Is Malcolm Turnbull going to make G.Fast and XG.Fast work over this copper infrastructure?
http://delimiter.com.au/2012
1 Gbps speed?
But don't let facts get in the way of a MSM article.
Facts (as I remember them):
- 2005/6 Telstra offered to build FTTN but the conditions attached were so appalling the government could not agree.
- 2006 the G9 perpetrated the massive con that they could build FTTN without paying Telstra to acquire the copper
- 2007 both the Coalition and Labor fell for the G9 con and started RFPs for companies other than Telstra to bid to build FTTN. RFPs that were bound to fail.
- 2009 Labor woke up to reality and realised it was FTTP or nothing but didn't follow any known process to determine how to build it. The Coalition was in 'oppose everything' mode so it all became 'political'.
- 2013 Turnbull said he "wouldn't start from here". No one asked him where in that history he would have started and what he would have done. We know what he did when he did "start from here".
Close?
Why did the G9 get off so lightly for all the damage and delays they caused?
Why did Labor do a RFP for a $4.7bn project but not for a $30.4bn project?
Why did the Coalition let Turnbull try to implement his crazy policy?
Well, those on congested services would disagree with "But it never does".
Optical fibre to the premises is a game-changer because of its data carrying capacity. Dedicated bandwidth e.g. for live streaming (and no-one has mentioned multi-cast over NBN lately) wouldn't require more fibres in the access networks of FTTP areas, just something better than the current pricing arrangements.
Well, never is a long time. There will always be the potential incidents like the Victoria's Secret launch that cause a spike. However, no carrier ever dimensions for those spikes. If they did, the service would be unaffordable. A 5:1 contention ratio in the node is still a pretty gold-plated contention ratio.
In this particular scenario, fibre/copper makes no difference. The contention ratio for nodes is identical to that for much of the FTTH network. And it doesn't even come into play because the CVC contention ratios are significantly higher. 2011 design docs allow up to 50:1 contention ratio for domestic broadband services and 10:1 for business services, which, even allowing for the bundling advantage of a larger number customers/POI than /node, will completely swamp node congestion. Congestion will show up in the POI long before it shows up in the node.
2007 both the Coalition and Labor fell for the G9 con and started RFPs for companies other than Telstra to bid to build FTTN.
No, Telstra could have submitted a bid to the RFP � they chose not to.
2009 Labor woke up to reality and realised it was FTTP or nothing but didn't follow any known process to determine how to build it.
No, it was the expert panel assessing the RFP responses that said it should be FTTP or nothing, and there was ample analysis of how to build it (including but not limited to the implementation study).
Why did the G9 get off so lightly for all the damage and delays they caused?
Because nothing like that happened.
Why did Labor do a RFP for a $4.7bn project but not for a $30.4bn project?
Because the outcome of the RFP process is what lead to the NBN project.
Why did the Coalition let Turnbull try to implement his crazy policy?
Because it was Coalition policy.
A 5:1 contention ratio in the node is still a pretty gold-plated contention ratio.
There is no such 5:1 contention ratio in the node.
Congestion will show up in the POI long before it shows up in the node.
How do you know this? Do you imagine that RSPs will have geographic monopolies?
Close?
Why did the G9 get off so lightly for all the damage and delays they caused?
Why did Labor do a RFP for a $4.7bn project but not for a $30.4bn project?
Why did the Coalition let Turnbull try to implement his crazy policy?
Pretty close. I would add interstitially:
After the 2005/6 and RFP debacles, it became apparent to Conroy that the only way to solve the problem was complete structural separation, which is a hard call. If you follow the logic through:
Structural separation ---> compulsory
compulsory ---> It has to be free to the consumer or it won't get up
Free to the consumer -----> very expensive whichever way you do it.
very expensive ---> means you have to have a "great leap forward" or it won't get up
"great leap forward" ------> all-fibre network.
So the political logic forced the proposal of a "big bang" fibring up of the nation paid for entirely out of tax revenues which is actually economic insanity. But the same logic has also been followed (rather better, arguably) in New Zealand. If it isn't politically possible, then it isn't possible however much people whinge on Whirlpool or spread memes on Facebook.
So we were sold a pony or perhaps even a unicorn. So far props to Conroy, because he got a big and necessary (but politically difficult) project up. But the problem was that the price and delivery timescale for the pony were horrendously underestimated initially. Whether this was part of the political selling process or due to bad advice being given to the minister, we may never know. My suspicion is a bit of both. There seems to be an element of assuming that greenfield and brownfield FTTP come at a similar cost. And maybe they would if an aerial fibre approach were politically feasible. But under a buried fibre approach they are not. (Maybe FTTdp and skinny fibre can fix that somewhat?).
BUT once the pony has been sold and the contract signed, you can start to chop off its legs and argue that it is the same pony. Politically, you can only do this early in a term, which is what happened when Labor lost power. Enter the MTM. A technically somewhat inferior but economically far more palatable solution which has the added advantage of achieving full structural separation which is what the exercise has been about all along significantly sooner.
Looking at the latest rollout numbers, it seems to me that NBNco is on track to achieve structural separation by the required date. Now political advantage can be gained by actually putting legs back on the pony. Hopefully we will see some of that. I am expecting to see currently FTTN areas slated for FTTdp. For more sparsely-settled areas like outer suburbs it should even be cheaper than FTTN.
We can test that message.
(And yes we can test the bits vs bytes nomenclature)
You're a writer, a communicator, who specializes in technology, especially internet technology, yet somehow you have no idea how to reply (I assume you are replying and it's not some random brain infarction) to someone (I assume) pages ago (because I can't see what this post relates to), and have it make sense. How can you be an expert writing technology and the internet yet seemingly have the abilities of complete novice when it comes to using it?
Wish there was a clearer convention, MB vs mb is easily confused.
There is, because people don't know/use it doesn't mean there isn't one.
Upper case "B" means BYTES, a lower case "b" means BITS.
Upper case "M" prefix means MEGA (million), a lower case "m" prefix means MILLI (1/1000th)
In the telecoms industry speed is rated in "bits per second" no matter how large a number it is, that's the convention, it is never rated in "bytes per second" so it is always "bps" and as they are talking about sending thousands, millions, billions etc of bits, it is always an upper case prefix such as Mbps for mega bits per second.
So saying 25 mbps you are saying 25 milli bits per second (or 25 thousandths of a bit per second) which is 1 billion times less than 25 Mbps (25 million bits per second) or if you say 25MBps you are actually saying 200 Mbps (since a byte is equal to 8 bits).
Just because people don't know there is a difference or don't use it cos they've always seen an application refer to a "file transfer" in speeds of MBps (since files are measured in bytes not bits applications would typically measure the transfer speed of the file in bytes per second) so then use that same convention when they talk about a communications link does not mean that there is not a clear convention, just that it isn't being used.
How do you know this? Do you imagine that RSPs will have geographic monopolies?
30 years designing access and core networks and some time spent researching in the field of teletraffic engineering.
Not to mention just reading the design documents and the specs on the equipment being used.
The guy finally tells me that FTTN cant be upgraded to any higher than 25Mbps.
Telstra telling people that 25/5 Mbps is all they will sell on FTTN
whrl.pl/ReIv8y
Guess that is another reason that people are only "choosing" 25/5 Mbps plans
So the political logic forced the proposal of a "big bang" fibring up of the nation paid for entirely out of tax revenues which is actually economic insanity.
You seem to be ignoring anything that doesn't suit your interpretation of events, not least the fact that it was the independent expert panel who recommended FTTP.
A technically somewhat inferior but economically far more palatable solution
It isn't, as the explosion in cost since the 2013 election has proven.
full structural separation which is what the exercise has been about all along
Where did you get that idea from?
significantly sooner.
Yeah, by the end of their first term in government, right?
Looking at the latest rollout numbers, it seems to me that NBNco is on track to achieve structural separation by the required date.
How? By travelling back in time?
Slightly off topic did they change editing rules? I can't edit previous post from few days ago
Not to mention just reading the design documents and the specs on the equipment being used.
What design documents and specs suggest that RSP usage across a POI will be identical to overall usage on a single node?
Telstra telling people that 25/5 Mbps is all they will sell on FTTN
whrl.pl/ReIv8y
Guess that is another reason that people are only "choosing" 25/5 Mbps plans
So much of this bullshit going on.
May parents live out in the country and are about 4km from the exchange. Unfortunately, they have a pairgain in their copper loop because back in 2001 when they built the house they ordered/were sold an ISDN connection.
Ever since ADSL came to town, they were told they could not have ADSL because of the pairgain. (which incidentally is no longer necessary because the ISDN service was discontinued years ago). So of course they have had to put up with a 3G mobile broadband connection with a 16GB/month cap for ferocious dollars.
In July, Optus put up a 4Gplus tower in town and some pretty decent home wireless broadband plans along with it. Lo and behold Telstra phones them up and says they can have ADSL with a 50GB cap for a more reasonable charge as long as they sign up to a 24-month plan. Did I mention that an NBN fixed wireless tower will go up 5km from them in direct line of sight next Feb?
I wasn't there in time to say "don't sign that Mum!", so now they are locked into Telstra for 24 months on a 1.2Mbps DSL connection. Yes, they can upgrade to NBN when it comes, but only with Telstra of course now. GRRRR.
Ironically, they are happy as clams because 1.2Mbps is fast enough for what they do and the 16GB cap was the problem, not the speed.
Slightly off topic did they change editing rules? I can't edit previous post from few days ago
Have a read through this thread from here (whrl.pl/ReIqBJ) and/or maybe post your query there.
Have a read through this thread from here (whrl.pl/ReIqBJ) and/or maybe post your query there.
Thanks
Lo and behold Telstra phones them up and says they can have ADSL with a 50GB cap for a more reasonable charge as long as they sign up to a 24-month plan. Did I mention that an NBN fixed wireless tower will go up 5km from them in direct line of sight next Feb?
Are you suggesting that Telstra are using unscrupulous practices to lock in customers to long term contracts with their organisation before the NBN is rolled out in the area. Wash your mouth out with a copper sulphate solution!
What design documents and specs suggest that RSP usage across a POI will be identical to overall usage on a single node?
Statistics will give you a probability of any particular node being any given quantum "out of whack". Decades of experience tells us that a 5:1 contention ratio in the access and aggregation layer is perfectly fine. Most xDSL networks run considerably hotter.
Design documents going back to 2011 specify a maximum CVC/AVC contention ratio of 50:1 for residential services and 10:1 for business services. That completely swamps the node contention ratio � i.e. the node contention ratio does not contribute to congestion at these levels. This has been borne out in the FTTN deployments to date. And there are processes and procedures in place to upgrade any nodes (there will be a few) that run hotter than expected.
Are you suggesting that Telstra are using unscrupulous practices to lock in customers to long term contracts with their organisation before the NBN is rolled out in the area?
Hell no.
Because it is not an issue. If every one of those 200 users had purchased the 50/20 tier then that would give you a 5:1 peak contention ratio which is actually *good*. Gold plated even for residential broadband. This is not going to be the bottleneck. Now if it was 20:1 then I'd be more concerned....
There is comments from Paul Rees within the Skymesh thread that this IS and issue. NBNco can have congestion on theirs side
Here is just one reference to that possibility whrl.pl/ReIvDO
You want some assurance that an upgrade will included more bandwidth? Yes, I can give you that assurance, however if the congestion is on nbn co's network between your home and the Penrith POI, then that's not something that we can fix.
This is clearly can or does exist
Statistics will give you a probability of any particular node being any given quantum "out of whack".
What multi-provider network (with a mix of "budget" and "premium" providers) have you analysed the statistics of?
Decades of experience tells us that a 5:1 contention ratio in the access and aggregation layer is perfectly fine.
What 5:1 contention ratio are you referring to? These nodes are up to 38.4:1.
Design documents going back to 2011 specify a maximum CVC/AVC contention ratio of 50:1 for residential services and 10:1 for business services.
Please cite this.
And there are processes and procedures in place to upgrade any nodes (there will be a few) that run hotter than expected.
I'm sure the same was true for Telstra street cabinets also...
Slightly off topic did they change editing rules? I can't edit previous post from few days ago
Cick on 'Reply to this post'. Go to the URL at the top of the screen and change "reply&r" to "edit&e". You can now edit the post.
What 5:1 contention ratio are you referring to? These nodes are up to 38.4:1.
No they ain't. With 200 subscribers (the design number) per node in day 1 configuration, if everyone orders the 50/20 tier then it is 5:1. In fact, it looks as if people can only get 25/5 which would make it 2.5:1 but it is dangerous to assume that because when you force subscribers down to a tier they don't want to be at, they naturally use more of that tier than they would if they were on the tier they wanted.
Please cite this.
How about you get on google and have a look for yourself? You are the one who seems to want to know. BTW RSPs who choose to have 50:1 CVC/AVC contention will be giving a very shitty service. But there seem to plenty out there doing it, or even worse.
No they ain't.
Yes, they absolutely are � potentially 384 "up to 100 megabits/sec" connections sharing 1000 megabits/sec backhaul.
the design number is meaningless when they have to place the nodes based on the copper in the ground.
How about you get on google and have a look for yourself?
You made the claim � it is up to you to substantiate it.
With 200 subscribers (the design number) per node in day 1 configuration
problem is that the design number is being taken as an average
just take this ADA, day 1 design https://www.finder.com.au/nbn-tracker/rollout/2WOY-06
whilst the average is 205 there is a great variation between individual nodes
there are nodes in the 2Woy area that have over 300 connections
this one https://www.finder.com.au/nbn-tracker/ada/2WOY-02-10 has 322
Yes, they absolutely are � potentially 384 "up to 100 megabits/sec" connections sharing 1000 megabits/sec backhaul.
You can invent any fictitious scenario you like I guess. However, the design rules do state approximately 200 subscribers per node. I've seen reports of up to about 40 more or less, but in no case is 384 a "thing". Similarly, we'll never see a case within the next few years where every subscriber will order 100Mbps access. In fact, at the moment it seems you can't order it. See the other threads. In fact, the average tier is well less than 50/20, so the contention ratio is actually better than 5:1 in current deployments, regardless of what could possibly be the case in some armchair commentator's fevered imagination. To dimension according to reality seemed to be the best practice last time I looked.
As to the 1vs2 Gbps backhaul, I haven't been privileged to look inside the nodes, but if you google yourself up a copy of the 2015 design rules, they say:
Currently, 4 x Point to Point fibres will be provided for each DSLAM.
Out of the 4 x Point to Point fibres, the equipment requires 2 x Uplink Fibres which are connected through to the Aggregation switch in the NBN Co Network. The additional 2 x Point to Point fibres are spares, to allow flexibility for future growth or migration activities.
Then if you look at the picture below that, they show the link from the DSLAM to the AAS as being Nx1GE, N<=4. This suggests one by GE link per fibre using full-duplex over single-fibre optics. That limitation (N<=4) has to come from the fibre count, because the devices can support up to 8x1GE uplinks if enough fibre is available. Others on this forum who are closer to it than I have also said that the optics being used are single-fibre, full-duplex as well. It would be an insane waste of fibre not to.
So it is a 2000Mbps uplink, not a 1000Mbps uplink. Upgradable to 4000Mbps by purchase of 4 SFPs and populating a couple of ports in the AAS.
Whichever way you slice it, congestion will not be in the node and is highly unlikely to be in the AAS. It will be at the POI where AVC meets CVC. Greenfield FTTH TFANS actually have a higher potential contention ratio, but they won't be a congestion point either.
Even if you don't live in Greenwood the actions from petition will hopefully address the non-sensical roll-out of the NBN and if successful sets a precedence for the NBN.co to reconsider the roll-out primarily based on requirement and not on any other factors. Let me rather not start discussing what is my opinion on the current roll-out
At least you have a date, Edgewater ("E" on my broadband) had a 3 Year Plan date of starting FTTN this quarter and at the last minute it was cancelled due "unforeseen delays with another project" and not only that they now have no date in mind.
Don't know what's going on as I can see no technical or Engineering reason why it cannot go ahead as planned and there is even an NBN fibre leg from Ocean reef road 200 odd meters into the suburb. The area next to the Lake Joondalup/Yellalonga Park is ideal for rolling out fibre and the route to the Wangara POI (which is active) is 90% flat Yellalonga Park bushland and also easy to lay cable.
I think what is happening they are cancelling Kingsley HFC and doing FTTN instead. Possibly the same for Woodvale which also has dissappeared from the3 year plan.
Why they are rolling out current HFC and close to exchange suburbs first I have no idea and ignoring the SOE re poorly served we'll probablynever know but one way or another I bet its "political".
So it is a 2000Mbps uplink, not a 1000Mbps uplink.
bull dust, 2 fibres are connected, they are in individual uplink and downlink fibres, the capacity is 1Gbps up and 1 Gbps down.
They are not using them as 2 bi-directional fibres
Then if you look at the picture below that, they show the link from the DSLAM to the AAS as being Nx1GE, N<=4. This suggests one by GE link per fibre using full-duplex over single-fibre optics.
Except if you look at the photos of what is actually being built it clearly shows two fibres per SFP, I think the reality trumps NBN Co's laughably ambiguous drawing.
Why would they do this? Because all they care about is building it the cheapest way possible, even if the difference was only a few hundred dollars out of a $250k+ node build per site.
That limitation (N<=4) has to come from the fibre count, because the devices can support up to 8x1GE uplinks if enough fibre is available. Others on this forum who are closer to it than I have also said that the optics being used are single-fibre, full-duplex as well. It would be an insane waste of fibre not to.
Sure if they deploy dual NT configured in Active/Active redundancy mode, which they are not. The larger nodes that might require the additional capacity have not spare slots in the chassis for the second NT.
Having said that, it probably makes sense to switch to 10GE SFP anyway rather than add a second NT as the redundancy would most likely be wasted with the updated network design.
They are not using them as 2 bi-directional fibres
This is evidenced by the simple fact the two fibres are connected to a single SFP.
The problem is people who have been involved in building networks before can't get their heads around how "cheap and nasty" NBN Co have gone with the MTM.
Some interesting comments about what could be done. The results a few HD ready devices per account will have on copper internet.
Has much changed about the mentioned hard limit? The later upgrade fix?
http://blog.jxeeno.com/poor-
https://delimiter.com.au/201
https://delimiter.com.au/201
New ideas about actual backhaul in use per node? What the equipment might support is great but what was installed?
Thx.
Hmm, I find this surprising given the docs and common sense, but I'll take your word on it, at least until I can get a look inside a real production node for myself. I've been trying to find photos, but have yet to find one with the resolution to tell for sure.
Sales literature found online shows a set of options depending on what is requested.
What is been done with the node network or what will the upgrade path per node be?
http://blog.jxeeno.com/poor
https://delimiter.com.au/20
https://delimiter.com.au/20
The jxeeno blog is remarkably untouched by the ravages of knowledge about traffic engineering. (But it does say that the fibres are used in bidirectional mode � i.e. 2Gbps uplink on day 1.)
The delimiter article was followed up later on the same page with another article saying the issue was resolved by the addition of CVC capacity. The congestion was not in the node, but the POI. RSP issue, not an access issue.
What is been done with the node network or what will the upgrade path per node be?
My bet is that in 2019 one or both parties will come in with a platform to replace all FTTN nodes with some form of fibre service � either FTTdp or FTTH over maybe a 5-year period. They are toast long-term.
So we like that 2Gbps uplink number? A better, newer number to suggest?
So that 2Gbps uplink is shared with how many accounts on average to a round 50?
200? 150? More than 200 expected on average? Some cities could see near a max count per node all using that 2Gbps uplink?
Or has the thinking on the use of that 2Gbps uplink changed?
Edit could be "1 Gbps up and 1 Gbps down". Thx whrl.pl/ReIyqD
So we like that 2Gbps uplink number? A better, newer number to suggest?
I like 2Gbps, but it might in fact be only 1 Gbps on day 1. I am prepared to be disappointed.
So that 2Gbps uplink is shared with how many accounts on average to a round 50?
200? 150? More than 200 expected on average? Some cities could see near a max count per node all using that 2Gbps uplink?
The design parameter coming out of NBNco is "approximately 200 premises per node". I have seen documentation of nodes with as high as 240. Maximum number of ports a node can support is 378 premises. But that doesn't mean there is any intention to max out the node. No doubt it will eventually happen somewhere.
Or has the thinking on the use of that 2Gbps uplink changed?
The jxeeno blog says 2Gbps. NBN doco that I have downloaded implies 2Gbps.
I have seen posts in these forums from people whom I consider to generally know what they are talking about say both 1Gbps and 2Gbps. If you get the chance to look inside a real node see if you can see how many fibres are coming out of the uplink SFPs. :-)
The congestion was not in the node, but the POI. RSP issue, not an access issue.
Of course it was, at that time FTTN had only just gone RFS so there hadn't been time for the Node to get populated for it to be the cause of congestion.
My bet is that in 2019 one or both parties will come in with a platform to replace all FTTN nodes with some form of fibre service � either FTTdp or FTTH over maybe a 5-year period. They are toast long-term.
With what money?
My bet is that in 2019 one or both parties will come in with a platform to replace all FTTN nodes with some form of fibre service � either FTTdp or FTTH over maybe a 5-year period. They are toast long-term.
Hmm no i don't see this happening. Despite them admitting its end game i can see the entire coalition denying any form of changing the NBN unless its to produce more nodes. I bet they'll change their tune coming around 2019 in order to get more voters and then do exactly what they did in 2013. Claim everything on contract and sites going wouldn't be changed and do exactly that.
So we like the 2Gbps uplink number?
Say around 200 accounts using what kind of upload and download at say 5pm till midnight on an average night?
A few users with HD ready devices? Some accounts near the node and getting fast plans, some people been at a great distance and having to select slower plans.
Anyone want to help out on the hard limits given some average usage numbers on an average existing node with that 2Gbps uplink?
@Harry. Once you do a bit of digging you don't even belief the dates that are given. I feel for you guys. Do you get ADSL at the moment? Large chunks of Greenwood does not get ADSL. Those that get complain it is slow (less than 4mbps) and it regularly drops out. Some people can't even get mobile broadband in their home on their devices so they have to put external antennas up. Do you get the new Vividwireless LTE service or at least the old WiMAX service from them. Let me not start with that debacle seeing that this is an NBN thread. If you also can't make sense of the roll-out we should take them to task and the only way we will do it is if we stand together and pose the question(s) and demands through a forum they cannot ignore, hence the reason for the petition.
Hmm, I find this surprising given the docs and common sense, but I'll take your word on it, at least until I can get a look inside a real production node for myself. I've been trying to find photos, but have yet to find one with the resolution to tell for sure.
Do you mean like this? :)
https://drive.google.com/ope
PS: And yes, that is a NBN Co FTTN cabinet. The person that took the photo can choose whether they want to identify themselves though.
Do you mean like this? :)
and as you can see, they have only installed ONE SFP module in the card, there are 3 vacant slots for SFP modules
Maybe the Federal Government wants NBNCo to go really cheap on FTTN, on the basis that whatever they build/spend on FTTN will be of little use when it comes to future needs. So that the cheaper and lower capacity the FTTN, the quicker we will get whatever comes after FTTN. Either from NBNCo or from the Private Sector.
Except if you look at the photos of what is actually being built it clearly shows two fibres per SFP, I think the reality trumps NBN Co's laughably ambiguous drawing.
Why would they do this? Because all they care about is building it the cheapest way possible, even if the difference was only a few hundred dollars out of a $250k+ node build per site.
Exactly, if you think about it from the NBN employees perspective. They called it operation clusterflap from within. If it comes from the top and they want it dirt cheap and shitty. The engineers at the bottom will deliberately design it with the bare minimum at the cheapest cost.
When the original crew were building a nation building infrastructure project to get away from the Telstra monopoly they were enthusiastic. LNP comes along and flaps it up. Some of them still gota work there as it needs to bring money in to pay for bills. At that point it becomes do whatever, they don't care any more. If you want garbage we will give it to you, just make sure their wages are paid. No wonder NBN co/tm under LNP are running out of funds.
If you think people were complaining that speeds can drop to dialup levels during peak hour, this is not an exaggeration, its hidden behind CVC. Most likely to get it this bad is the nodes 1gbps being saturated by 200 premises. Each taking 5mbps, which is not hard in a house hold with multiple members and multiple devices during peak times.
Whichever way you slice it, congestion will not be in the node
And yet NBN Co. admitted at the senate hearings that there could be congestion in the node cabinets, slowing customers' speeds.
Yep. This is a problem.
first you say that customers should pay for what that use, then you say it's wrong to charge more for the better service?
???
Oh I get it � you mean that everybody should pay for the laying of fibre to their place if they want to use it, and then get any speed they want all at the same price ...
Like when they build a road or shopping centre or Telstra 4G tower they bill those people living in the area directly and then let them help themselves with not extra charges to the heavier users? ... Which doesn't actually happen in reality?
You believe in keeping separate the capital costs of building from to cost of providing ongoing resources needed to provide the service? That just isn't always the case. It also doesn't make sense when the cost per user is much more expensive when rolling out to a single individual user at a time vs doing the whole neighbourhood at once.
dgtek will release the future rollout places soon they told me this :
South Canberra and Adelaide plans already submitted for the consideration
the release is on commsday at 5 october :D
In the telecoms industry speed is rated in "bits per second" no matter how large a number it is, that's the convention,
it's the convention because Bytes only really are significant when you store the data in a format that allows you to access individual words or bytes. It's not really meaningful in telecommunications where the bits might never be stored or retrieved as bytes or words, as in when they are generated and read by codecs.
It's like when they quote sales of crude oil in billions of barrels per year, but might say that a pump or pipe can move billions of litres an hour.
if we stand together and pose the question(s) and demands through a forum they cannot ignore, hence the reason for the petition.
WIth you on this and in fact a link to your petition has been put on out local community Facebook site. This site regularly gets complaints about our ADSL which is connected via a cable across Lake Joondalup to Wanneroo exchange , so the fastest anybody theoretically could get would be around 12 Mbs if they are near where the cable comes ashore. However most of the suburb gets around 4 Mb/sec max if they are lucky and a Telstra Tech told me a few years ago that the copper and joints are not exactly in good condition.
Due to the hilly area, Vivid Wireless coverage is patchy both for the old one and the new 4G one. As an aside TV reception is also poor in some parts, it was highlighted by people complaining they could not get the Olympics on FTA and of course some idiots at CH7 said why not stream it instead over the internet !!! you can imagine the laughs that that got.
I did a quick calculation that WA is entitled (based on Population) to around $3Billion of the Govt NBN spend I would be surprised if we have had anywhere near half of that yet. The Govt NBN money runs out in 2017 and what's the betting we get told it's tin cans and string for all of us not connected up yet.
Its the GST share thing all over again.
I am stirring things up with our local Fed Member and hopefully will be meeting with him before the end of this month, mainly to find out why Edgewater's NBN rollout has been delayed and why him and his WA colleagues aren't jumping up and down in the press and the Parliament demanding that the NBNCo , pull out their digits in Metro Perth.
I did a quick calculation that WA is entitled (based on Population) to around $3Billion of the Govt NBN spend I would be surprised if we have had anywhere near half of that yet.
@Harry If you go to the NBN.co weekly report at:
http://www.nbnco.com.au/c
Then you will notice that total Aus has had 3.11mil premises RFS of that WA has 318k premises RFS, that is just over 10.2% and not that far off from the ratio that WA makes of the Aus population.
However where things get very interesting is of those numbers the entire Aus only has 1.31mil premises activated. That is a take-up of 42%. Why is that. There is something they are not telling us. What does NBN.co measure their progress on RFS or activated. I bet you its RFS.
Now to get to WA, and we have only had 119,890 premises activated. So that makes only 9% of the activated services are in WA. I have been keeping an eye on this for a while now and it is getting worse. So uptake in WA, which we heard in the news is the worst state when it comes to speed and thus you would expect a high percentage of uptake when premises are activated but we see only 37%. These numbers are including the fixed wireless and satellite services numbers. You can do those with the brownfield and greenfield numbers only and the trend is the same.
They do provide a service class zero (Column C) in the report which means there is additional cabling required. Now this is the number in the report I think is bollocks or if it is true then they have been dragging their feet to change the pole over to the node. I would be interested to see what the service class 10 (which is requiring additional cabling for FTTN) but that is not in the report.
In summary. What do the NBN.co report their progress on, if it is RFS we are all in for a rude shock in the not to the distant future. Then NBN.co please explain why we have only around a 40% activation rate. Finally based on the line of questioning why would WA be slower than other states to take it up when it is one of the states with the worst internet speeds. Excuse my cynicism but is it maybe that you started the roll-out in areas where there is good ADSL coverage and people are locked into 24month contracts. Didn't do you market research properly then did you?
WIth you on this and in fact a link to your petition has been put on out local community Facebook site. T
@ Harry. Thanks for that mate, can see the signatures coming through already and it's only been a few hours, looks like we've hit another nerve ending when it comes to NBN.
You can invent any fictitious scenario you like I guess.
It's not a fictitious scenario, it's a worst case scenario based on what is actually being installed in the real world.
However, the design rules do state approximately 200 subscribers per node.
Please quote this.
I've seen reports of up to about 40 more or less, but in no case is 384 a "thing".
The link has already been provided to one node covering 322 premises � here it is again in case you missed it https://www.finder.com.au/nbn-tracker/ada/2WOY-02-10 � and 384 lines is what the nodes are configured for from day one. Heaven forbid that some of those premises end up wanting more than one service...
Similarly, we'll never see a case within the next few years where every subscriber will order 100Mbps access. In fact, at the moment it seems you can't order it.
Wrong, plenty of RSPs offer up-to-100Mbps (not 100Mbps) FTTN services today.
In fact, the average tier is well less than 50/20, so the contention ratio is actually better than 5:1 in current deployments
Were you involved in the modelling for the farce that called itself a Cost Benefit Analysis?
To dimension according to reality seemed to be the best practice last time I looked.
Then why are you advocating dimensioning based on theoretical targets and random assumptions?
It would be an insane waste of fibre not to.
The whole thing is an insane waste.
I haven't been privileged to look inside the nodes
Plenty of people have, and have shown your statements to be incorrect.
So it is a 2000Mbps uplink, not a 1000Mbps uplink.
Only if you don't care what direction the data travels!
Whichever way you slice it, congestion will not be in the node
Maybe you think that if you keep saying it it will come true...
Does anyone know why the myBroadband.gov website has been semi-deactivated and one now gets redirected to a government data website. I see the data is still there but it is not as interactive as what it used to be in the myBroadband.gov website.
In the myBroadband.gov website you could put your address in and it would spit out your broadband service availability rating and quality rating, based on which part of the exchange (read pole) you were a part of.
Now in the data website if you don't know under which part if the exchange you are a part of then you are basically screwed. It's not a readily available bit of information. I have noticed at my pole the number is painted on it. But that could be co-incidence or just in my area, and for that you need to know where your pole is.
Is it maybe because the data had too many errors in it that they pulled it. Just my cynic view, because it was clearly incorrect for my location. Said I had an A rating for ADSL availability and that when I can't even get ADSL. Too far away from the exchange and with Telstra's new policy of distance from the exchange it should have been pretty obvious to them. Maybe it jus considers is the copper in the ground (tick), is the exchange ADSL activated (tick), are there ports available in the exchange (tick).
There are lots of ports available in the exchange because half of us can't get ADSL.
My bet is that in 2019 one or both parties will come in with a platform to replace all FTTN nodes with some form of fibre service � either FTTdp or FTTH over maybe a 5-year period.
That makes about as much sense as your suggestion that the node cabinets can be used for GPON.
http://www.itwire.com/teleco
more on the the big teclo/ACCC something we heard about again a few days ago.
http://www.itwire.com/broadb
Not 100% sure what to think of this one. Seems like a reason to just say "We can't provide ADSL but we can move you to a 3G/4G plan for much more of your money and less data."
Say around 200 accounts
200 residential accounts or 200 corporate accounts?
Helpman please realise business in (Australia) had fibre services (possibly) before you were born.
Please take this into consideration before you post?
Anyone want to help out on the hard limits given some average usage numbers on an average existing node with that 2Gbps uplink?
Is that a scientific question or an economic one?
Maybe the Federal Government wants NBNCo to go really cheap on FTTN
Conspicuous theories aside, if you dump a DSLAM in a streetside cabinet, as of 2016, a 1G link appears to be adequate.
If it wasn't, I'm 200% sure they would upgrade it.
They pretty much come out of the factory like that.
I didn't make the rules, its pretty much just they way the ship them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletraffic_engineering
Come back to me if a 1G link is not adequate.
(and not trolling).
Layer 2 stuff...
The crucial observation in traffic engineering is that in large systems the law of large numbers can be used to make the aggregate properties of a system over a long period of time much more predictable than the behaviour of individual parts of the system.
https://networks.nokia.com/products/7330-isam-fttn-ansi
Several mentions of "bonding" on the page... Oh, well... This is only Australia, it's not like we deserve anything gold-plated...
Oh, well... This is only Australia, it's not like we deserve anything gold-plated...
People still missing the big picture.
NBN have a "cosy" relationship with Nokia, Alcaltel, etc.
It goes back a long way, way before NBN MK1.
If you've any background, you'll have noticed that gear sitting in exchanges (well before MQ came on the scene) was from the same company.
But, just because you can Google "bonding", doesn't mean we rush out and buy it.
The NBN hasn't been a disaster because of equipment, it's been because of many other reasons.
PS: I'm not knocking NBN MK1 BTW, but it's time to move on.
Plenty of good gear to come yet. Mark my words.
A question for the Whirlpool diehards to ponder?
Have any of the POI routers switches taken a dive yet?
6 years without missing a beat....
Can't beat that?
Never seen so many experts in national network implementation, particularly that nasty layer 2 one.
Must be just a case of poping a switch somewhere and running some skinny fibre...
The whole thing is an insane waste.
touch�, but I suspect your an NBN MK1 diehard?
and as you can see, they have only installed ONE SFP module in the card, there are 3 vacant slots for SFP modules
Yep. On that node it is pretty clear. Given the initial customer profile on nodes, it is enough I guess, but it does seem like a pretty small saving to me. Upgrade will have to come sooner.
On that node it is pretty clear
Possibly I'm old school, but how does one monitor traffic by looking at a picture.
I thought for a moment I had my old test gear out...
But, just because you can Google "bonding", doesn't mean we rush out and buy it.
I'm sorry, but you completely missed the point.
The gear is especially designed with bonding in mind. It is especially heralded all over the specifications page/brochure. And the best speed only comes with bonding.
But residential customers in Australia are not getting 2 pair bonding, and businesses are not getting 8 pair bonding.
So, the "making best use of existing plant", and advertising top speeds when you are only going to use the gear to the lowest potential, all gets a little sour in the NBN case...
I suspect your an NBN MK1 diehard
You make that sound negative, how about you phrase it more honestly .
"I suspect your an advocate of a 93% FTTP network in the same time for less money than what we have"
You make that sound negative, how about you phrase it more honestly .
"I suspect your an advocate of a 93% FTTP network in the same time for less money than what we have"
Great response to a Negative Nelly DC. Geo is just spin, spin, spin.
PS: I'm not knocking NBN MK1 BTW, but it's time to move on.
"On". Is that where we're heading?
Plain and simple the RSP is over subscribing users and not keeping up with bring cvc on. This is happening because the sales or ordering system does not keep track of how Amy users are connect to each POP. I work closiley with a few RSP's and I have been told this. They are worried if they say do to the connecting user until cvc is added they would loss the busniess. This comes back to having to many POP in remote areas were backhaul is still very expensive a long with costly cvc charges from NBN. There is just too many POP involved and RSP's are too slow to react on traffic management. Once an issue is identified it just takes too long to start a project to upgrade it.
Think about it. Your adding thousands of new users with know what carrier they are going to uses. This is also happen with fttp and was hopping a few years ago too.
Does anyone know why the myBroadband.gov website has been semi-deactivated and one now gets redirected to a government data website. I see the data is still there but it is not as interactive as what it used to be in the myBroadband.gov website.
In the myBroadband.gov website you could put your address in and it would spit out your broadband service availability rating and quality rating, based on which part of the exchange (read pole) you were a part of.
Now in the data website if you don't know under which part if the exchange you are a part of then you are basically screwed. It's not a readily available bit of information. I have noticed at my pole the number is painted on it. But that could be co-incidence or just in my area, and for that you need to know where your pole is.
It's not loaded by default, but when you are looking at the National map, load the 'Broadband map' data set. You will probably also have to lower the opacity of the two other data sets. The area covered by each pillar has a black outline.
Then click on your house on the map and the 'Feature Information' has the pillar name listed at the top.
I agree with you that it doesn't show areas with poor access. There is a relatively new housing estate near me that has terrible broadband and the National map doesn't display that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletraffic_engineering
Come back to me if a 1G link is not adequate.
(and not trolling).
Layer 2 stuff...
The crucial observation in traffic engineering is that in large systems the law of large numbers can be used to make the aggregate properties of a system over a long period of time much more predictable than the behaviour of individual parts of the system
why are you posting this ?
when it clearly states, in the very wiki that you linked to
In broadband networks[edit]
Teletraffic Engineering is a well-understood discipline in the traditional voice network, where traffic patterns are established, growth rates can be predicted, and vast amounts of detailed historical data are available for analysis. However, in modern broadband networks, the teletraffic engineering methodologies used for voice networks are inappropriate
200 residential accounts or 200 corporate accounts?
Helpman please realise business in (Australia) had fibre services (possibly) before you were born.
Please take this into consideration before you post?
Corporate business, but 98% of business is small business, 89% have less than 5 employees and 61% turn over less than 200K PA so you can be sure the vast majority of business in Australia won't have Fibre, today let alone before he was born.
It goes back a long way, way before NBN MK1.
The NBN company existed before it was created with NBN MK1?
Have any of the POI routers switches taken a dive yet?
Has anyone ever complained about the equipment in the POI or just whats being deployed for the last mile?
Come back to me if a 1G link is not adequate.
Ok I'm back at you Geo. Apart from some obsolete junk what have got to offer? This is meant to last 20 + years, when it's obsolescent NOW. A 1Gbps link will introduce congestion at peak periods. It's ANOTHER bottleneck in nbn's long chain of bottlenecks that customers will have to deal with. You really think that nbn will pull another fibre to every node? When they don't even have the money now to complete their shoddy work? Pull the other one.
I agree with you that it doesn't show areas with poor access. There is a relatively new housing estate near me that has terrible broadband and the National map doesn't display that.
There is this now as an alternate
http://accan.org.au/broadban
There is this now as an alternate
http://accan.org.au/broadba
Given the address lookup on it doesn't work I am not filled with optimism.
It's not loaded by default, but when you are looking at the National map, load the 'Broadband map' data set. You will probably also have to lower the opacity of the two other data sets. The area covered by each pillar has a black outline.
Then click on your house on the map and the 'Feature Information' has the pillar name listed at the top.
I agree with you that it doesn't show areas with poor access. There is a relatively new housing estate near me that has terrible broadband and the National map doesn't display that.
@bythebrook. Thanks managed to do it but it took forever seeing that I don't have a high speed link and probably chewed a huge chunk of my data, whereas the myBroadband.gov website simply had you type in your address and it filtered all the unnecessary data. Still does not make it easy for people to find out what is for what.
Do you know if there is an update of the data planned that is more accurate in terms of 2016 seeing that the dataset is based on 2013?
https://soundcloud.com/720ab
Morrow claims FTTN will enhance Australia for 100 years, he also talks about the possibility of launching another satellite....
so much cheaper/faster than FTTP :/
It's not loaded by default, but when you are looking at the National map, load the 'Broadband map' data set.
I'm totally confused new the new layout � can't even find where to load the map.
You really think that nbn will pull another fibre to every node? When they don't even have the money now to complete their shoddy work?
I am getting seriously depressed reading this. What were they really thinking when they designed this FTTN network?
However, no carrier ever dimensions for those spikes. If they did, the service would be unaffordable. A 5:1 contention ratio in the node is still a pretty gold-plated contention ratio.
These days, the providers need to take into account a significant percentage of people wanting to use streaming video (e.g. Netflix) in peak periods.
The crucial observation in traffic engineering is that in large systems the law of large numbers can be used to make the aggregate properties of a system over a long period of time much more predictable than the behaviour of individual parts of the system.
What you and many fail to address is whether 200 is a sufficiently large number for this to apply.
I have raised this time and again, I am yet to see an adequate response to the issue.
It is pretty easy to wave our hands around and say that the same provisioning rules that apply when there are thousands , tensbof thousands or even more.
If you want any clearer example of this look at Internides early experience in Tassie with 100Mbps services. This was at the CSA level which is a maximum of 4000 users not the 200.
So yeah, it isn't as simple as you make out.
I am getting seriously depressed reading this. What were they really thinking when they designed this FTTN network?
A technical solution to working with existing copper. The hard limit design policy.
The policy of just placing a node over a voice grade copper network, bringing in power. What could be a 2Gbps uplink would work for redacted more years?
100 accounts, 150, 250, near the max per node then get to test a few HD ready devices every night.
Is it a provider side issue or do many new nodes need an another new upgrade to fix the 2Gbps uplink.
What you and many fail to address is whether 200 is a sufficiently large number for this to apply
or that the article he linked to explicitly stated
"However, in modern broadband networks, the teletraffic engineering methodologies used for voice networks are inappropriate"
fix the 2Gbps uplink
they have only enabled 1 Gbps up and 1 Gbps down, the second fibre pair is not terminated, and they have not installed the second SFP module
they have only enabled 1 Gbps up and 1 Gbps down, the second fibre pair is not terminated, and they have not installed the second SFP module
Thanks for the correction :) That was interesting design policy.
Hmm, I find this surprising given the docs and common sense
Common sense and documentation appear to have nothing to do with nbnTM (and vice versa).
The design parameter coming out of NBNco is "approximately 200 premises per node". I have seen documentation of nodes with as high as 240.
The node I will be connected to is slated to have 223 premises connected.
https://www.finder.com.au/nbn-tracker/ada/2MTT-01-02
If you look at the ADA details in 2MTT-01 you will see 4 ADAs with >200 premises, including one of 280 (and one of 4, with the same provisioned uplink):
https://www.finder.com.au/nbn-tracker/rollout/2MTT-01
This is in an area that was scheduled to have FTTP construction commenced by end of 2014, with the expectation of being RFS by end of 2105, if Labor had retained in 2013. And my FTTN RFS date has changed from August to September to no longer published by nbnTM.
or that the article he linked to explicitly stated
"However, in modern broadband networks, the teletraffic engineering methodologies used for voice networks are inappropriate"
To be fair, not really applicable as we aren't getting a modern broadband network :(
I am getting seriously depressed reading this. What were they really thinking when they designed this FTTN network?
Labor = Fibre
Labor = bad
therefore
Fibre = bad
What were they really thinking when they designed this FTTN network?
That money sunk invested into FTTN is not worth it, as it will need to be overbuilt quite soon.
In fact the less money spent on it now and the worse its performance, the quicker it will be overbuilt.
Most importantly, the worse the FTTN, the lower the barriers to entry and the higher the returns for anyone wanting to overbuild it, providing that they do not own the FTTN as well.
Setting up FTTN as very weak competitor.
Nice in theory, but fraught with political, reputational and other risks. Particularly for both the National as a whole, and those who can't get what they need and want, until the what comes after FTTN arrives. A timeframe that is most uncertain.
Morrow claims FTTN will enhance Australia for 100 years, he also talks about the possibility of launching another satellite....
I legitimately don't get how he can get away with blatantly lying, not only to the public, but private investors as well.
Almost everything that comes out of his mouth is a bold faced lie. How can a public figure in charge of such an important infrastructure project not be held to account. It was like the last senate hearings, "Commercial in confidence" for everything even though barely any of it was classified under commercial in confidence (and doesn't Parliamentary Privilege overrule that anyway?), they just refused to give the required evidence and documentation to the inquiry, yet they just got away with it, every single time.
When he first started out, he was cluelessly going to put a "filter" on internet against tech advice � this changed as he took on the role of promoting the mostly FTTP version of NBN.
It may have happened to change about the same time as he started promoting the FTTP-based NBN, but it's hard to see any connection. Imposition of government Net censorship is always a very bad idea; once such controls are in place, the capacity for scope creep in censored content is always irresistable.
It took a while to get through, but once he realised his censorship dream was dead, he was then able to fully focus on the one great contribution he made � the peerless introduction of the vital FTTP NBN.
do many new nodes need an another new upgrade to fix the 2Gbps uplink
Have a look at a TPG DSLAM which has been recently installed in a large MDU.
One of those inner city type dwellings with lots of inner city type residents. You know, the 12 student to an apartment type ones.
Get back to me with the stock standard link that TPG is using. And if they have any plans for upgrading that in the near future.
I legitimately don't get how he can get away with blatantly lying, not only to the public, but private investors as well.
At the moment he is pulling the wool over the public's eyes but not the private investors and this shall be evidenced when the Governments allocation is exhausted.
No one with any respect for their money will want a bar of Turnbulls MTM.
How does the promotion of confusion assist people's understanding of issues?
He wasn't promoting confusion about NBN/MTM or anything else, he was merely making the point that we could all save ourselves some time by skipping past posts containing obvious errors.
There's a subtle, but vital, difference between a post saying, for example, 'MTM is wonderful because of blah blah blah', and a post that says 'I don't understand xyz, could you explain this to me please'.
;-)
I'm sorry, but you completely missed the point.
I'm sorry I didn't.
Bonding is an option, like a line speed selection of 12/25/50/100 mbps.
It's simply not being used. The stock standard line card supports other speeds, and other configurations.
The copper network which is being utilised for theNBN has a spec of 90% for 50Mbps, without bonding, as bonding would assume that every area has spare pairs. That's simply not the case.
It is especially heralded all over the specifications page/brochure.
It's an option, just like using FW or satellite to deliver service where a stock standard DSL service wont meet the current government policy.
He wasn't promoting confusion
Perhaps I should cite some real good stuff, but I think news and wiki articles will suffice in this thread.
The reader can of course investigate deeper if they want to.
That money sunk invested into FTTN is not worth it, as it will need to be overbuilt quite soon.
The overriding function of the FTTN design is to keep Turnbull's friends in profit. A functional NBN network, like was originally designed, would see Foxtel die and Telstra relegated to 'just another reseller carrier'. Obviously commercial 'deals' with the LNP has seen the current NBN drop to the levels that will see Foxtel profitable for at least another 10 years... and keep Telstra's various monopolies in place for the foreseeable future. This also keeps the LNP in play with favorable publicity from the murdoch press, and keeps their various share portfolios profitable.
The stock standard line card supports other speeds, and other configurations.
The 'linecard' will support a single speed... it might be a 4x1G card (though it could have been a 1x10G if they'd spent the money), and bundling 4x1G interfaces is a possibility. The contention ratios seen when you have 384 subscribers (maybe 20% are expecting 100mbit/s, but all that is promised is 25mbit/s) sharing a 1gbit/s link is too high. Even if you bundle all 4 into a 4gbit/s link 384 Netflix subscribers are going to suffer, and the ACCC are going to hear about it... eventually. The NBN are currently stonewalling RSPs, telling them that their CVC purchase is to blame for their woes, and that their node backhaul is not oversubscribed. But that won't last forever.
when it clearly states, in the very wiki that you linked to
The field was created by the work of A. K. Erlang for circuit-switched networks but is applicable to packet-switched networks, as they both exhibit Markovian properties, and can hence be modeled by e.g. a Poisson arrival process.
Perhaps you should update the article?
Teletraffic science is the traditional term for all theoretical fundamentals and engineering practices to describe data flows in telecommunication networks, the performance of the usage of network resources, procedures for sizing of resources and engineering the networks for given traffic load and quality of service requirements.
Most importantly, the worse the FTTN, the lower the barriers to entry and the higher the returns for anyone wanting to overbuild it, providing that they do not own the FTTN as well.
I think the legislation that requires any competing network to be wholesale only makes the business case very difficult.
Setting up FTTN as very weak competitor.
It's not just the technology, it's also the high access prices on the NBN/MTM.
therefore
Fibre = bad
And of course: Any-old-lying-rubbish-the-plebs-can-be-made-to-swallow = Brilliant!
We could write a book (if the Royal Commission doesn't get in first) on how Oz went from a first class, world leading NBN concept to a ragbag MTM that's being, or has been, scrapped elsewhere.
Perhaps I should cite some real good stuff
A change in appoach so as to incorporate some relevant and accurate info is always welcome indeed.
Provided it really is 'real good stuff', of course.
The 'linecard' will support a single speed...
The linecard supports many speeds and configurations.
The uplink is most commonly a 1G link, and has required (as per NBN network design rules) the Access Aggregation Switch's (AAS).
Like I said, DSLAMS come stock standard from the factory with 1G links. There is a reason for that.
Do you think NBN would be wasting money on aggregation switches if it was cheaper to provide 10G uplinks for each and every DSLAM nationwide?
duplicate
duplicate
Yeah I get that problem of double posting from my buffering connection too.
duplicate
Yeah I get that problem of double posting from my buffering connection too.
iven the address lookup on it doesn't work I am not filled with optimism.
You can put in your telphone exchange name and it works or alternatively just navigate the map to your address
The linecard supports many speeds and configurations.
No, a linecard is a linecard. It will have x number of y physical interfaces. 'Many configurations' might mean that you can bundle interfaces on the linecard into a single logical interface, but if you want to exceed that limitation you have to replace the linecard with one that has higher bandwidth interfaces. Then the chassis itself would need to support fabric switching at the levels that the new card introduces, or you're going to see throughput at a level less than the interfaces are capable.
Do you think NBN would be wasting money on aggregation switches if it was cheaper to provide 10G uplinks for each and every DSLAM nationwide?
Of course I do, the entire design of this NBN network reeks of wasted expenditure that will need to be replaced sooner rather than later. So of course purchasing hardware from a vendor that won't suit a sensible upgrade path is likely to have occurred. If the aggregation switches don't have sufficient capacity to be upgraded along with the demand of the subscribers, i.e at least modular interfaces that can be changed out for 10G modules, then when the node capacity is reached there will be a substantial cost in upgrading. 384 subscribers all buying a 100mbit/s service, and expecting Netflix during the peak times, will see your 1G links redundant in a very small amount of time.
What were they really thinking when they designed this FTTN network?
that the existing copper network that already reaches and connects most homes and businesses across the nation gives its owner, now Telstra, a huge monopolistic advantage over any competitor � this must be maintained at all costs ... it must be UPGRADED to better meet future needs, rather than replaced by a new purpose-built network that could be shared equally by all providers.
sorry duplicate post. wtf is going on ? how did I do it
It may have happened to change about the same time as he started promoting the FTTP-based NBN, but it's hard to see any connection. Imposition of government Net censorship is always a very bad idea; once such controls are in place, the capacity for scope creep in censored content is always irresistable.
oh, sorry I didn't mean to suggest it was a strong connection, only that his relationship with WP and techies in general had changed
I think the filter went away mainly because it was originally suggested due to pressure from conservative Christian groups that held the balance of power before the 2010 election. After 2010, we got a hung parliament, but the ACL became irrelevant, replaced by Katter, Oakeshot and Windsor.
Morrow claims FTTN will enhance Australia for 100 years, he also talks about the possibility of launching another satellite....
Will someone knock some F***ing sense into this asshole? god damnit how did this guy even manage to get to be the head of vodafone in the first place? His such a freaking idiot! I hope he crash and burns when Australia realizes they are being duped. Very slim chance that they will wake up because of mainstream media but if that small chance happens i would love to see him survive the publicity.
when I make a dup post, it's often because I hit the Post Reply button instead of Mark as Read. Then hitting Send instead of Mark as Read (unfortunately all around the same spot) The new Post interface automatically reuses text from your last post.
god damnit how did this guy even manage to get to be the head of vodafone in the first god damn place?
Maybe a US media magnate gave him a reference .
I think the filter went away
I hasn't 'gone away', it's just evolved into 1) metadata retention, and 2) legislation for mandatory site blocking. It's no longer a 'filter', it's a blanket ban on any site that any interested party wants to ban if they spend the money on lawyers and take it to court. And there's always the meta data to single out those people that wanted to use the site in the first place... in case the interested party wants to recoup their court costs.
And the TPP made all this possible.
Maybe a US media magnate gave him a reference .
Reference to the NBN sure thats the only way i reckon he got that job. Vodafone however...
Given the address lookup on it doesn't work I am not filled with optimism.
Address lookup on the ACCAN "ADSL underserved" page worked just fine for me.
Yeah I get that problem of double posting from my buffering connection too.
Yeah I get that problem of double posting from my buffering connection too.
Naturally we're all full of sympathy � at least all of us who have to put up with the exact same problem!
Maybe a US media magnate gave him a reference.
Surely that's improbable?
I mean, just how many people who are US citizens and who are media magnates would any intelligent, sensible adults-now-in-charge government allow to do such a thing?
I think the legislation that requires any competing network to be wholesale only makes the business case very difficult.
I don't expect that legislation to last too long.
At some point we'll be presented with an option of really really expensive wholesale monopoly broadband or less expensive and higher quality broadband from vertically integrated RSPs who are can both wholesale and retail.
sorry duplicate post. wtf is going on ? how did I do it
The WP site has been a bit dicky for a few days, with it often waiting a minute after a click before anything happens. I'm hoping they may yet fix it.
It hasn't 'gone away'
No; a latent threat of government Net censorship has merely been moved discreetly out of public view, waiting for the right moment to resusitate it.
Both sides of politics were happy with the focus on NBN/MTM, since they could keep their respective adversarial positions. The Coalition said NBN (among other things) 'provided fast access to porn and other illegal content.' � but porn isn't illegal, while all paedophile material is (rightly) illegal anyway.
And the TPP made all this possible.
Not yet, because the TPP isn't in place. But it will give far more power to US-based media corporations.
I'm totally confused new the new layout � can't even find where to load the map.
Left hand side, blue box "Add data." Select National Data Sets -> Communications, then select 'Broadband Map" and on the right-hand-side of the screen 'Add to Map."
No; a latent threat of government Net censorship has merely been moved discreetly out of public view, waiting for the right moment to resusitate it.
The bill, allowing for the blocking of internet content based on the filings from stakeholders, was passed into law in June 2015... it was an amendment to the Australian Copyright Act 1968.
Foxtel have already moved to utilise these changes to prop up their failing business model in Australia.
Other material being blocked is done under other existing laws, i.e child pornography. But the amendment last year was specifically to protect copyright holders' rights to make us pay more for content in Australia.
If not posted already.
ike millions of Australians, I fear I may have overestimated Malcolm Turnbull
his morphing of the national broadband network into a multi-technology mix, or MTM, otherwise known as Malcolm Turnbull�s Mess
Like I said, DSLAMS come stock standard from the factory with 1G links. There is a reason for that.
There are is, the person that placed the order specified it.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét