans there is a need, all at an affordable price too.
I think most new signups are for at least the 100/20 plans which are sort of the base speed, the 200/200 plans are moving to 1000/500 soon for around the same price, not sure if they will keep them or drop them after that. We have 30/10 plans but they aren't that much cheaper, I don't know anyone who has bothered.
Fibre is competing with VDSL (we don't call it FTTN here) which is available to about half the country, but usually about $10 more expensive than fibre, and cheaper ADSL2+ which is everywhere and usually runs between 10-20mbps unless rural. Between the two of them people only move from copper if they want a decent speed, I expect that affects our numbers quite a bit and explains our fairly low take up rate for fibre. Currently take up is only about 1-in-5, but accelerating pretty quickly.
From the NBN � Redcliffe (QLD) HFC thread whrl.pl/ReHDET is someone explaining why they only chose the 12/1 NBN HFC speed tier with their RSP.
My son wanted me to get the 100 Mb plan. I looked into it and saw all the threads where people paid for the higher plan but got lower speeds, so I chose the lower plan.
The problem is your RSP won't give you a minimum speed, just a maximum.
I'm not certain an extra $10 a month would double my internet speed
ACCC should step in immediately and ban RSP advertising of minimum speeds and enforce "maximum speed" advertising and prominently stating what the minimum speeds might be as low as during peak periods (i.e 1Mbps) and that how low the maximum speeds might go during peak periods (i.e. 1Mbps)
What a cluster**** of a business/industry model for essential infrastructure/services.
The Federal Coalition's revised SOE to NBNCo does absolutely nothing to address this situation and basic flaws in the whole model.
Kiwi here,
Thanks for that Aborto makes for a depressing comparison.
Heck even TV shows are starting to mention it.
800 words, about an aussie living in a small seaside NZ town mentions they have fibre about 1 minute 30 in to Season 2 Episode 1.
Thanks for that Aborto makes for a depressing comparison.
Heck even TV shows are starting to mention it.
800 words, about an aussie living in a small seaside NZ town mentions they have fibre about 1 minute 30 in to Season 2 Episode 1.
No Problem.
The strange thing is it was less than 10 years ago I was looking at your internet plans with a lot of jealousy, we had passable speed but monthly caps in the 5-40GB range. The difference seems to be that our monopoly Telecom forgot to pay off the right people and the government broke them up. The difference after the split was incredible, huge competition, unlimited plans, and an ISP funded VDSL rollout all within 5 years, things were massively better even before the fibre rollout.
Not killing Telstra seems to have been far and away the biggest mistake you have made (disclaimer: not an expert, just an opinion).
I don't even come close to getting 25Mbps download during the evening on my Telstra 100Mbps FTTN connection.
Speed test result from last night:
http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/5591250266
Anyone getting these sorts of results, needs to forward a written complaint to at least:-
1) all the relevant industry bodies -> ACCC, TIO ombudsman, nbn, their RSP
2) their local member of parliament
3) Malcolm Turnwaffle / Mitch Fifipoodle.
By paying for, and accepting this MTM garbage without making noise, nothing is likely to change.
ACCC should step in immediately and ban RSP advertising of minimum speeds and enforce "maximum speed" advertising and prominently stating what the minimum speeds might be as low as during peak periods (i.e 1Mbps) and that how low the maximum speeds might go during peak periods (i.e. 1Mbps)
Except you can't. It's the nature of the technology you are using. Which has been the biggest flaw of MTM. It's still an "up to service" which lacks consistency. It's basically the same back on early HCF days when Telstra throttled speeds during peak congestion... sure you can reach 250-500kbps as long as the line was clear. And we all know how that hampered HFC's growth at the time.
The Federal Coalition's revised SOE to NBNCo does absolutely nothing to address this situation and basic flaws in the whole model.
Of course not. The whole aim is get it built as cheap as possible and "future proof" it later (ie. pay for "upgrades") should the need arise (ie. someone decides it's worth forking out money for it because financially controlling speeds isn't giving enough returns anymore) build it 'cheap and fast' and cover it over w/ a blanket and job well done folks kind of policy
Not killing Telstra seems to have been far and away the biggest mistake you have made (disclaimer: not an expert, just an opinion
Interestingly enough that was one of the original points of the NBN. Break up the Telstra wholesale from retail. Since no one had the balls to force Telstra to fix their line and problems they worked around it and built NBN at which point Telstra would just naturally split off wholesale since it would all be superseded by NBN. Something that has been conveniently brushed under the carpet with the swap to MTM.
but they just can't turn the HFC off if they choose not to use it, it has to remain functioning for the duration of the Telstra/Foxtel agreement, which might be to end in 2020 but no-one seems to know for sure, guess Telstra and Foxtel are treating that as CiC
And that's a problem for the future CEO/Chairman. In the meantime they're running out of CAPEX and have political deadlines to meet!
Hope you guys don't mind me butting in with this
No problems with you butting in. It's clear that Australia has a lot to learn on telecommunications from our Kiwi brothers :)
edit: sorry, that was a reply to CMOTDibbler's question on page 1, apparently I dont know how this forum works.
Thanks. I feel much better now :)
Not only are you building a better network, you're building it cheaper and access is more affordable. I think Labor and the Greens should start using this info to embarrass Turnbull and Fifield. It's stupid that we're not following in your footsteps.
Interestingly enough that was one of the original points of the NBN. Break up the Telstra wholesale from retail. Since no one had the balls to force Telstra to fix their line and problems they worked around it and built NBN at which point Telstra would just naturally split off wholesale since it would all be superseded by NBN. Something that has been conveniently brushed under the carpet with the swap to MTM.
Quite honestly I cant work out how we didn't follow the same route, I don't want to give you the idea our politicians are honest or competent, the buggers are as corrupt as they come. The only thing I can think is that someone at Telecom pissed off the wrong guys or forgot a "donation". The end result is great, but never I expected it.
NBN claiming to be planning on trialling XG-FAST. In another spin by media release claiming gigabit speeds, they fail to mention that 1Gbps is only achievable at < 100m under optimal conditions, or around 10% of all FTTN premises.
And in another gem of a quote in the article, which will surprise no one here because we read the leak last December
It�s understood that the poor condition of the Optus network has forced NBN to re-evaluate its usability, with a source telling The Australian that large chunks of the Optus network were not fit for purpose.
�From engineering�s point of view it makes no sense to use the Optus network, the cost of using it is just too prohibitive given the number of node splits, remediation and other costs,� the source said.
https://au.news.yahoo.com/th
Data obtained byThe West Australian from one of the most popular download speed test sites, testmy.net, shows Perth in last spot on the national download chart with an average download speed of 7.1Mbps.
In a result slated by the business community, Perth is space ages behind Canberra, Australia�s fastest capital city with an average download speed of 39.7Mbps. Hobart, which along with Canberra has a large NBN footprint, sits second with 19.1Mbps, followed by Sydney (13.1), Melbourne (10.1) Brisbane (9.3) and Adelaide (8.1).
Perth�s 7.1Mbps figure is slower than Indonesia�s average download speed and well below Australia�s national average.
Thanks Malcolm, you know how to look after the masses that vote for you consistently.
NBN claiming to be planning on trialling XG-FAST. In another spin by media release claiming gigabit speeds, they fail to mention that 1Gbps is only achievable at < 100m under optimal conditions, or around 10% of all FTTN premises.
You got that wrong, XG-FAST comes with free nodes and labour to install them so the distances can be lowered to below 100m. /s
I think its interesting the wording used in the most recently updated SOE from the nbn
- The Government expects the network will provide peak wholesale download data rates (and proportionate upload rates) of at least 25 megabits per second to all premises
that's promising that it NEVER drops BELOW 25, assuming that your RSP has enough CVC.
Just think about that for a second, how much bandwidth does each node contain, and how many users on each node .. and frankly how is this statement not an outright lie ?
I was also pondering Malcom Turnbulls comments about "turning around an utterly failed project" and do you know, I think he is right.
its just that we, the public thought that nbn was the same as NBN, but it wasn't, nbn wasn't a nation building project, it was a failing monopoly hand out project.
the entire purpose of the MTM nbn is to boost Telstra's net worth and the 93% fibre plan from labor was utterly failing in this regard, it was kind of doing the opposite, they tried to throw spanners in the works by insisting on a million POIs but when that prove ineffective also they had to get real.
but now Telstra's stock is rocketing their shaky monopoly is on solid ground again, and now the government has taken the biggest money drains away from it and is in fact paying Telstra to own the network for them.
remarkable how completely he has turned the failed Telstra monopoly plan around.
I have been on a cheaper provider (myrepublic, unlimited 200/200 $119pm) and it could get a bit problematic, drops to under 100mbit during peak hours
yeah Australian broadband does that too .. way WAY under 100
that's promising that it NEVER drops BELOW 25, assuming that your RSP has enough CVC.
Wrong, it means that the speed on the AVC (so before the CVC) only has to reach 25Mbps once in 24-hours.
It�s understood that the poor condition of the Optus network has forced NBN to re-evaluate its usability, with a source telling The Australian that large chunks of the Optus network were not fit for purpose.
�From engineering�s point of view it makes no sense to use the Optus network, the cost of using it is just too prohibitive given the number of node splits, remediation and other costs,� the source said.
I thought Kingy was arguing that the issues with Optus HFC Network were already publicly known, then why does News Corp make it seem like this is a new revelation?
Then again, News Corp has a vested interest in the Optus HFC not being used to Deliver Optus a continued large market share of those Optus HFC areas which probably underpins the financially viability of its EPL Soccer investment, which competes with Foxtel. Decommissioning the Optus Network will benefit all the other RSP's in getting ex Optus HFC customers to move over to their FTTN offerings and opens up further opportunities for Private Sector overbuilding Premium ex Optus HFC customers NBN FTTN with FTTP/dP at some point in the future.
Meantime, back in the here and now, Perth internet speeds and Michael Malone are in the spotlight today.
https://au.news.yahoo.com/th
Former Labor MP Alannah MacTiernan, an outspoken critic of the quality of Perth�s internet, said the result came as no surprise.
Ms MacTiernan said the need to improve Perth�s internet speed was as important as WA getting its fair share of GST.
�The poor quality of internet in Perth is a massive concern in the community and one of the most common issues people raise with me,� she said.
�And this is not just about downloading movies � internet speed is critical for business productivity and has a huge impact on families.�'
NBN board member and iiNet founder Michael Malone said he was always sceptical of speed tests because there were many other issues which affected internet speed, and the results differed wildly depending on the time of day. But he said the tyranny of distance meant Perth internet users accessing east coast-based websites would mean slower speeds.
The NBN rollout is considered the light on the hill, but Perth has long been considered the poor cousin of the NBN rollout, with the pace well behind east coast states.
Wrong, it means that the speed on the AVC (so before the CVC) only has to reach 25Mbps once in 24-hours.
the wording is categorically clear.
- will provide peak wholesale download data rates (and proportionate upload rates) of at least 25 megabits per second to all premises
that's not once a day that's at the peak of traffic, a minimum speed.
it physically cannot offer that as the nodes do not have such capacity
Wrong, it means that the speed on the AVC (so before the CVC) only has to reach 25Mbps once in 24-hours.
would that be because it is a "peak" rate and not a "continuous" rate?
that's not once a day that's at the peak of traffic, a minimum speed.
Peak means at peak, not consistent.
Wholesale from NBN Co perspective is the AVC, it has no control over the dimensioning of the CVC, RSPs have and the Statement of Expectations is not for them.
At least means the peak it has to be reached at minimum.
it physically cannot offer that as the nodes do not have such capacity
Consequently the nodes have sufficient capacity from the Statement of Expectations perspective.
that's not once a day that's at the peak of traffic, a minimum speed.
NBNCo defines PIR as
References to download and upload speeds (PIR and CIR) in this Product Description are to Layer 2 speeds, including where those speeds are expressed as a range, are references to the maximum data throughput that the NBN Co Network is designed to make available to Customer at the UNI used to serve the relevant Premises, and not the minimum data throughput. For example, where the PIR is expressed as a range for a particular bandwidth profile:
(i) the maximum data throughput at the UNI used to serve the relevant Premises may peak anywhere in that range; and
(ii) may reach a PIR within that range only once during a 24 hour period.
So as stated, it only needs to achieve that data rate once a day at the layer 2 level. Actual rates for end user will be lower.
would that be because it is a "peak" rate and not a "continuous" rate?
Correct, the Statement of Expectations is drafted to mislead by using the fact that people have a problem with the interpretation of the combination of words "peak" and "at least". By adding the word "wholesale" it expresses the point of view of NBN Co and NOT the End User. In other words before the CVC, the AVC.
bah thought that had been removed.
bah thought that had been removed.
Redrafted obviously, more difficult to find.
WA is a pretty loyal Coalition State and so not only do we get rewarded by having our GST taken away, but our Broadband is the worst in the country and our NBN rollout pathetically slow.
https://au.news.yahoo.com/th
Even the MTM which was supposed to speed things up is slow !!!
the Statement of Expectations is drafted to mislead by using the fact that people have a problem with the interpretation of the combination of words "peak" and "at least"
It's worth comparing Australia again with Ireland and their NBP
https://www.siliconrepublic.
http://www.rte.ie/news/busin
According to a Department release issued on 31 March, of the five applicants vying for the 25-year contract, none met the criteria for deployment, service, futureproofing and delivery laid out in its revised strategy from December 2015.
https://www.siliconrepublic.
When it is built, it will be one of the finest fibre networks in Europe, but it won�t be owned by the Irish State. Instead, the National Broadband Plan network � which is budgeted between �500m and �600m � will be owned by the successful bidder or bidders for the vital contract.
https://www.siliconrepublic.
The winning contractor, or contractors, will have to be able to deliver a guaranteed minimum of 30Mbps download speeds and 6Mbps upload speeds with 99.95pc uptime. Failure to meet targets will result in tough financial penalties.
http://www.theregister.co.uk
With superfast speeds soon-to-be available outside of the increasingly expensive base of Dublin, the country might become an even more attractive proposition for overseas businesses. Not to mention the economic boost that will give to rural areas.
To be a truly competitive global economy, it is perhaps time the UK looked a bit closer at its Irish neighbour and adopted its own national broadband plan.
Otherwise we arguably risk accelerating an economic decline
Statement of Expectations is drafted to mislead
It also says poorly served areas will get priority. I am in an "E" suburb as shown on the my broadband site, E is a bad as it gets but we get no priority, It is not just part of the suburb, it is the whole suburb and so I would have thought a practical case to be given priority. but no but then it is in WA (Wait Awhile). I also notice lots of "A" suburbs getting NBN well ahead of other more deserving suburbs.
It also says poorly served areas will get priority.
I haven't researched this in depth, but my impression is that they are more guided by the abilities of the infrastructure then their obligation under the Statement of Expectations to serve under served areas.
with 99.95pc uptime.
That's about 4 hours downtime per year.
Imagine Telstra meeting that requirement.
I haven't researched this in depth, but my impression is that they are more guided by the abilities of the infrastructure then their obligation under the Statement of Expectations to serve under served areas.
translated to
"we do what we want, when we want except for FTTH, we will mislead or outright lie, hide information, change horses mid race, pay far to much for assets including locked in maintenance, then not use them and you all can get nicked"
I haven't researched this in depth, but my impression is that they are more guided by the abilities of the infrastructure then their obligation under the Statement of Expectations to serve under served areas.
Well there is a POI up and running 3 Kms away, there is NBN fibre along the main roads near us. There is also an NBN fibre going from the main road about 300 meters into our suburb (that went in 18 months or so ago). Don't really see there are any significant engineering issues in giving our poorly served area any kind of priority.
NBN Co chief technology officer Dennis Steiger said that the trial is the latest attempt by the company to deliver multi-gigabit speeds at a cheaper price point.
Latest attempt....lol. How many more attempts are they going to 'trial' before they realise that fibre is the only answer to gigabit speeds
What an absolute, complete clusterf_ck this MTM is/has become. I'm embarrassed to be an Aussie
Latest attempt....lol. How many more attempts are they going to 'trial' before they realise that fibre is the only answer to gigabit speeds
I think maybe nbn� and some of its staff are trying to win an Ig� Noble Award
although I think it is more in the line of cry than laugh
and WTF would you bother rather than "to think"
What an absolute, complete clusterf_ck this MTM is/has become. I'm embarrassed to be an Aussie
That's just a marketing speech. Means nothing at all. Just keeps the uninformed masses believing they are doing things.
http://telsoc.org/ajtde/2016-06-v4-n2/a55
Bloody hell, that is damning for the FTTN case.
When are they going to wake up and realise that Lab speeds or lab tests or whatever mean nothing in the real world?
What an absolute bloody joke. Would rather they go with FTTP but they don't want to because they screwed up in the head and WANT what's best for them and not for the citizens of this country that even get them into the dam office.
When are they going to wake up and realise that Lab speeds or lab tests or whatever mean nothing in the real world?
Oh they know all this too well. Just bank on the fact 99.9% of the population do not.
lol yes can we not see the problem
Liberal figures
Install Cost $ per household
fttn � $2,100
fttp � $4,400
Real world examples from NZ
Install Cost $ per household
fttn � : $1,062
fttp � : $1,700
hmmmmm
the wording is categorically clear.
At the start of it, it says "The Government expects" not that they "require", "need", "necessitate", "depend on" the network providing.... does that word "expects" have any special meaning in relation to the outcomes compared to it's general use?
Like I look out side and I expect it to rain later. That doesn't mean it "will" rain later or that it "needs" to rain later so that what happens is it has to rain, just that is what I expect will happen which may or may not happen.
Does the use of "expects" in the SOE context actually have some kind of power to it so that NBN are actually obligated to get that outcome rather than it just being the outcome the government expects/wants/thinks will happen?
its already been debunked anyway due to the continued clause dentoing that peak refers to the fastest any one connection can gop, not the peak time that your RSP talks about
and that this 'peak' only need be attained once per day.
I thought that this had been removed making what used to be careful wording into a trap for them, but I was wrong.
http://telsoc.org/ajtde/2016-06-v4-n2/a55
Bloody hell, that is damning for the FTTN case.
Not really. While his conclusion in this incarnation of this work is more or less neutral, in other versions of this paper Ferris has come out as an FTTN supporter (IIRC). If you read it the whole thing (not inclined to do it again), you'll find pretty much every lie the Libs have told quantified and referenced and then incorporated into his analysis.
There are well established methods for accounting for, or doing financial/investment analysis. this most definitely isn't one of them. As far as I'm concerned, the Ferris analysis does little more than arbitrarily quantify all the BS "benefits" of the Lib's approach.
XG.Fast? Why?
Bill Morrow NBN Ceo � "Australian's don't need those speeds"
British MP use NBN Australia as an example on politics and telecoms in the UK
Liberal figures
Install Cost $ per household
fttn � $2,100
fttp � $4,400
Telstra to deliver at a min cable distance of 1,500 is $5,000 for vdsl per premises up from there skies the limit from $5,000, $7,500 and $12,500 on a 3 step build install..
realistically the LNP has botched its figures to reflect a cost saving where there is none, because no matter which you install you are still digging a hole to upgrade and maintain the infrastructure whether you deliver it from the d/a (node), pit or direct inside the home or premises..
you would likely have to reverse the fttn and fttp figures to get the fttp cost though suspect real world cost of install would be closer between $800-$1,500 to deliver fttp in 1 hit...
the downside to the brits parliament is it not only has to pass the upper and lower houses but also the house of lords... rocky
Bill Morrow NBN Ceo � "Australian's don't need those speeds"
That's Discrimination right there, quick somebody Sue Bill Morrow for saying that!
The rest of the world needs those speeds but Australia? No bloody way in hell do you need 1 Gigabit down / 400 Megabits up or even 50/20. . 25/5 will do us fine and that's all we care about.
FTTP? Nah no one needs it.
FTTN � Yeah Everyone needs it, let's spend all of the money on Copper wires and putting this country into a Debt hole.
We also don't give a dam whether you work from home or if 25/5 isn't enough for you. Don't like it? Well boo hoo hoo then, suck it up or pay for your own private connection then /s
What a load of Crap I say! Why are these Dumb morons even in this position in the first place?
And the bad news is that we are going to watch Australia CRASH and BURN for the next 3 years.
And the bad news is that we are going to watch Australia CRASH and BURN for the next 3 years.
Actually this is long term infrastructure being screwed up, a change of government can't fix it now. It will be more like 15-20 years.
Either way, No matter how long it takes.. Australia will still be Crashing and burning when it comes to broadband until we can get to the bottom of this mess and do the right thing. Even then it'll still take time to turn around, reorganize things and get back to work.
problem is scuba, how much damage will they create whilst in office and how long will it take labor or another governmental head to fix the damage committed by Malcolm and Co???
my guess it would likely take somebody 6-12 years to fix all damages created by malcolm and co and likely another 18-24 years to get it running where it should..
NBN claiming to be planning on trialling XG-FAST. In another spin by media release claiming gigabit speeds, they fail to mention that 1Gbps is only achievable at < 100m under optimal conditions, or around 10% of all FTTN premises.
And even if it could be achieved by those with longer line lengths, the nodes have been installed with only 1Gbps backhaul (and requires a truck roll to upgrade). So if you had one single premises that managed to achieve 1Gbps via XG-FAST then there would be no bandwidth left for the other up to 383 premises connected to that node.
Of course, it would be necessary to do a truck roll to the node to support XG-FAST, and anyone with common sense would assume that the work needed to upgrade the backhaul would be done at the same time. Such people have not been observing nbnTM.
I've seen one report on XG.FAST where they make the point that this tech is only viable for FTTB and FTTdp. With FTTdp currently in trial and may be rolled out from 2018 if NBN has any money left. So Nokia don't seem to be using this as an upgrade path for FTTN, but NBN and MSM seem to be joining those dots and make it seem like XG.FAST will help everyone on FTTN.
what ever fibre tech install must be capable of 40gb at a min specification we needed 1gb 10-15 years ago, 1 gb in 15 years time is what 10gb today should be..
god the gov is living in delusion that 1gb in 20-30 years is going to be enough with the amount of crap that is going online today..
Bloody hell, that is damning for the FTTN case.
How so?
Author�s value assessment (table 7) ...
Overall, even though FTTP has higher benefits logically to me, I value the quicker FTTN rollout to avoid the unknown unknowns, over the FTTP benefit of lower longer term costs.
However, I am concerned that if the FTTN is left in place for a long time, its value will quickly diminish. So, I prefer FTTN, but subject to a commitment to switch to FTTP in a timely manner.
However, my value assessment is subject to change with new information. Ideally, I prefer the disagreeing parties to agree on a joint plan to reduce risk, for instance implementing FTTC, or a commitment to retire FTTN progressively after 10 years.
As I read that first paragraph the author favours FTTN.
Author�s value assessment (table 7) ...
Overall, even though FTTP has higher benefits logically to me, I value the quicker FTTN rollout to avoid the unknown unknowns, over the FTTP benefit of lower longer term costs.
However, I am concerned that if the FTTN is left in place for a long time, its value will quickly diminish. So, I prefer FTTN, but subject to a commitment to switch to FTTP in a timely manner.
However, my value assessment is subject to change with new information. Ideally, I prefer the disagreeing parties to agree on a joint plan to reduce risk, for instance implementing FTTC, or a commitment to retire FTTN progressively after 10 years.
As I read that first paragraph the author favours FTTN.
Yeah that article is no way near damning unfortunately . Anyone who says they prefer the quicker FTTN and the unknown FTTP are kidding themselves when they make statements like that.
On the subject of debts. Look whos sitting next to morrison in the picture
http://thenewdaily.co
Jeez i wonder what business Fifield has with him regarding the MTM? Taking it off completely?
we needed 1gb 10-15 years ago, 1 gb in 15 years time is what 10gb today should be..
Yeah I remember those days. I even remember looking through old Threads from 2001 / 2003 on here and the Data Cap of Cable was 3GB for a month... Yep 3 GB for a month of Cable. It was okay for most people back then as according to users most only used 500 MB (Megabytes) for the month and the speeds were probably 1500 Kilo bits per second back then on Cable. But as the years went by and the Technology field started to grow. Our needs expanded too.
I even remember when a 256 MB (Megabyte) USB would cost you $99. Now if they still made those then it would be 50c or less. We are in the Terabytes range now and could be coming up to the Petabyte range in 10-15 years time. Our needs are growing around the clock now and the RIGHT infrastructure needs to be in place so we can support these things and not have any bottlenecks. Anyone (Like the current pack of Politicians) that says our needs aren't growing and we don't need to expand anything needs to wake up to themselves and look at the facts and information.
Again Technology is growing and so is our needs, Having the right infrastructure in place is important.
Wow, that's just retarded!
The lengths nbn will go to to cut corners is phenomenal!
HFCTTdp? Have they gone mad? Sorry, madder?
On a related note ... aiui Optus HFC is aerially deployed. If they're not going to use Optus HFC, what would be the cost of replacing it with aerially deployed FTTP? Does that bring FTTP much closer to the cost of FTTN?
As I read that first paragraph the author favours FTTN.
...If it could be rolled out quickly, and it was followed up by FTTP in due course.
It's a reasonable approach IMO. If Mal had delivered a complete FTTN NBN by the end of this year as promised, I for one would've been a lot less critical because many people would have received decent (if not great) speeds many years earlier than waiting for a technically perfect FTTP connection and there would have been a base of decent infrastructure when upgrading to FTTP (unlike the Labor model which would have left some people on decrepit ADSL services until the early 2020s) making the timing of that upgrade a bit less critical.
But as we all know, we didn't get this. Instead, the decrepit ADSL connections will remain until the early 2020s AND we'll end up with a network that will need upgrading immediately after construction has finished.
It would similarly need to convince its retail service provider partners to spend time and money on tweaking their systems to work with the new technology, which would form only a tiny portion of its overall network.
Wouldn't NBN need to do that as well? Didn't Bill say even if FTTdp was a proven technology and commercially available they still wouldn't be deploying it because of that?
Wow, that's just retarded!
Well the mantra is anything but Fibre.
HFCTTdp?
Now for the treasure hunt thru whirlpool archives, to find where I recall speculating on HFC + existing copper lead ins as a potential solution to connecting NBN HFC to the premise.
Just putting this option on the table has the potential to stop any potential NBN HFC network fill in, or lead in fill in, dead in the water, until this HFCTTdp option is ruled doable or not.
As an option for small MDUs this could be an FTTN killer.
The additional load this will put on the HFC infrastructure and effect on other HFC users could be problematic if $ are limited.
Not killing Telstra seems to have been far and away the biggest mistake you have made (disclaimer: not an expert, just an opinion).
We would have to modestly agree with you, not that 'we' had any choice in the matter.
It was the Howard government that resolved to flog off Telstra as a vertically intact quasi-monopoly. Questions of national interest/common sense were not considered � they knew the market will always pay more for a monopoly, so it met both their obtuse objectives of ideology and dollars-above-all.
One of the biggest advantages of the original NBN was that it removed much of Telstra's dominance, but Turnbull has now reverted to that as part of a purely political reversal of sound national policy.
HFCTTdp? Have they gone mad? Sorry, madder?
Well, it would be a world first.
A bit like their new bonded VDSL fed HfC "Optical" node. /s
Guess they have suddenly discovered, what a lot of us pointed out, that a lot of LICs will not have room for a HFC cable, but they would have had room for "bare" fibre that would be field terminated. I would bet that the vast majority of LICs are in the 20 mm internal size, not the 25 mm that is the current standard
remember that Steiger was at one stage talking about running HFCTB for MDUs that didn't have cable throughout and to feed VDSL through the existing copper
Seems like Steiger has had this idea of HFC to Copper in his brain fro a long time. At least in MDUs they can feed a standard ISAM with HFC cables, not build custom equipment.
How much money have they spent on developing a "solution" that no-one else in the world has decided to use?
Size is going to be interesting, considering you are going to need a tap and an HFC to VDSL converter, given that a lot of the pits that feed premises are the small P2 size so I guess they will need to be dug up and replaced as well
They will do anything to not to dig up peoples rose bushes, but streets be damned.
It's a reasonable approach IMO. If Mal had delivered a complete FTTN NBN by the end of this year as promised
well maybe in that dream world.
however there is no "upgrade path" from fttn to fttp so overbuild is effectively the only option, which was what the nbn was actually supposed to be about, overbuilding the copper with fibre.
the MTM was never going to be sooner, as soon as you realised what they were planning you knew that Telstra would pull the same stunt that they did with Labor and hold up talks until the government wqas desperate enough to bend to their will. so there was always going to be a delay and a massive changeover that would have been miraculous if it didn't take at least a year.
Its like going to the car dealership and him saying, you can have this new car here for 45 grand. or you can pay me 29 grand and I will put a body kit, tinted windows and a hyclone on your current car.that may or may not speed things up, btw it might also make your car only go in first gear every now and again .. no biggie .. just around rush hour.
Even if he had pulled off exactly what he said he would have, (which was frankly impossible 25/5 for all in 3 years ) you would have still had a the same crappy old car you started with.
When the roll out was only a 10 year plan for 45 billion, really you would have to do it in 1 year for 10 billion to make the fttn upgrade worth it.
You are right th e network will need upgrading as soon as its done, .. sooner really but there is no hope for that now
http://www.zdnet.com/article
See graph at end. Not many places can get >50Mbps on FTTN...
http://www.itnews.com.au/new
That's as useful as a patent for delivering NBN to every premises without actually building anything.
See graph at end. Not many places can get >50Mbps on FTTN...
also about 7% according to those figures cannot get 25Mbps
ooooops
Now for the treasure hunt thru whirlpool archives, to find where I recall speculating on HFC + existing copper lead ins as a potential solution to connecting NBN HFC to the premise.
Shh...dont look too hard.
http://www.zdnet.com/articl
See graph at end. Not many places can get >50Mbps on FTTN...
Not good form to re-publish data qualified with an asterisk and not include the explanatory note.
Also, what's with the funky speed progressions? Almost like they're trying to present the data to be read a certain way...
https://au.news.yahoo.com/t
Data obtained byThe West Australian from one of the most popular download speed test sites, testmy.net, shows Perth in last spot on the national download chart with an average download speed of 7.1Mbps.
Thanks Malcolm, you know how to look after the masses that vote for you consistently.
Here is the link to Mark Gregory's interview on the ABC this morning in Perth trying to explain who's to blame for Perth having the worst Internet speeds in Australia.
https://soundcloud.com/720ab
The switchboard melted down with listeners ringing in saying they would 'kill' for 7.1 Mbps
MTM in a nutshell
Brilliant. Perfect analogy.
Here's the MTM maintenance story.
Wrong, it means that the speed on the AVC (so before the CVC) only has to reach 25Mbps once in 24-hours.
Which is interesting as it does not meet the definition of "superfast broadband" from other legislation IMHO.
Whilst I'm waiting for my NBN, I'm busy training my pet 8 legged friend to weave a web all the way from the pit to the nearest Telstra exchange, as a prototype for my STTP (Spider to the Premise) product.
Wow, much innovation.. such genius....
What a flapping joke, this is the sort of effort that should be put into FTTP rollout. Something that has a large potential future install base and not a handful of premises in Aus.
Wow, much innovation.. such genius...
Gotta love the optimism of
It is restricted by the fact that no hardware currently exists to support its novel approach.
Wait what? So it's all theoretical then?
While NBN Co says it has proved the concept can work, it faces the problem of convincing its equipment suppliers to invest the effort into building kit for what would likely be a very limited run. How the heck do you prove a concept without the necessary hardware to test it? And how much is it going to cost to get a manufacturer do do a special short run of custom kit?
The buggers really have totally lost the plot and are completely off the reservation.
How the heck do you prove a concept without the necessary hardware to test it?
That is the easy bit.
And how much is it going to cost to get a manufacturer do do a special short run of custom kit?
That is the impossible bit. No vendor is going to care about their "novel" solution to a problem that only exists in Australia.
HFC covers about 40% of premises, this applies to a small percentage of premises that has missing lead ins... ie Infill.
Overseas markets don't have the same legacy "cable wars" issues Australia have.
Wow, much innovation.. such genius....
What a flapping joke, this is the sort of effort that should be put into FTTP rollout. Something that has a large potential future install base and not a handful of premises in Aus.
Connecting a customer up to the NBN with a 'drop-in' solution, at full VDSL2 speeds, with minimal cost.
Thats not a joke.
Wait what? So it's all theoretical then?
No
How the heck do you prove a concept without the necessary hardware to test it?
You get the necessary hardware to test it produced, and test it.
And how much is it going to cost to get a manufacturer do do a special short run of custom kit?
Its not cheap, but it would still be cheaper than any other alternative.
HFC covers about 40% of premises, this applies to a small percentage of premises that has missing lead ins... ie Infill.
it seems that they do not want to do anything between street and premises just in case they have to dig.
apparently it was only around 6% of LICs in the FTTN build that needed "excavation"
the HFC cable is much bigger than fibre therefore many more than 6% of LICs may need replacing in the HFC areas to "infill"
and how do you claim a patent on what is effectively combining a HFC modem and a VDSL modem into one "box", they must be using off the shelf chips at each interface level.
Oh that's right if Apple can seem to do it, then nbn� must be able to
Its not cheap, but it would still be cheaper than any other alternative.
Cost effective?
Value for money?
Technology Choice upgradeable to full HFC (using an HFC lead-in)?
Capable of supporting > 100Mbps download speeds on demand when the rest of the nearby HFC supports >100Mbps download speeds?
Cost effective?
Verymuch so
Value for money?
Concept is open for interpretation
Technology Choice upgradeable to full HFC (using an HFC lead-in)?
Easily
Capable of supporting > 100Mbps download speeds on demand when the rest of the nearby HFC supports >100Mbps download speeds?
Capable of full VDSL2 line rates, if HFC capacity is there for it (300down/100up) � i.e. is not a bandwidth bottleneck
The retards working at MTMco just get more stupid. Why waste time and resources on something that is already obsolete if it gets implemented.
There is only 1 solution, roll out fibre to homes. Thats it, anything else is a waste of effort, time and resources.
This is akin to building a better cart for a horse, when a motor car already exists.
Not that I think that anyone in the world would be stupid enough to use this supposed HFC workaround, but if they did and paid for it, who would be the beneficiary of such a payment?
300+ premises to cover per node even more today looking at the rate of new buildings going up within the metro area's of perth, sydney, hobart, melbourne, brisbane, darwin, and adelaide..
It would be great if this point could be supported. There are quite a few good articles that are not being added to the Industry News list on a daily basis and what is there is a little perplexing at times. /forum-replies.cfm?t=2562332
and yes, I tried to explain to ABC Perth listeners this morning that they've been getting a raw deal for some time now. I was amazed at how many people called in with complaints, and yet this did not appear to translate to enough votes at the last election.
How the heck do you prove a concept without the necessary hardware to test it? And how much is it going to cost to get a manufacturer do do a special short run of custom kit?
The buggers really have totally lost the plot and are completely off the reservation.
No commercial vendor is going to make this shit, unless you charge 10 times the cost of normal RD for fibre equipment.
Its like you go backwards and make a special order build for obsolete crap.
The stupidity continues at MTMco, the CTO hahaha. Lets invent something with copper. I'll give you a tip, just use fibre, its cheaper. Saves you losing all your brain cells engineering something that is end of life.
No commercial vendor is going to make this shit, unless you charge 10 times the cost of normal RD for fibre equipment.
Not true.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét