Anybody know if there would be sufficient optical budget to facilitate 128 way splits on NGPON2 over 950m tails within 5km from the OLT ?
The optical budget for ngpon2 is much more generous due to advances in optoelectronics (presumably).
They talk about 40km runs on 128 splits IIRC.
If there's sufficient optical budget using 128 way splits on NGPON2, you'd only need 3 fibers for all 384 subscribers
I feel like you are a technically capanlemperson capable person trying to understand why the current gov has landed with their current policy.
It is simple to explain and can be summed up in three letters.... no, they are not MTM but ABF.
Anything But Fibre
[Edit] wtf? Fixed some crazy "autocorrect"
Which you can't have. The fibre used for connecting the nodes requires 1 pair, 2 fibres to complete a circuit, 1 in the downstream 1 in the upstream.
Thanks for the clarification. So using 128 way splits on the two pairs currently going to each node would allow 256 FTTdp connections over 384 premises, meaning 150Mbps CIR services for adjacent properties over the entire footprint, without any upgrades to the distribution network.
Westpac, BHP, etc have no interest in GPON, or anything of the like.
Did some work for a mining company last year. They had around 180 ADSL connections in QLD alone. (and a large number of Sat connections).
I have also set up a wan for the AU branch of a multi national. ADSL for some of the smaller offices where the huge cost of Telstra's megalink product was not justifiable.
FTTP would have been fantastic. 2nd/3rd port turned on for events such as product training would have been a huge benefit. Only a couple of offices could do that, so we had to fly staff to those offices. (training was conducted OS, and our stream was compressed specifically for our low bandwidth.
So even larger businesses would use a FTTP network, particularly when demand pushes the higher bandwidth connections down.
If there's sufficient optical budget using 128 way splits on NGPON2, you'd only need 3 fibers for all 384 subscribers
3 fibre pairs yes.
Of course then you have 384 fibre pairs though the duct (along with 384 copper pairs) which may be a tight squeeze for some areas.
The fibre most likely to suffer damage is the last mile. Planning to keep it short would reduce ongoing maintenance costs.
Yes, NGPON2 does offer some reductions in rollout costs, although we have not seen the capital equipment costs.
an entire 12f ribbon reserved per Node but 4 cores allocated to the cabinet itself.
Yes I know , Im a comms tech working on the NBN role out.
, Im a comms tech working on the NBN role out.
Can you confirm there is a spare 8 fibres in each FTTN node ?
2 fibres are used for the node transmission path back with another 2 assigned to the node for later augment.
The remaining 8 pathways will feed the next node along via a 12 fibre ribbon cable , 4 being used in the same way there and 4 feeding the next again via a 12 fibre ribbon cable.
There are no spare fibres for FTTP distribution and the nodes and their exchange ends aren't configured to feed FTTP .
There are no spare fibres for FTTP distribution and the nodes and their exchange ends aren't configured to feed FTTP .
I'd like to understand why a 100 core optical fibre cable was laid in Hawthorndene SA (St Marys fibre distribuation area, 5CPK) as part of the FTTN build process where the geographic constraints of Belair National Park, the hills face zone and the Sturt River means that the cable only serves a population that could all be supplied with FTTP from that cable.
could all be supplied with FTTP from that cable
Current gov direction to NBN is build FTTN.
Current gov rational for this direction is they believe its cheaper to build than FTTP.
How much cheaper is a debatable point.
Hope that helps
Current gov direction to NBN is build FTTN.
That's ultimately the problem, but I was intrigued by the use of 100 core optical fibre cable.
I was intrigued by the use of 100 core optical fibre cable
Most likely a 144 ( 12x12 fibre ribbon) .
Green or black or blue ?
Most likely a 144 ( 12x12 fibre ribbon) .
Green or black or blue ?
I think it was black, a little over 1 cm diameter and had the number "100" printed on it.
There are no spare fibres for FTTP distribution and the nodes and their exchange ends aren't configured to feed FTTP .
Sure. But couldn't those four fibres to each FTTN node be repurposed in the future, to feed 2 x 128 way splitters which connect 256 FTTdp points to two adjacent houses via 2 x NGPON2 40Gbps OLTs in the FAN, thereby allowing up to 512 premises in each node a 150Mbps CIR connection ?
I think it was black, a little over 1 cm diameter and had the number "100" printed on it.
that sounds more like a "100 pair" copper cable than a "fibre cable".
Once you get over 12 fibres the larger "fibre cables" are usually sized in multiples of 12
But couldn't those four fibres to each FTTN node be repurposed in the future
Sure , if there is a change of government.
There are no spare fibres for FTTP distribution
As far as I'm aware the FTTP is an overlay network, so it's not surprising NBN aren't planning for it as a part of the FTTN roll-out.
In the overall scheme of things, if an area was to be enabled for FTTP services, the provisioning of fibre back to the nearest FAN site through the existing duct network would be a small part compared to the fibre provisioning down the streets to the end users.
Those ducts are (I would assume) the existing duct network from the exchanges to the pillars.
It would be interesting to know how they are dealing with the FoD installs. Do they use those spare fibres to the nodes , or are they putting in the Star DFN topology? The current network design rules seem to indicate NBN will be using the spare fibres as required initially.
It would be interesting to know how they are dealing with the FoD installs
They are running fibre from the premise to the FAN (bypassing the node).
Only 3 have been done so far, at an average price to the customer of ~$13k each...that is the total number of people who connected in the year+ it has been offered.
Only 3 have been done so far, at an average price to the customer of ~$13k each...that is the total number of people who connected in the year+ it has been offered.
I understand the take-up is very low to date, but I was more interested in what NBN are providing back to the FAN in the way of cable, and if they are standardising it as per the star DFN in the network design rules.
the one that only existed in someone's imagination, or the one that was well proven to cost about 4 times as much as originally thought, and to take twice the time to deliver?
Please provide this proof.
OK, I am going to ask you to put some numbers on that statement.
read the news.
When are you saying it would have been completed by?
given the plans were aborted with the significant majority of the network not completed, who knows? but given the under performance of the built rate at the last change of government, about as far from the projected time as the budgetary costs were I guess.
I get that yes cabinet placement may be carefully designed, but sometimes things get missed.
no, things do not get missed. sometimes compromises may have to be made due to other factors, is all.
in any case, the argument is moot. diverse DFN is no longer happening, it's not required, and that's the end of the argument. all that's left is for you to build your bridge.
Please provide this proof.
do your own research. it was well publicised before the last election that the claims of the incumbent government at the time were farcically incorrect.
I realise that you'd like to remain in denial that a full fibre rollout will only take a few years, but the reality is that it will be a continual series of problems, holdups and issues to be overcome. that's fine, it's normal. I don't have an objection to it, because it's reality and it's not going away. personally I'd like to see a full fibre rollout.
but my bullshit-o-meter pings off the scale when people take the sunniest of sunny day scenarios with zero allowance for problems, scale it up to a deployment that has to happen across the largest country on the planet, and then trumpet those numbers as some sort of faux "truth". anyone who believes that is self delusional.
do your own research.
You made a claim � the onus is on you to substantiate it. Otherwise it appears that you are making it up.
it was well publicised before the last election that the claims of the incumbent government at the time were farcically incorrect.
Again, you need to substantiate this claim.
but my bullshit-o-meter pings off the scale when people take the sunniest of sunny day scenarios with zero allowance for problems, scale it up to a deployment that has to happen across the largest country on the planet, and then trumpet those numbers as some sort of faux "truth".
So why do you do that about FTTN (and do the opposite about FTTP)? Why would you bring up Russia in a discussion about the NBN or MTM anyway?
do your own research. it was well publicised before the last election that the claims of the incumbent government at the time were farcically incorrect.
It was never proven that it was "4 times more expensive" but... as it comes down to burden of proof, you substantiate your claim as you are the one to claim it. If it was so well publicised that it was legitimately 4 times, because you are claiming it was going to be $147 billion, which is even higher than the coalition pre-election talking points that even their own study after the election couldn't substantiate.
diverse DFN is no longer happening, it's not required, and that's the end of the argument.
You know what, I agree that diverse DFN wouldn't be required if the NBN was only a consumer access network, but its not is it? It was also designed to try and attract business customers to the network. Something that the removal of the diverse DFN harms.
so to restate that in simpler terms, you want access to the service, but you don't want to pay for what it costs.
No, he wants access to the service so we can increase our GDP, without going through people like yourself writing scare statements or artificially inflating the costs. It is well within costs across the rest of the planet...but here it seems that a few folks are attempting to extort far more profits than are required.
mine is that I'm a networking expert building a gpon network to cover the entire country.
Not seeing that in any of your posts...but OK.
yes, exactly. that's the passive bit. the fibre itself is pretty cheap in comparison to the other components. but hey, you would with network experts, you'd know this right?
And the labour for the run is pretty cheap as well? Considering that it will require a new truck roll for each client. But you are a financial manager with all of those numbers at your fingertips, right?
lol, which one? the one that only existed in someone's imagination, or the one that was well proven to cost about 4 times as much as originally thought, and to take twice the time to deliver?
Now it seems that you must have very little to do with any actual rollout. Your information is apparently quite limited about the costing. Do you just pull cable then?
do your own research
Translation...you really don't know.
it was well publicised before the last election that the claims of the incumbent government at the time were farcically incorrect
But you don't know why, how, and which parts were supposedly incorrect. You have no numbers, items to point to, or even some of Malcolm's press releases...you have to admit, that position isn't exactly one that engenders trust or belief.
You made a claim � the onus on you is to substantiate it.
nope. I know it's true. whether you believe it or not doesn't worry me, and I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you.
Translation...you really don't know.
same. that I'm not going to knock myself out trying to educate someone who is obviously resistant to anything contrary to their predetermined point of view makes zero difference in that regard.
believe what you like, it makes no difference to what's actually happening. ignorance is a right.
believe what you like, it makes no difference to what's actually happening. ignorance is a right
And I support you in that right...but you have a habit of making blanket "pronouncements" with no data whatsoever to back it up, and often it flys in the face of the existing data. You can understand why so many folks think that you are inventing things...
nope. I know it's true.
You may well know it � that doesn't mean that it is actually, objectively, verifiably true. People know that they were abducted by aliens, they know that global warming is a conspiracy, etc., etc., etc.
whether you believe it or not doesn't worry me, and I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you.
In other words, you cannot substantiate your claim.
that I'm not going to knock myself out trying to educate someone who is obviously resistant to anything contrary to their predetermined point of view makes zero difference in that regard.
Evidence is what changes people's minds � random claims don't (except for the gullible who believe appeals to authority).
read the news.
Now most of your comments are starting to make sense, you basing your assumptions on the BS you hear in the news. If you read the KPMG reports or even the SR nonsense, it's no where near that cost.
nope. I know it's true. whether you believe it or not doesn't worry me, and I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you.
How about this, I will call you gpon the knower of all things and take you at your word in future if you can produce for me a credible report that is not an NBN bashing one (actually I'll take an NBN bashing one from a stupid source too because your claim is reasonably outlandish) where you can prove both of your claims from here:
or the one that was well proven to cost about 4 times as much as originally thought, and to take twice the time to deliver?
Given you say about, I am expecting to see the price is greater than $130 billion, which is just under 3 times the cost as originally thought, and not finishing until at least 2032 as that is twice as long. The report must say both are true, and I was joking above, I won't take some ramblings of a madman, you said proven, which means actual analysis.
If you come back with a "I know its true, I can't convince you" kind of argument, you are wrong. Produce me evidence that your claims are true and I will assess my position on the matter.
I'll even for free, throw in some evidence that your claim is wrong, even though as the one making the claim you are meant to prove it. I don't hold high regard to this document, it uses rubbery figures and some of the projections for MTM have already been proven inaccurate, but it was produced by experts including professional analysts so it does deserve some weighting in the debate.
http://www.nbnco.com.au/cont
Table 0-2 states completion in CY2024, and a peak funding at ~$73 billion, Thats not even double the cost, and the completion time was nowhere near double, or even half of double.
It was never proven that it was "4 times more expensive"
I'll have to jump in here.
Popping a cabinet in suburbia is more expensive than doing a fibre rollout? It's not rocket science.
I'm more in the core network side of things, but access is a low paying beast, when you start talking zero's for a lead in, reality sets in.
If FoD was less than $1k, you might get a lot more interest.
The reality is that it it isn't.
NBN Mk1,2,3 wont change that.
In other words, you cannot substantiate your claim.
Queeg500, you are the best debater in history, but give it up unless you have been in industry.
It's not about a tech argument that wins, it's about a lot of other "stuff". !!
yes, but it does not mean you have to use the node as the actual fibre junction
No of course not.
But if NBN are providing our new network, they will surely follow the existing duct network, anything else would be expensive and plain stupidity?
I am expecting to see the price is greater than $130 billion
Just to put my previous statements into perspective, I'm no person who wavers from economics.
How much will it cost to get FTTx to Elliott
Hint: The fibre went past many years ago on it's way to Darwin...
Wowie! not hard to see what NBNco is doing... Designed a network that doesn't work to save a few dollars.
Actually that's not entirely true, the nodes could have active FTTP gear placed in them as well, but that would just make it more expensive, and reduce the OpEx savings ;)
and this would have all the same problems of FTTN of not being able to function during a sustained power outage or being inundated with water
It would still be an "active" network, negating most of the advantages of a xPON network
Based on the quotes we know about, this is unlikely. A 300m fibre run does not cost in the region of $10K+
The quotes we know of are not doing this. Currently there is no room in the node for OLT cards, they are running fibre past the node to the nearest junction where they can tap into spare fibre.
My conclusion for me is I want fast and reliable broadband.
100/40 would of been the lowest speed tier I would apply for and then (if ever) go faster when it's available.
Although 100/100 speeds would be even nicer.
Why is it that the Aussie customer has to be screwed on this speed thing? Is it just another Aussie tax peculiar to Australia?
I set up 100/100 fiber in Japan over 6 years ago and there was never any speed pricing changes. It was just 100/100 unlimited. The only differences in price where how long you signed a contract for and what you bundled with it like phone, phone call charges etc.
Speeds from back then
http://www.speedtest.net
http
there is no room in the node for OLT cards
Then why did you say:
Actually that's not entirely true, the nodes could have active FTTP gear placed in them
When you know it was false?
There is a real cost to doing things faster and cheaper � you get a cr@p product.... and that's what FTTN is.
It's ironic that it's clear that despite Malcolm Turnbull and the LNP's insults years ago, the reality is that back then we definitely were not building anything that could be described as a 'white elephant' with FTTP � but the MTM is turning out more and more to fit the definition exactly.
Just as many here predicted.
Actually that's not entirely true, the nodes could have active FTTP gear placed in them as well, but that would just make it more expensive, and reduce the OpEx savings ;)
Exactly why we need to stop the node madness as quickly as possible. Despite Turnbull and NBN Co's assurances, the truth is that there really is no good upgrade path.
An optimal FTTP rollout (and also G.fast or FTTdp rollouts) all require a completely different local network to FTTN. So we either do the bandaid solution, to put GPON gear in the nodes and run fibre to houses/FTTdp devices and then face way higher operational expenditure costs and forever have problems with backhaul capacity, or we replace the entire thing, which will be far higher capital expenditure and all the money on the nodes has been wasted (since it has little chance of making a return).
Hence why it's a white elephant � it's very expensive to build and maintain, not good enough (obsolete by the time it's finished if we keep going with MTM), nobody will want to buy it, and eventually the only option will be to give it away or replace it.
Then why did you say
When you know it was false?
It's not false, rather it's the difference between what's technically possible and what's possible based on the current deployment rules � if they wanted to nbn� could leave one or more VDSL2 cards out of the node to allow for node based FOD/GPON (at the expense of VDSL2 line capacity), but they aren't doing that and instead are fully populating all nodes with VDSL2 cards regardless of how many VDSL2 lines the node is expected to serve.
difference between what's technically possible and what's possible based on the current deployment rules
OK, that makes sense, carry on.
Why is it that the Aussie customer has to be screwed on this speed thing? Is it just another Aussie tax peculiar to Australia?
Not just us, but yes we are getting screwed due to low population and large distance
I set up 100/100 fiber in Japan over 6 years ago and there was never any speed pricing changes. It was just 100/100 unlimited. The only differences in price where how long you signed a contract for and what you bundled with it like phone, phone call charges etc.
Population and distances put us behind Japan in terms of service. we have roughly 20 times the area but Japan contains over 100,000,000 (Yes 100 Million) more people than we do.
Population and distances put us behind Japan in terms of service. we have roughly 20 times the area but Japan contains over 100,000,000 (Yes 100 Million) more people than we do.
Nope, that is just a popular misconception.
It's true for small towns and rural areas, but more than 80 percent of the Australian population live in cities that are comparably dense to many places overseas that have FTTP rollouts.
(That is, the population density statistic is skewed by vast areas of our continent that are almost completely uninhabitated).
It's true for small towns and rural areas, but more than 80 percent of the Australian population live in cities that are comparably dense to many places overseas that have FTTP rollouts.
Remember that the longest telephone lines in the old copper Customer Access Network were about 10 miles or 16 km, and at least one person I knew had a phone line that was 7.5 km to the nearest active equipment (an AXE RSS in a hut).
FTTP using existing GPON can deliver full speed with up to 20 km between the premises and the nearest active equipment, so is a good match for covering all premises that could be reached by fixed line copper.
The density issues only come up with how much optical fibre cabling distance (and its cost of installation) has to be shared between how many customers.
OK, that makes sense, carry on.
Queeg was pretty close to my meaning.
Point 1. Upgrading FTTN to FTTP:
In 5-10 years up-take numbers will be better known, and not all nodes will be loaded up to their 384 line capacities, at this point a VDSL line card could be taken out and replaced with a 4 port OLT which, if NG-PON2 could serve 512 premises. This would not require any changes prior to the node and only rolling out from the node, but its active gear in the field which does not reduce operating expenditure and has all of the negatives when it comes to resilience through flooding et al.
Point 2. What is actively going on now with the network for FTTPoD:
Nodes are being loaded up to capacity with VDSL line cards so are not capable of servicing FTTP, the current quotes go back past the node to the nearest junction to a trunk fibre with spares available. This is then spliced in, and connected to GPON equipment that is safely housed back in the exchange, and works just like a normal FTTP service that has no role in the node at all.
Or as Queeg put it rather straight forward, 1 is theoretical what could be done, the other is under current network management procedure, how it is done.
FTTP using existing GPON can deliver full speed with up to 20 km between the premises and the nearest active equipment
Thats 20km under a 1:32 split. With tweaking of the split ratio the distance can be extended, as the biggest cost to power budget is splitting the light. From memory a 32 split costs about 16.5dB in the 28dB power budget. Dropping down to 1:8 hits about 40km, and using extended reach OLTs and ONUs down to 1:4 that reach can be extended to almost 60km. The next generation PON systems have even better range as they have a larger power budget to deal with higher density splits.
Point 2. What is actively going on now with the network for FTTPoD:
Nodes are being loaded up to capacity with VDSL line cards so are not capable of servicing FTTP, the current quotes go back past the node to the nearest junction to a trunk fibre with spares available. This is then spliced in, and connected to GPON equipment that is safely housed back in the exchange, and works just like a normal FTTP service that has no role in the node at all.
and this is interesting as the published network design rules place a multiport upstream of a node.
But going by comments from various people it seems they are not being used at all and all connections being made are spliced in enclosures and not done using "plug in" segments in the field
Are nbn� now building the FTTN network not as per their published design rules and not actually installing the multiports ?
Remember that the longest telephone lines in the old copper Customer Access Network were about 10 miles or 16 km
Exchange to sub, maybe, except possibly on North Star exchange (party line). But long lines were much longer � eg Syd to Perth, amazingly. In fact some spans were actually galvanised iron, when carrier systems like the J system were in use (some long unstrung overhead J poles can be seen in the Blue Mountains). This is of course for voice only which was multiplexed say 16 (gasp!) voice paths to 1 pair by using frequency division (rather like crude ADSL). Those lines also carried phantom telegraph traffic, Cailho systems and the like)
As a matter of interest, what are posters' views on later conversion of FTTN to FTTP. Surely it would be matter of fanning out fibre from the nodes (and perhaps increasing the internode capacity) rather than doing 'the whole thing again'?
No, it isn't that simple.
There isn't enough fibres run to the cabinet in the first place, there may be further upstream but we are hearing things reported from those on the ground that may not be the case.
The next issue is the FTTN cabinet is not optimally located for the rollout of fibre, it is sited to make the FTTN cheaper and easier. This means rolling out fibre from the FTTN cabinet, even if they had allocated enough fibre, would slower, more complicated and more expensive.
FTTN is not an interim step to FTTP, it is a side step/show or distraction.
How about for those with FTTN nodes already wired up (the labour-intensive part), after the 18 month transition, new optical fibre cables get installed replacing the fat copper bundles back to the exchange (perhaps using the old copper cables to draw through new fibre cables) and install FDH's/multiports as appropriate to provide access to all premises in the area, then provide the premises FTTP connections starting with those worst served by the FTTN nodes)?
I get where you are coming from but it strikes me a extremely disruptive to end users, so disruptive that I think it is not viable for that reason alone.
Fundamentally this is one of my major issue with FTTN, it makes no sense as an interim step unless you are an incumbent telco trying to extend the life of your monopoly network. Which incidentally is why Telstra proposed it many years ago.
Exchange to sub, maybe, except possibly on North Star exchange (party line). But long lines were much longer � eg Syd to Perth, amazingly.
I'm talking about the length of wire cabling in the Customer Access Network (ie from the customer to the exchange) in the absence of active equipment (line extenders / pair gain systems).
I get where you are coming from but it strikes me a extremely disruptive to end users, so disruptive that I think it is not viable for that reason alone.
Fundamentally this is one of my major issue with FTTN, it makes no sense as an interim step unless you are an incumbent telco trying to extend the life of your monopoly network.
I wouldn't for a moment suggest going *to* FTTN. What I was suggesting was how to migrate *away* from *existing* FTTN with minimal disruption (cable conduits relieved of copper cables that once went to exchanges would have more room for optical fibre cables).
(cable conduits relieved of copper cables that once went to exchanges would have more room for optical fibre cables).
Ah, I misunderstood... you mean the exchange side copper that are no longer used after FTTN goes in and the end of the co-existence period.
Most Australians didn't want (high priced) high speed broadband, they just wanted broadband.
No doubt a politically driven response.
I opted for a 25mbps NBN service as it cost me the same as my previous 90mbps 'iinet VDSL2' service at a seperate address. Not going to pay upwards of $20 per month for what I used to get a part of my base service, especially when my flashy new NBN connection has been performing like a DOG � connecting at sub dialup speeds right now.
And yes, I'd love 100mbps, and will go back to it when I feel it's priced correctly.
Summary:
A fifth to a third choose the slowest speed available on FttN, FttP, and FttB, 12Mb/s. A half to two thirds choose the next lowest speed, 25Mb/s. Almost no-one chooses the intermediate speeds. And the remaining few, only 1 in 14 on FttN and about 1 in 7 on FttP and FttB, choose the highest speed, 100 Mb/s.
It would be interesting to compare those with internet speeds from 10 yrs ago.
How many ordered 512kbps connections over 1.5Mbps (was only for geeks and gamers, according to the then Telstra CEO)
10 yrs on, how many are still on 512Kbps?
It appears that 'bracket creep' happens as demand goes up. Of course the technology has to be there to deliver it.
Conclusion:
Most Australians didn't want (high priced) high speed broadband, they just wanted broadband.
Alas that is what they are being delivered with the MTM. With it's substantially higher OPEX, the point where it became more expensive than FTTP (even with the inflated costs) was between 7 and 8 years.
So if this network is going to be used for 8 or more years, it would have been cheaper to go FTTP.
Tweedledee HurpyDerp writes...
I opted for a 25mbps NBN service as it cost me the same as my previous 90mbps 'iinet VDSL2' service at a seperate address.
Before I was on a Telstra exchange so ADSL was set at a premium price (regardless of quality of service) so I was paying $79.95 for ADSL plus $30 line rental so approx $110.
Now on NBN so for unlimited TPG NBN 100/40 it is $99.95 so I am saving a whopping $10 � speed is often about the same as ADSL at peak times...
If I opted for slower speeds or not unlimited I could save a lot more. So I can see why people are opting for slower speed when they do not get anywhere near advertised speeds anyway. I have been considering the same as I think I am throwing money away for no real gain. It is a paper gain only.
I'll be paying for the 25 mbit service I can get, not the 100mbit service I want and would gleefully pay for if it was a possibility
FTTP (generally) is 2.4/1 per 32 max EU.
FTTN is (currently) 1/1 per 384 max EU.
This isn't a very valid comparison � the number of EU's on a single PON port of an OLT, versus the number of EU's on an entire ISAM chassis.
This isn't a very valid comparison � the number of EU's on a single PON port of an OLT, versus the number of EU's on an entire ISAM chassis.
It's a direct comparison � there is only one pair of fibres active per node.
Nope, that is just a popular misconception.
It's true for small towns and rural areas, but more than 80 percent of the Australian population live in cities that are comparably dense to many places overseas that have FTTP rollouts.
I guess since I am one of the minority that do live in country towns (Technically a city), as well as one who has visited many overseas cities, I do care about the minority :)
I think some of the arguments made that seem valid aren't really.
"People are opting for lower speeds because they can't actually achieve 100MBit."
I don't think people know what they will get, those who *want* 100MBit will sign up for it anyway then maybe maybe maybe drop to a lower tier later if it consistently fails to deliver (but even then will likely live in hope for a long time that things will get better).
For everyone else they are taking what the ISP's are pushing, which just happens to be the lower speed plans. Most people probably don't know to ask and/or don't see the value in the extra $ (or are outright told they don't need it by the sales person) after all at 25MBit it's still faster than the vast vast majority of current users (ADSL anyway).
On an interesting side note, is there any stats on HFC. What % of houses with access to HFC have HFC vs not (or ADSL). Also what % of users with HFC have taken the speed pack to 100MBit??
If everyone can get a 100Mb/S link; no one will stay with Foxtel.
LNP had to listen to Murdoch using old tech/copper in giving Foxtel an extended lease of life.
Conclusion : This thread is started by LNP fanbois.
On an interesting side note, is there any stats on HFC. What % of houses with access to HFC have HFC vs not (or ADSL). Also what % of users with HFC have taken the speed pack to 100MBit??
The stats on NBN HFC are that 0 users have taken the 100 Mb option � as there are currently 0 users on that technology.
I don't think people know what they will get, those who *want* 100MBit will sign up for it anyway then maybe maybe maybe drop to a lower tier later if it consistently fails to deliver (but even then will likely live in hope for a long time that things will get better).
I would suggest that most people who want 100MBit are generally more technically informed than mums and dads who just want the internet and sign up for whatever plan is offered. Therefore there's a very good chance they will have a rough idea what they can get because they've probably been following the NBN rollout or at least know of FTTN.
As I posted way back at the start of this thread, I'm a shade under 700m from my closest pillar. Why would I even entertain the idea of signing up for a 100Mb plan, even if I want it, when I'm literally wasting money doing that? And I certainly don't live in hope there will be anything to make it better.
Taking a look at Telstra NBN plans and there is no mention of speeds. Majority of NBN customers would be through Telstra and typically on the plan offered so of course are going to be on the low speeds. If you aren't given the options up front to make an informed decision people will just go with whats offered.
Then going to Optus and they don't mention speeds they offer. They have speed packs available but nowhere do they say what those speed packs mean. They only mention about NBN Speed Tiers 1 through 5 and provides a link. NBN website lists the various speeds but doesn't relate them to Speed Tiers.
So you've got the two largest RSPs deliberately not providing options and information to customers in order to encourage them onto the lower speed plans.
Then there is the issue of what speeds can actually be achieved when playing node lotto so more knowledgeable people might be choosing the lower speed tiers first to see if it's stable before moving up to higher speeds. No point paying for a 100/40 connection if the line barely supports 25/5.
Note that Optus moves up the speed tiers, on the bundle plans, as you move up the offerings with the top offering being 100MBit by default. Given the only difference is the included calls (they all include unlimited data) it's possible that will drive users to higher plans. The stand alone broadband is also completely unlimited with the only difference being speed tiers, although as you say there is no clear definition of speed other than digging three links deep and making a few assumptions on the way.
(it's also insane that 1, 2, 3, 4 aligns with 1, 2, 4, 5 which then aligns with things that don't have numbers :S
Congestion issues aside, it's going to get *really* murky when it comes to selling speeds people can't get, while technically "upto" covered it when you were allowed to go as fast as the line allowed it becomes disingenuous to sell at 100MBit plan to someone who can only achieve 25MBit (if not outright corruption) due to line conditions.
Congestion issues aside, it's going to get *really* murky when it comes to selling speeds people can't get, while technically "upto" covered it when you were allowed to go as fast as the line allowed it becomes disingenuous to sell at 100MBit plan to someone who can only achieve 25MBit (if not outright corruption) due to line conditions.
My sister has FFTN and she opted for the slower speed 25mBit as she couldnt get anywhere near the 50mBit speed she wanted, yes she did try a 50Mbit plan first.
I have FTTP and got 100mBit..
I'll be paying for the 25 mbit service I can get, not the 100mbit service I want and would gleefully pay for if it was a possibility
Same here, no point paying extra for a speed the copper just cannot give us.
I know I just signed up and went for 50/20.
The biggest reasons were prices and congestion. Not much point paying for more if I can't even get what I'm paying for. Maybe once I see that congestion is a non issue I'll change.
once I see that congestion is a non issue I'll change.
That seems to be the consensus...not needing speed isn't the issue, not getting what you pay for is.
The good news is that on FTTP, those fixes can be done very quickly...on FTTN, not so much.
Isn't congestion an ISP by ISP thing or is it linked to the technology as well?
Isn't congestion an ISP by ISP thing or is it linked to the technology as well?
Yes and no!
NBNCo are recovering their cost in providing the new technology by charging for CVC (a "virtual" circuit between them and your ISP) � and that charge is pretty excessive � $17.50 per Megabit reducing a little for higher volumes.... whereas such charges don't apply to xDSL. All other charges are similar.
As ISPs are trying to provide NBN at similar prices as xDSL � they have to cut costs and that means reducing CVC capacity to a minimum. It has been estimated that a reasonably congestion free peak hours NBN service at 12/1 Mbps would cost $150 a month.... and ISPs are charging around $80 for 25/5 Mbps .... not enough to provide a good service :(
NBN co is a wholesale provider there is no retail asset for service..
Your rsp Is the retail provider, to be honest I wish everyone would stop using xdsl pricing models on a service that exceeds xdsl speeds..
Odd business model as I would have thought trying to upsell customers on to faster and more expensive plans would be good business sense.
Telstra don't really cater to power users unless you go with Telstra Business.
If everyone is on 25/5Mbps it is less 'damage' that any single person can do to the network.
- Less bursty traffic. If you load a 4K YouTube video for example it will flog the crap out of your connection for a few minutes until it buffers a large portion of it. If the ISP only has a few hundred megabits of CVC, it can cause alot of damage if a few people do it at the same time (eg 30min after school finishes, while people are eating dinner at 6pm)
- Less traffic bursts at times of scheduled updates. Think of Steam's automatic updates, Windows Update, iPhone IOS updates, Playstation / XBOX updates. When something like a Windows 7 update gets released even just in Australia it can easily generate like 150Gbit/s of traffic let alone if a really popular game gets released on Steam (eg when GTAV was released heaps of peoples internet ground to a halt as it was a 60GB download)
- Most importantly less complaints tying up phone time about people not able to achieve their plan packages speed. .
25/5 is far more profitable for the ISP than 100/40 let alone 1,000/400 due to CVC costs
Simple for us wee folk on FTTN. what's the point of getting 100/40 (or whatever part there of) if you ate barely able to get 10/1 our good forbid 5/1. Those that don't know any better thinks it's NBNs fault, come up all political and blame the government. There isn't any use paying for something that doesn't/can't fit your needs during the time you want to use it.
If it rant for the upload I downgrade from my 90/43 connection to a 25Mb connection or less. We've been lucky with our Telstra connection here, many others on other ISPs haven't been.
And loo and behold another telstra outage lol
Jamie
tell you what, PM me your street and suburb (not your house number, don't need it) and I'll do a little survey of the reality and post the results.
Who could say no to an offer like that?
You might want to be a bit careful about making such an offer though... people might want to know who you work for and how you have access to that information.
people might want to know who you work for and how you have access to that information.
Secret organisation which cannot be revealed to simple forum goers such as ourselves.
well considering most of us had better download speeds on ADSL 1 why pay more for an connection speed you will never reach
FTTN is sluggish as all hell
for example
Name your speeds on telstra (not belong and tpg (aka adam, internode, iinet.) and you'll see your speeds sore interationally, 25/5 or up.
So if your not on tpg or telstra what are your speeds internationally?
Locally doesn't count.
Tpg bought alot of isp not because of thd nbn but for the clientel, and established lines overseas due to internode.
Neighbours and friends lots of families here. Nah ill pass thanks though
Can we call bull? I think you mean you can confirm that up to 3 people have opted for 100mbps in you area.
I need fast broadband � NBN isn't coming for a while even though it's sitting in the ground on the other side of the train line near our house 10m from the RIM, they said it won't be available for at least 3 years! :(
Most Australians didn't want (high priced) high speed broadband, they just wanted broadband.
NBN is slow anyway from what I've heard. On ADSL1.5 I only get 0.50mbps download. I used to get 7.00mbps download on the same plan but people have been fiddling with the wires...
FTTN is sluggish as all hell
for example
http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/5378271859
iiNet probably don't have enough CVC at your location, assuming your sync speed isn't terrible (look in your modem stats)
http://www.speedtest.net/result/5449114306.png
^ FTTN
It is possible to get crap FTTN sync speeds like 15-20Mbps but if you are only getting like 1-2Mbps clearly it's ISP congestion.
iiNet probably don't have enough CVC at your location, assuming your sync speed isn't terrible (look in your modem stats)
at mid day on a Wednesday ? hardly "peak" time.
oh wait .. scratch that .. that's GMT so I guess that is peak time :/ ul I assume its better than that in the morning ? if so then yeah cvc induced congestion seems most likely
The only reason why people would opt for lower plans because the quota available ..
To actually offer the speed tier you would have to offer the quota to suit the speed tier available, between 18/1-24/1 on lines 24/7 you have 6.5-11 days of quota and that is the fact of the matter..
Reality above 4/1 connection we can not physicall anything above the 1TB plan currently on offer copper can't support the speed required.
Tier systems just piss money down the drain..
If it comes to the point I would say the true realisation is that it is fibre or bust for the economic future for Australia...
I'm opting for a lower speed due to line distance. I've been connected to a FTTN Cabinet where my old ADSL / Pillar was connected to over 1km away and not the shiney new Cabinet which was installed to our DA where no existing pillar was to service our area (go figure).
So I want 100/40 � can only obtain 50/20 (Actual sync 54/13)
so, not opting at all. .. that's just what you can get.
so, not opting at all. .. that's just what you can get.
I've opted for 1.5mbps on a good day on my home ADSL, so the other 22.5mbps can go to someone else.. I'm a good man
so, not opting at all. .. that's just what you can get.
I should have put opting in quotes.... but yes yes that's all I can get so forced (a better word) to be on 50/20 ;)
NBN Co reporting stats tho will see it as me opting to be on a slower speed.
NBN Co reporting stats tho will see it as me opting to be on a slower speed.
And I suspect you are not the only one.
And I suspect you are not the only one.
Indeed....
Most won't get near to the 100/40 so will select a lower speed tier � with many provider there is no 50/20 so they will have to drop to 25/5....
With peak throughput issues (mainly due to CVC pricing limiting capacity) that also makes lower speed more practical...
People are being forced to choose lower speeds � but to support LNP policy � they are opting for lower speed.
I really dislike telstra, their obnoxious mortar stores making a necessary requirement for id to pay bills if your throwing out a name rather id.
Over priced plans, but really good business plans compared to tpg $600 a month plan.
Sky mesh maybe reasonable on negotiating deals but their pr guy in the otther forums so full of their selves then actually answer the ultimate question?
While mentioned disliking telstra before the nbn, and on it i must be honest!! telstras networks a crumbling empire but their latency and speeds internationally are excptional, another thing sky meshes reluctant to inform to me (regardless how much cvc they aquire on congestion.)
Sadly but even if i was on 100up100down asemetrical i'd still get less internationally, i would assume 30up50down from sweden.
You want the best gpu invidea
You want the best cpu intel
You want the best Phone samsung
You want the best isp infrastructure telstra
You want the best car Tesla motors
You want the best laptop metabox
While i absolutely dislike it, those are greedy companies that don't give a sh?? but you get what you pay for.
Welcome to capitalism
Most won't get near to the 100/40 so will select a lower speed tier
This is irrelevant because people aren't taking up the fibre 100 Mbps service as expected.
This is irrelevant because people aren't taking up the fibre 100 Mbps service as expected.
Wrong, the percentage of customers on FTTP 100/40 is double that of FTTN up-to-100/40. The actual number of services is obviously several orders of magnitude different.
1. The bandwidth-intensive applications that need 100/40 are not there for most households (no, running speedtests on Whirlpool does not count);
Yes and no. It really depends on the individual household usage. 1 person living alone or a couple probably would be fine sharing the connection on the 25 tier.
The more folks living at home using up bandwidth however and you start entering 50/100 realm here. Again it's not just about the *one* killer ap. It's also about the reliability of your line usage once you start to saturate it w/ users. Something conveniently glossed over most of the time in arguments about "the need for anything higher than 25mb". Heck one just has to look at the early days of HFC or even dial-up days when connections went downhill the moment you had 2 or more people using the line!
The problem as i see it is that FTTN cannot deliver the same product to all customers
That's only half of the coin of the argument. The biggest reason is just how long can FTTN as an infrastructure last before we hit that glass ceiling of capacity use. You are spending billions of money here and you want a network to last as long as it can so you can get the most out of the investment.
Sure it works perfectly fine now. But you have to realise first of all that what's fine *now* may not be remotely useable in the next 5-10 years. Second any "average usage" in Australia is already tainted to be "lower than average" compared to most comparable western counties w/ broadband because of the fact our own usage has been "capped" by the obvious distance of the intercontinental links AND the fact our own net usage as country has been capped as well because of the lack of proper infrastructure we have. We have all been conditioned for "low usage/quality" because realistically that's all our infrastructure was capable of handling. It's a very disingenuous argument to make that no on uses "X" when "X" isn't even possible for a majority of users.
Ironically, your situation was perhaps caused indirectly by NBN's creation, which resulted in the reduction of investment from the private sector.
I'm sorry... what investment are you talking about? Fixed line broadband has been stagnant for *decades* since Telstra privitisation the last time any type of "investment" happened Telstra used their commercial clout to drown it (ie. HFC) ADSL2/2+ was the only "big improvement" we had... and that was only in the last 5 years or so and even then only select metro areas.
The only real investment/competition ironically enough was on wifi/mobile networks as it was basically the only real "free market" that no one had full control of yet.. hence Telstra spent heaps on getting a network built to get a heads up on the competition.
Because they've never really had the benefits � medicine, education etc now and in the future � explained over and over again until it sunk in.
If you refer to e-health I can't say I blame the silent majority. Has a greater myth ever been perpetrated?
Also, when you dig down into the devil in the data you find that internet bandwidth is primarily used to stream video for entertainment purposes. In North America, it accounts for 70%, while non-video HTTP services account for just 6% of used bandwidth.
last time any type of "investment" happened Telstra used their commercial clout to drown it (ie. HFC)
That was a PayTv play not a broadband play, and it failed primarily because Optus had no plan at all for dealing with a direct competitor.
That's only half of the coin of the argument. The biggest reason is just how long can FTTN as an infrastructure last before we hit that glass ceiling of capacity use. You are spending billions of money here and you want a network to last as long as it can so you can get the most out of the investment.
Sure, but the alternative is to spend a lot more money up-front and over a longer period on assets that will be very underutilised over the life-cycle, so either way there's a significant cost inefficiency.
Perhaps, as is often argued with Green energy, the upside to investing in short term solutions is job creation and economic stimulus.
Based on what I see some people posting it seems all we will ever need forever is 25mbps. When the rest of the world has moved on, Australia will still be stuck digging the ground to sell dirt that nobody wants to buy but hey we will still have 25mbps internet available to everyone delivered over a fantastic copper cable network. Hooray! /s
I'm sorry... what investment are you talking about?
See the posts above.
I was at a shareholders meeting recently hosted by a (rising) VOIP Telco CEO, and was paraphrasing his commentary.
But of course, what would a CEO or bunch of directors know?
Sure, but the alternative is to spend a lot more money up-front and over a longer period on assets that will be very underutilised over the life-cycle, so either way there's a significant cost inefficiency.
FTTP is not "a lot more" money up-front than FTTN, and even when operating at a fraction of its capacity has far lower running costs than FTTN.
Perhaps, as is often argued with Green energy, the upside to investing in short term solutions is job creation and economic stimulus.
I thought that with Green energy (e.g. photo-voltaic panels and wind energy) the job creation was in installing *long* term solutions.
PS, the useful operating life of infrastructure between the FAN and customer's Ethernet / phone socket is much greater for FTTP than for FTTN (especially taking into account the vulnerability of the extra electrical/electronic sections of FTTN compared with FTTP).
When the rest of the world has moved on, Australia will still be stuck digging the ground to sell dirt that nobody wants to buy but hey we will still have 25mbps internet available to everyone delivered over a fantastic copper cable network.
Well, that probably means it will take the hackers a little longer to take us all down.
Sure, but the alternative is to spend a lot more money up-front and over a longer period on assets that will be very underutilised over the life-cycle, so either way there's a significant cost inefficiency.
Under-utilised I find is a rather disingenuous argument though... specially since we know it's already being utilised in other countries and we know it WILL be utilised over the whole of it's life time as opposed to spending on something that will hit a glass ceiling far sooner.
And as I said it only begins to look "under utilised" if we start using Australian usage stats... which as I already mentioned isn't exactly a good "base line" to begin with � we are perpetually looking like we "under use" the infrastructure because that is all our infrastructure is capable of handling.
FTTP is not "a lot more" money up-front than FTTN, and even when operating at a fraction of its capacity has far lower running costs than FTTN
From a strictly engineering point of view.... (my background) that is 100% correct.
I find it very interesting comments on what is best are made by bean counters, politicians (on both sides of the house) and die hard party puppets.... when they should be based on sound engineering practice....
How many of you who support the Government's view would seek advice from everyone other than a competent brain surgeon if you needed brain surgery??.... Well why aren't engineering issues treated the same way? Why can a lawyer who "practically invented the internet" decide what the populous should get? I think I'll throw away my engineering quals and hang up a law shingle � after all reciprocity of qualifications must apply.
Also during a recent conversation with a fellow professional from the UK he couldn't believe how backward we are. In the UK the Government makes a big thing about high speed internet and home based work � it is the future according to them. Well I'm not sure we have a future unless we take planning for it more seriously!
That was a PayTv play not a broadband play, and it failed primarily because Optus had no plan at all for dealing with a direct competitor.
True... but that doesn't actually refutes my argument that there really hasn't been much significant investment in internet infrastructure in Australia either does it?
Sure, but the alternative is to spend a lot more money up-front and over a longer period on assets that will be very underutilised over the life-cycle, so either way there's a significant cost inefficiency
I can't say that I agree...with a life cycle of 60+ years, and with the majority of connected homes (globally) being on gigabit networks by 2020, I don't see how your prediction can come true.
Also, when you dig down into the devil in the data you find that internet bandwidth is primarily used to stream video for entertainment purposes. In North America, it accounts for 70%, while non-video HTTP services account for just 6% of used bandwidth
Don't see how that is possible when the majority of traffic globally has been torrents and not streaming for many years...
I stand corrected...the IPTV is accounting for a massive amount of traffic.
and I'm yet to personally meet anyone whose experience is negative.
You must have an incredible talent.... being so able to speak for others.
Under-utilised I find is a rather disingenuous argument though... specially since we know it's already being utilised in other countries and we know it WILL be utilised over the whole of it's life time as opposed to spending on something that will hit a glass ceiling far sooner.
Where exactly? The North American usage stats appear to mirror ours in most respects.
Besides, it's all academic now anyway. MTM is here to stay.
Besides, it's all academic now anyway. MTM is here to stay.
Oh very much so. It's also personally a moot point as I was lucky to get on FTTP.... this was years of being stuck on a very badly congested area w/ ADSL1 connections that would chug during peak hours due to Telstra not bothering to upgrade the exchange for years. So I have a personal perspective on how bad it can get if your the unlucky few who get left behind as well as being lucky to be on the opposite side of the fence now.
And in the end only time will really tell which one was the "right" decision. But we can all still throw in our 2 cents can't we? :D
The title of the thread is a joke in my case!
I went from 17/1 to maxing out at around 25/5 with NBN, what a shambles FTTN is, which carries the same old flawed issues of distance and line quality issues... billions of dollars spent that can only guarantees a bit better than ADSL2+, how sad!
I can't say that I agree...with a life cycle of 60+ years, and with the majority of connected homes (globally) being on gigabit networks by 2020, I don't see how your prediction can come true.
If the fibre is run overhead, my understanding is that the lifespan is significantly reduced.
MTM is here to stay.
Until enough people are dis-satisfied with to take action for change.
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2016/s4511436.htm
Bill Shorten on ABC Radio's AM programme this morning:
We also want to make sure that the NBN gets rolled out properly so that businesses in this region get the opportunity to compete and get the opportunities which comes from having a first class NBN.
MTM is here to stay.
Which will cost us a great deal...but more as a hit to our economy , not just the cost of upgrade later.
Deloitte predicts that over 600 million homes will be connected to gigabit networks worldwide by 2020. This will leave our economy sorely lagging the rest of the world.
If the fibre is run overhead, my understanding is that the lifespan is significantly reduced
Only if it is heavily stressed (broken poles, etc...)
Keep in mind that copper only had a projected lifespan of 20-30 years...and most of it has lasted for 60+
Nope.... fibre has to go back to the FAN (or multiport if there is one) not to the node.... that could even be all the way back to the exchange. A node doesn't support customer side fibre � only copper.
Yeah, I'm aware of that; perhaps I was unclear.
I meant to (very roughly) equate running fiber from an FDH to a new premises in an established FTTP area, vs running copper from a node to the new premises in an established FTTN area.
My thoughts were in the context of future builds, once the network was complete (for any given definition of "complete",) following on from Dr John's comment about future brownfield reconstruction, or section divisions. Thinking ahead for future expansion was part of the FTTP NBN design process, from my reading. FTTN appears to have... less forethought.
FTTN appears to have... less forethought.
Fixed that for you..... less thought all round I'm afraid.
This is a bit like the politicians equivalent to diplomacy which is the ability to be able to say "Good dog" while reaching for a beat-down stick. And the great unwashed Australian population swallowed the bate that was offered :(
how many homes today will still be standing in another 20 years from now?
As the house I live in was built in the 1960s and I have owned it since 1985, having no intention of leaving until I am unable to manage staying here. The house will be here much longer than 20 more years and technology will be there to enable my stay.
If you refer to e-health I can't say I blame the silent majority.
E-health as in the government exercise? Is your view of the future really that limited?
http://www.bbc.com/future/st
My ADSL is still faster than my next door neighbors FTTN NBN, and a whole lot more stable, I was over there yesterday for maybe 30 minutes and the modem lost sync twice.
Sure they went for the lowest speed tier, why pay more if you're not getting more?
Sure they went for the lowest speed tier, why pay more if you're not getting more?
Well many of us are getting more and paying less ($55pm less!) than we did for ADSL. I've gone from around 10Mbps ADSL2 to 65-70Mbps on FTTN at all hours of the day and night.
As one who switched to FTTN last week, my speed is 6-7 times faster (9-12 to 70) than it was on ADSL2 and $54pm cheaper ($159 now $105).
I am with TPG on adsl2 and I pay $59.95 a month unlimited.
I am with TPG on adsl2 and I pay $59.95 a month unlimited.
Congratulations. I'm on NBN fibre and on Optus's $60 unlimited plan too.
I / we must assume that backhaul ethernet is already sufficiently dimensioned by the wireless operators, otherwise the "4G" experience wouldn't exist.
The "4G experience" that we have right now is great because of a few caveats.... first is that not every place has "4G" enabled second our usual lower consumer caps for a majority of wireless plans have small to pitiful limits. This means that not only is "4G" going to have less users at the moment the full network itself would be woefully under utilised due to the download restrictions placed on users. So you will rarely at any time hit that peak "heavy use" that fixed line and previous mobile wireless has had at this current point in time.
ie. It's easy to say the 4G experience works if your not even getting close to what would be considered "normal peak traffic" in your network
I see you only ever drive your bicycle at less than 80km/h, so no need for you to get a new high performance car.
Even if in upcoming races everyone else will be driving such high performance cars.
LOL.... yeah pretty much my point =P
My ADSL is still faster than my next door neighbors FTTN NBN, and a whole lot more stable
Well many of us are getting more and paying less ($55pm less!) than we did for ADSL.
The point, which should not be lost here, is that to achieve this outcome (some better, some worse), it is costing many, many billions of dollars. Almost as much upfront as giving everyone the Fibre experience. And more in the long term.
Also what should not be lost here is that we, the taxpayers, OWN this asset. And so when someone says "NBN users increasingly opting for LOWER speeds" it means that we the taxpayers, as the business owners, should be worried about what this says about our offering. And should be worried about what it means for the potential value of this asset in the future, should we ever decide to sell it.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/3026170
Down to the 'The fixed telecoms market:' area.
A sobering look at the last few years in Australia's fixed telecoms market.
Edit: Oops probably should have put that in the Federal NBN thread.
ie. It's easy to say the 4G experience works if your not even getting close to what would be considered "normal peak traffic" in your network
The "4G experience" that we have right now is great because of a few caveats.... first is that not every place has "4G" enabled second our usual lower consumer caps for a majority of wireless plans have small to pitiful limits. This means that not only is "4G" going to have less users at the moment the full network itself would be woefully under utilised due to the download restrictions placed on users. So you will rarely at any time hit that peak "heavy use" that fixed line and previous mobile wireless has had at this current point in time.
You need to get out more because there are plans available for all levels of usage. Take a ride on a suburban train sometime and see the number of people streaming movies and music or playing interactive games on their smart phones. I doubt they're on plans with pitiful limits.
From my pov, 4G is working remarkably well in city areas, and regardless of time of day or location I'm able to get high speed broadband on demand. In fact I know lots of people who have dumped their home phones and home broadband in favour of exclusive 4G wireless, and it's a growing trend.
So no, the 4G experience isn't great for those reasons you mention, it's great because the technology makes far more efficient use of the radio spectrum, and specifically, by using the short delay multipaths to create parallel radio links. This works particularly well at higher UHF frequencies in a high density urban environment.
From my pov, 4G is working remarkably well in city areas
I think his point was that the more you rely on 4G to be a PRIMARY connection, the more it will be degraded. Using any form of wireless as the primary source for everyone is far less efficient and must (according to simple physics) be far more limited than FTTP as well as far more expensive.
Edit: I think you will find that most 4G connections are slower today than when they were first released...
is that to achieve this outcome (some better, some worse), it is costing many, many billions of dollars.
I'm sure the same was said about gas, water and electricity to most homes, the Sydney Harbour Bridge or the Snowy Mountains scheme.
That's the problem with modern governments, they're unable to plan infrastructure for the future.
Take a ride on a suburban train sometime and see the number of people streaming movies and music or playing interactive games on their smart phones.
And I think this is the point. People in transit is incidental usage. You don't need a 500GB or 1TB limit to be able to watch movies on your phone during transit. When sitting at your desk or at your home, most people are linked via cable or ADSL (or possibly better options, if at work). Sure, a few are via wireless still. But not the vast majority.
If you pick up all these primary methods of linkage and put them over 4G, the 4G network would get crushed.
I'm sure the same was said about gas, water and electricity to most homes, the Sydney Harbour Bridge or the Snowy Mountains scheme.
No doubt it would have been. And it would be quite relevant to notice that the Sydney Harbour Bridge had WAAAY more capacity when it was built than would have been required at the time.
We (and I say we, because collectively "we" voted for it, and we the taxpayers own it) are presently building a three-lane FTTN/HFC Harbour Bridge because we presently have about two and a half lanes worth of traffic. And the "upgrade path" is to build a completely new bridge. Fibre is like building a hundred lane bridge now, for the cost of a four lane bridge.
I'm sure the same was said about gas, water and electricity to most homes, the Sydney Harbour Bridge or the Snowy Mountains scheme.
Those things did what they were supposed to and lasted for decades � the same is definitely not true for FTTN.
That's the problem with modern governments, they're unable to plan infrastructure for the future.
Correct � if they did, FTTN would never have gotten a look in.
You need to get out more because there are plans available for all levels of usage.
LOL, good one Alex. Please point me to the 4G plan that can replace my "unlimited" ADSL (which was a 250Gb plan when I switched to it, then upgraded to a 1000Gb plan for the same price before having the quota removed altogether).
LOL, good one Alex. Please point me to the 4G plan that can replace my "unlimited" ADSL (which was a 250Gb plan when I switched to it, then upgraded to a 1000Gb plan for the same price before having the quota removed altogether).
Vividwireless offers if but very limited area availability.
Yup 4G does not provide all for everyone.
Must be fun when its all chocked up with users though. :0<
Vividwireless offers if but very limited area availability.
They also apply onerous conditions on usage:
Restricting your heavy use
If, in our opinion, your use is so heavy at any time that it will adversely affect the quality of the service received by other customers, we may de-prioritise your access to the network.
Peer to peer file sharing falls into this category. You should be aware that we de-prioritise peer to peer traffic so that it does not adversely affect interactive traffic, such as phone and general browsing services. We recommend that if you are using the network for lawful peer-to-peer activity you schedule downloading to outside peak usage hours, for example midnight to 5am.
A note about ordinary domestic use
Our wireless broadband services are intended for ordinary domestic use. If you use our service to operate a business (and you are not on a small business plan) or connect more than five devices to one service (except for broadband & phone bundle plans and the Unlimited and pre-paid plans which have a limit of one device), we may shape or slow your access to the network or suspend or terminate your service.
We reserve the right to prevent you using our services for commercial emailing purposes.
http://www.vividwi
A '5G' 1Gbps experience may require as little as 30MHz of physical bandwidth.
Care to share what bands they would be and provide a link to the information around that.
A quick google search and I could only find this:
http://www.analysysmaso
and this
http://www.4gamericas.or
Terabytes downloaded in the 3 months up to December 2015
1,673,123 from Fixed line
132,450 from wireless sources
There is even more info in those results.
98% of downloads are fixed line.
Fixed line growth is growing faster than mobile data. (although Pokemon Go may even this out for a month or two)
Total data growth is growing much faster than the Vertigan report (which said if the data growth was faster, FTTP was a better option than MTM!)
This indicates that the two services are complementaty, with only a small overlap in services.
Of course if Optus were to offer an account with a dozen SIMs, all using the same account at a reasonable charge, they could make inroads into the lower end fixed line services. That is not the area they are targeting. Telcos are charging for the advantage of mobility.
Telstra's Air is a more interesting model, which if it becomes wide spread enough could enable them to dominat the market up to and including 5G arrivals. Of course Air would work better if there was more FTTP around. Imagine connecting to Air at your bus stop, only to find that it is you and 6 others connected to someone's struggling FTTN connection.
A '5G' 1Gbps experience may require as little as 30MHz of physical bandwidth.
Over what range, and in what conditions? More than 30bits/Hz is going to need a very clean signal.
Added: if my sums are right, a power SNR of about 90dB.
Actually, mobile networks aim for a very conservative QOS (quality of service) for data services, and 50% limiting or higher is quite typical in busy areas. Backhaul is expensive, so that's usually the limiting resource, even on Telstra's gold standard 4G network.
Soo.. basically what you're saying is most networks at this point are really not utilising "peak/full" usage of the network because..
a) It's being limited
b) It's expensive
Or did I misread that? Because that's pretty much the point I was making as to why the "4g is great" excuse works right now. It's usage is being artificially limited either physically or via the market which results in "less strain" in laymans term of the network because you are arbitrarily forcing low usage.
Streaming 4k video for entertainment is best done at home on fixed broadband, sure, but for everything else 4G is just fine, and mobility is what empowers productive members of Australia's workforce.
Let me know the next time some poor sap has to update all of the companies computers or replace equipment with just a 4G connection. Or am I under the assumption that your saying folks who need the higher speeds or work in fields which require the better bandwidth are not productive members of society as well?
Streaming 4k video for entertainment is best done at home on fixed broadband, sure, but for everything else 4G is just fine, and mobility is what empowers productive members of Australia's workforce.
4G is not fine. As a freqent VPN user and user of applications that maintain a connection state/SQL connection, 4G is problematic. Even low bandwidth fixed line maintains a steady connection better than 4G.
There are a lot of other advantages of fixed line also. Reliability, (with some)QoS, total bandwidth, price are just some.
These two techs only overlap in a small part of the consumer space. The majority of the use case for each is complementary.
Let me know the next time some poor sap has to update all of the companies computers or replace equipment with just a 4G connection.
Tried that once I couldn't even hold a decent connection and it made updating any OS a painful and slow and very annoying experience.
Small data allowance and drop outs hardly fun at all its like having a stroppy toddler to handle your data.
Soo.. basically what you're saying is most networks at this point are really not utilising "peak/full" usage of the network because..
a) It's being limited
b) It's expensive
No, it's actually the opposite.
In a cellular network, user throughput is limited by: radio link resource, number of users, EC/I0, backhaul capacity, etc.
The network planning / design engineer will attempt to maintain a minimum set of KPI's set by the network management team. KPI's include call drops, radio resource congestion and data throughput.
So it really depends on the network provider, and it's a case of getting what you're prepared to pay for.
Let me know the next time some poor sap has to update all of the companies computers or replace equipment with just a 4G connection. Or am I under the assumption that your saying folks who need the higher speeds or work in fields which require the better bandwidth are not productive members of society as well?
OK, so you're arguing for argument's sake.
My point is, that for many, wireless 4G / LTE, and beyond will be more than adequate for their broadband requirements, and it's a matter of fact that not everyone will desire to use high speed fixed broadband.
I don't think anyone disputes the advantages of FTTP into business parks, industrial estates, and residential towers. There does however remain a real and legitimate debate over how best to service residential areas.
In a cellular network, user throughput is limited by: radio link resource, number of users, EC/I0, ...
Indeed. Hence my question about the range and conditions for getting > 30 bits/Hz. For QAM, that's an amplitude and phase discrimination of better than 1/32000 each (for a square constellation).
Dr Shannon, Dr Hartley; meet Dr John.
Dr Shannon, Dr Hartley; meet Dr John.
There's no need for any such meeting because what I describe has already been practically field tested. And fwiw, Shannon's limit is still well beyond the speed horizon.
Oxford definitions are irrelevant in a technical discussion.
Since when is a definition of spectrum auction technical? The division of the spectrum may be technical, but the actual reason for the auction isn't.
It's the reuse (cell density) that's important
Agreed, but there is still a limit on the number of actual connections that can be made, otherwise people would still be able to use their phones in an area involved in a crisis situation:
Sometimes mobile networks can experience temporary outages during natural disasters or emergency situations or they may simply be handling a lot of traffic.
Agreed, but there is still a limit on the number of actual connections that can be made, otherwise people would still be able to use their phones in an area involved in a crisis situation:
And that's a very different and specific situation. Voice traffic bandwidth is insignificantly small in the scheme of things, and it's usually congestion of the access channel, and the resulting noise- rise that creates a call blocking (congestion) condition. Bandwidth and radio resource are often not factors.
There's no need for any such meeting because what I describe has already been practically field tested.
A link to that would be nice. It might even answer the question that you haven't answered: "Over what range, and in what conditions?"
And fwiw, Shannon's limit is still well beyond the speed horizon.
I'm not sure what you mean there, but it's true that practical communications systems will perform worse than the Shannon-Hartley limit. Which means that for 30 bits/Hz, it will need more than 90dB power SNR.
A link to that would be nice. It might even answer the question that you haven't answered: "Over what range, and in what conditions?"
It's an ideal case and a calculated limit, so in practice you'll need more bandwidth. See the link attached in an earlier post.
And, also bear in mind that 4G LTE as we know it is already an obsolete technology.
In mind that NBN is not currently in any rollout plan for my municipality in northern Sydney, by the time NBN in any current or eventual future iteration arrives at my doorstep we may well be one or two LTE generations further advanced, so whether it's copper or fibre may well be a moot point for a great many currently prospective NBN customers.
The great advantage of wireless is that its evolution is not hamstrung by the need to replace expensive or long-life external infrastructure, and since everyone replaces their mobile device every year or two, the process of evolution is seamless.
And that's a very different and specific situation.
It's also the one time you want and need to use your phone... limited.
what I describe has already been practically field tested
It's an ideal case and a calculated limit
So which is it? And if it's the latter, what were the assumed conditions? Even if you do an ideal-case Shannon-Hartley limit, you still have to plug in the SNR. How was that derived?
It's still the same unanswered question: "Over what range, and in what conditions?"
See the link attached in an earlier post.
I can only find one link you posted in the last few days (the article from theconverstion.com), and it doesn't mention anything more than the so-called �gig economy�. Nothing there that I could see about any actual or predicted 5G speeds.
It's also the one time you want and need to use your phone..
The one time in 20 years perhaps. LOL.
The only time I've ever had problems was during New Year's Eve, on Sydney harbour, when everyone attempted to establish a voice call or sms on the stroke of midnight. This wasn't exactly unexpected.
I don't pretend to know what everyone else is doing but I've certainly chosen a slower nbn speed, but only because my RSP simply isn't providing anywhere near the speed I pay for during peak times. There's no point in paying Rolls pricing if you end up with a Daihatsu. If I jump ship, looking increasingly likely, to an RSP that does provide what it claims to sell I will no doubt put the speed back up.
It's still the same unanswered question: "Over what range, and in what conditions?"
Obviously, a range and condition that allowed it.
I'm unable to fathom why the actual detail matters. Obviously, such a RR establishment would require freedom from RF interference and a low path loss radio link. That's a given.
If someone feels the need they're welcome to calculate the thermal noise floor and reverse engineer the radio link. Noise power is derived from T= temperature, K = Boltzman's constant, and B = bandwidth.
I'm unable to fathom why the actual detail matters.
That explains a lot of this discussion. A link that only works at > 30 bits/sec/Hz down the length of a lab bench in a Faraday cage isn't going to be of a lot of use as a general replacement for fixed infrastructure.
If someone feels the need they're welcome to calculate the thermal noise floor and reverse engineer the radio link.
Right. In practical communications, the only noise we need to worry about is thermal noise?
Anyway, Johnson�Nyquist noise only gives you half the SNR and then only if you ignore all the other possible sources of noise.
So we still have the question: "Over what range, and in what conditions?"
The one time in 20 years perhaps. LOL.
The only time I've ever had problems was during New Year's Eve, on Sydney harbour, when everyone attempted to establish a voice call or sms on the stroke of midnight. This wasn't exactly unexpected.
really, well mine has been unusable many more times than once at new years.
but its interesting that just the people on Sydney harbour bridge all trying to send an sms managed to foul up the network so badly. imagine if everyone used this instead of fixed line broadband as you are promoting ? this situation will e an everyday occurrence. probably several times a day.
Look we all agree that 4g is useful and its great to have mobile access anywhere, but most people are 'somewhere' more often than they are 'anywhere' and in somewhere they without exception, tether to a fixed line service rather than use their 4g
http://52.64.243.5/nbnmtm.html
MrMac recently added my town Margaret River for estimated fftn download speeds and yeah there quite a few areas are pale orange because of copper cable lengths in some cases are over 1000 metres to pillar servicing in some of the DA's !
Wouldn't be surpised if Micronodes would be deployed to lift speeds up ?
That explains a lot of this discussion. A link that only works at > 30 bits/sec/Hz down the length of a lab bench in a Faraday cage isn't going to be of a lot of use as a general replacement for fixed infrastructure.
So why is is so important that the radio link supports 30pbs/Hz?
It was me who raised that as a practical limit, based on available power, frequency, bandwidth, and proximity to a cell base.
If you're unable to think from an engineering perspective, it's going to be a very pointless discussion.
So why is is so important that the radio link supports 30pbs/Hz?
Because you claimed that A '5G' 1Gbps experience may require as little as 30MHz of physical bandwidth.
Yeah, and, so what?
So you made a claim and have been unable to substantiate it, as per usual.
I'm still waiting for links to 4G plans that can replace my ADSL Alex...
It's a factual statement.
If it was factual then you'd be able to substantiate it, as well as being able to answer the questions "Over what range, and in what conditions?"
what so you make a claim insinuating that 5g is a viable alternative to fixed line FTTP. When your claim is fleshed out its a theoretical possibility under perfect conditions. When called out you tell them that they are arguing for no reason ?
it seems to me that there is a valid reason,
You can get 1 Gbps over copper too, in an internal network. hell you can go faster than that in a lab with copper, only its not practical to do that in any situation due to the distance limits and the size of copper required makes the cost exercise pointless. much like arguing 5g is a suitable replacement for fttp
It's a factual statement.
It's an ideal case and a calculated limit, so in practice you'll need more bandwidth
So which is it?
what so you make a claim insinuating that 5g is a viable alternative to fixed line FTTP. When your claim is fleshed out its a theoretical possibility under perfect conditions. When called out you tell them that they are arguing for no reason ?
it seems to me that there is a valid reason,
It's a fully spurious reason. If you do the math you'll find that the condition requires a relatively close and LOS proximity to the base station, as expected.
It's spurious because the condition itself is not relevant to the greater question of whether LTE mobile networks will threaten the viability of NBN fixed broadband.
The answer to that question is dependent on knowing what percentage of people will be satisfied with 4G /5G LTE as a fixed broadband product. For high end games or video streamers it may not be suitable based on cost, even if it meets performance requirements, but if it's suitable for a reasonable percentage, which is a not unreasonable assertion, it could potentially be a significant threat to NBN viability.
As I recall, a figure of 70% take-up was assumed desirable for FTTP viability.
This may also be of interest.
ou'll find that the condition requires a relatively close and LOS proximity to the base station
So how many 5G radio installs are required to make it viable?
It's spurious because the condition itself is not relevant to the greater question of whether LTE mobile networks will threaten the viability of NBN fixed broadband
Certainly not in the rest of the world, but here where the connections to the internet are so crippled through legislation and politics, it might be possible for awhile. It won't really matter that much as the looming recession will destroy any chance to fix it for several decades...which is ironic as a proper form of communications on par with the rest of the world is something that might have helped us avoid the majority of the pain we are about to feel.
So how many 5G radio installs are required to make it viable?
You're asking the wrong question.
It's not a question of whether wireless can or ever will replace the proposed NBN. The right question is whether or not wireless networks will erode the projected NBN market share sufficiently to undermine the financial model.
Unless NBN can reach specific targets for take-up and usage, it may not be viable.
.which is ironic as a proper form of communications on par with the rest of the world is something that might have helped us avoid the majority of the pain we are about to feel.
We may share some common ground after all.
I've long been of the view that a national broadband build should have commenced sometime before 2006.
Unless NBN can reach specific targets for take-up and usage, it may not be viable.
Which is why private investors would not touch it and the government created a GBE to do it. May not be viable in the short term but will work out okay in the longer run. I also hear that public transport has never really been viable :)
Which is why private investors would not touch it and the government created a GBE to do it. May not be viable in the short term but will work out okay in the longer run.
Not exactly.
Telstra did have a workable FTTN plan but they couldn't negotiate what they wanted from ACCC.
Personally, it's my belief that with government subsidy for rural areas, it would have been possible to negotiate a PPP deal with Telstra or Optus, or perhaps both, and that would have largely avoided the inevitable and very destructive politicisation.
However, and importantly, Conroy also refused to accept that future wireless would be anything other than very ancillary to fixed national broadband, so right from the very outset, the viability of NBN contains that assumption, and as I recall, from day 1 of the NBNco announcement, Telstra was prohibited via legislation from advertising it's mobile network as a fixed wireless solution.
You can read into that what you will.
I also hear that public transport has never really been viable :)
It isn't which is why trains don't run any faster now than they did 50 years ago.
I think there's probably a message in there somewhere.
As I recall, a figure of 70% take-up was assumed desirable for FTTP viability.
Shame that so few are getting FTTP
This may also be of interest.
not a lot of interest considering that they are talking about 10 GB plans being the price of 100 GB plans are now, and that in 2020, those plans might be 100 GB, by which time you probably get unlimited on nbn for that price.
Mobile broadband just doesn't have the same capability and has much higher OpEx to make it economical as the only broadband network people connect to, or even to eat into a fixed line network to any significant numbers. Your average family of 4 might easily have 4 � 8 mobile connections and only 1 fixed line, BUT when they are near their fixed line they wont be using their mobile, it is JUST for when they are mobile on the whole and that's how comes it actually works, if it was for all the time then it would not be viable unless heavy investment in the infrastructure were completed to support the greater numbers using greater bandwidth. I mean if it was viable why was fibre even brought into the nbn at all ?
It isn't which is why trains don't run any faster now than they did 50 years ago.
I think there's probably a message in there somewhere.
the message should be that the MTM train network ( i.e. cant even agree on a gauge ffs ) turned out to be non viable.
they make great use of trains elsewhere in the world, and lots of them go much faster than they did 50 years ago
You're asking the wrong question.
Just because you're unable to answer it doesn't make it the wrong question.
Telstra did have a workable FTTN plan but they couldn't negotiate what they wanted from ACCC.
Wrong, they had a remonopolisation plan using their existing assets and technologies � that is not in any way comparable to the NBN (or even the MTM).
Personally, it's my belief that with government subsidy for rural areas, it would have been possible to negotiate a PPP deal with Telstra or Optus, or perhaps both, and that would have largely avoided the inevitable and very destructive politicisation.
You could have that belief by ignoring the telecommunications industry in the decade before the NBN began.
You can read into that what you will.
There is only one conclusion � you have been drinking the same Koolaid as Andrew Colley.
and as jxeeno blogged awhiles back -
http://blog.jxeeno.com/giga
FTTP gives the user the option to swap from 25mbps one month to 100mbps the next if required.
It would take me no less than 12 hours to transfer a 500GB raster dataset over a 100Mbps connection to my remote server. With a 1Gbps connection, this would reduce to just over an hour.
In this example � I don�t necessarily need the 1Gbps at all time. Perhaps on average, I need no more than a 25Mbps connection. But the productivity gains in having a burstable connection that can reach gigabit speeds when I need it to can be enormous
They do? I guess I mustn't be 'everyone' then, please don't generalise, I usually hold onto my mobile phones for quite a few years, as do a lot of the people I know.
I still have my Galaxy S4 and have no real desire to upgrade yet. Unless it breaks, gets lost or stolen.
Only thing is different about it is the higher capacity battery.
Most of the money goes towards the car or the computers or other gizmo's.
I really shouldn't call the house a gizmo and especially the trouble n strife. :0>
I'm still waiting for someone to show me recent stats that show users are all choosing lower speeds ?
These are the official stats.
http://www.accc.gov.au
To make it eaasy for you DC, refer to Table 1, AVC class 4. Data current as at 30 June 2016.
10% of FTTN users have gone with speeds over 25/5.
16% of FTTB users have gone with speeds over 25/5.
20% of FTTP users have gone with speeds over 25/5.
As the number of FTTN users increases relative to the number of FTTP users, mathematically there will be an increasing number (both in quantity, as as a percentage) of users selecting lower speeds.
Thus, the statement "NBN users increasingly opting for LOWER speeds" remains 100% correct.
(plot this on a graph and it will looks like a good correlation between "% over 25/5" and the amount of copper left in your internet connection)
Worth noting that right now there are approximately 8 times as many users of FTTP as there are users of FTTN, so based on the trajectory set by the current government, this ratio will drastically alter sometime soon.
(also strangely the cell for 250/100 Mbps, 500/200 Mbps, and 1000/400 Mbps under FTTN is blank � doesn't even have a zero in it like a few other cells)
If you look at AVC class 1 (effectively phone systems) you can see 27% of FTTP users are off the basic single channel, compared to 15% of FTTN users. Which would tend to suggest multi-line phone links, probably businesses. So looks like FTTP is "good for business", which is a mantra of one party or the other, can't remember which...
So basically you would have preferred Telstra to make a private NBN which would have benefited the shareholders, and particularly yourself, so this is your selfish reasons?
Makes no sense. What's a private NBN?
The only way it could benefit shareholders is if people actually used their FTTN product, and that's not possible unless the product is deemed desirable and good value for money.
During the early days of FTTN proposals, there was a paper about the cost upgrading the existing 3G/4G infrastrucure to the capacity to replace existing ADSL. It highlighted that the cost to Telstra alone was over a Trillion dollars.
That figure seems very unreasonable, and I've personally seen a costing from 2012 of less than $6b, but it obviously depends on minimum target DL throughput. The relationship between speed and cost is far from linear.
The radio infrastructure would probably now cost less than $10b, because the hardware is getting cheaper by the day, It's possible to commission a cell for about $100k that serves a 300m radius, so it's definitely viable and would probably cost a lot less than MTM for the same level of performance.
would probably cost a lot less than MTM for the same level of performance.
ADSL2+ costs a lot less than MTM and offers pretty much the same guaranteed level of performance.
"Up to 24/2 Mbps guaranteed"
vs
"Up to 25/5 Mbps guaranteed"
Would you pay $50-$60 billion for the difference between those 2 statements?
These are the official stats
thanks
10% of FTTN users have gone with speeds over 25/5.
16% of FTTB users have gone with speeds over 25/5.
20% of FTTP users have gone with speeds over 25/5.
thanks to you also, for some reason I just couldn't locate these stats.
So from these figures the thing I take from it at first was that I seem to recall there being a target created by the then labor government rolling out 93% FTTP of about 15% choosing the top tier
Now maths was never my strong suit but it seems that
125713 / 865072 * 100 = about 14.5%
seems pretty close, so hows FTTN doing ?
7684 / 102293 * 100 about 7.5% .... hmmm same price for both 100/40 conenctions right ? and we know that not everyone on fttn signed up to 100/40 actually gets that .. so we can assume that several of those will change tier to a lower tier that they can achieve. ( this is from the evidence of tens of whirlpool posters who have signed up to 100/40, been disappointed and then dropped to a more achievable plan )
seems like one technology is more profitable than the other .. add to that the OpEx for FTTN and things start looking very bleak .. so yeah I guess NBN users as a whole will be choosing lower speed tiers because higher ones are not achievable.
ok I stand corrected, evidence given, they are choosing lower speed tiers, but the thread titel is a bit misleading I guess, it doesn't tell the whole story.
its not like this thread title proves Malcom Turnbull right in his assumption that Aussies don't want faster than 25/5. its just that's all he is giving them.
Would you pay $50-$60 billion for the difference between those 2 statements?
It highlights the term fraud in fraudband.
ADSL2+ costs a lot less than MTM and offers pretty much the same guaranteed level of performance.
Well, many including myself will disagree, because I barely get 2Mbps on my ADSL2.
Fwiw, the gazetted minimum is 8Mbps for ADSL2.
well good luck with FTTN then, and at least there is a minimum speed. you have the consumer right ot complain about not achieving that speed.
with your fttn as long as you hit 25Mbps once a day then everything is dandy.
That ok with you ?
The radio infrastructure would probably now cost less than $10b
Really?
1. To make sure that there was enough bandwidth, they would need several towers on each block
2. Each tower requires a fibre connection
3. The aggregate power costs would be huge
4. Repair/Replacement over time would also be incredibly expensive (maybe 50 times that of fibre?)
5. During technology crossover (going from 4G to 5G for example), they would need to have both transmitters available for coverage.
I think $10 Billion/year would be more accurate...
Well, many including myself will disagree, because I barely get 2Mbps on my ADSL2.
And you are in some way happy that the same copper that provides you with this less-than-stellar performance will be used to provide you with FTTN?
Keep in mind it is not just distance to the node. It's also the quality of every aging component in between.
The radio infrastructure would probably now cost less than $10b
That's about the same level of analysis that was done before selecting HFC/FTTN as the dead-end future for 2/3 of our country.
well good luck with FTTN then, and at least there is a minimum speed. you have the consumer right ot complain about not achieving that speed.
I live at the suburb extremity, so I'm a long way from the exchange. Complaining will achieve nothing, so I don't. Instead, I use a 4G modem for when the need arises, but surprisingly I manage fairly well with 2Mbps. Spotify works fine and I can stream low res video without too many problems.
with your fttn as long as you hit 25Mbps once a day then everything is dandy.
Probably sometime after 2020, and maybe as late as 2025. That's the downside of living in a safe federal electorate.
I don't ever anticipate using NBN because evolution of wireless will have made it redundant by the time it's delivered.
Keep in mind it is not just distance to the node. It's also the quality of every aging component in between.
Indeed the last mile copper that counts. My last property on ADSL2+ the line quality was atrocious.
It ended up with no internet connection in the end.
Quality of the CAN is piss poor to say the least.
That's about the same level of analysis that was done before selecting HFC/FTTN as the dead-end future for 2/3 of our country.
Funny isn't it, to think that FTTP was also calculated on the back of an envelope.
Fwiw, the gazetted minimum is 8Mbps for ADSL2
Sorry? The average is 6Mbps...and the minimum (according to what Telstra tells me) is 256 Kbps.
Remember that the minimum is a tricky thing...if FTTN hits 12Mbps for a microsecond once per 48 hours and stays at 1Mbps for the rest of the time, it has fulfilled its "minimum requirements".
Funny isn't it, to think that FTTP was also calculated on the back of an envelope
Only in the imagination of the Coalition spin machine...
FTTP was designed by engineers and presented to the politicians...if they chose to copy the numbers onto a napkin, does it really matter?
Really?
1. To make sure that there was enough bandwidth, they would need several towers on each block
2. Each tower requires a fibre connection
3. The aggregate power costs would be huge
4. Repair/Replacement over time would also be incredibly expensive (maybe 50 times that of fibre?)
5. During technology crossover (going from 4G to 5G for example), they would need to have both transmitters available for coverage.
None of that is close to true,
Firstly, a single existing street pole is capable of supporting antennas required for the coverage footprint.
Secondly, see my previous post quoting cost per installation.
Thirdly, 4G and 5G hardware is the same hardware, apart from additional antennas to provide beam steering.
Sorry? The average is 6Mbps...and the minimum (according to what Telstra tells me) is 256 Kbps.
No need to apologise.
However, you may be interested to know that Telstra policy requires an absolute minimum of 880kbps for an ADSL2 service provision.
Funny isn't it, to think that FTTP was also calculated on the back of an envelope
What nonsense! Next, you'll be saying the internet is nothing more than an overrated video entertainment system.
G plans are expensive and very little data allowances
Yes he seems to forget that 4G plans have tiny amounts of quotas compared to fixed line plans, with fixed line plans many want more than 100-200GB's that 4G plans will never match for a reason.
I still have my Galaxy S4 and have no real desire to upgrade yet.
Only reason I upgraded my LG G3 was because somehow I managed to fracture the screen and destroy the digitiser behind it, that's the first time I have ever broken a screen on a device, prior to that I had my Samsung Google Galaxy Nexus from 2012 to 2015, the G3 from 2015 to 2016 and now the G4 which I do not plan on replacing for several years.
I just don't see the need to upgrade phones every year, only reason I had to go from my Nokia phone (got it in 2004/2005) with the Galaxy Nexus (i9250) was because of a bug in the Symbian OS which meant that every time I got near Perth and my phone discovered more than a couple of towers it would bug out and shutdown, the only way to update the phone was via USB and the USB port on the phone was stuffed.
So from these figures the thing I take from it at first was that I seem to recall there being a target created by the then labor government rolling out 93% FTTP of about 15% choosing the top tier
As I said previously, the target for 100/40 FTTP was 24% by end of July. (Question on Notice 118, Budget Estimates for Communications, May 2015)
As you just calculated, for June, only 14.5% are ordering the service . For reference, in March 15.7% were on FTTP 100/40.
As I said previously, the target for 100/40 FTTP was 24% by end of July. (Question on Notice 118, Budget Estimates for Communications, May 2015)
why did you link to the Mike Quigley speech ? deoes it say that somewhere in the speech ? and 2015 was long after the NBN was change to the MTM any targets set then are not in question right this minute !
As I said previously, the target for 100/40 FTTP was 24% by end of July. (Question on Notice 118, Budget Estimates for Communications, May 2015)
As you just calculated, for June, only 14.5% are ordering the service . For reference, in March 15.7% were on FTTP 100/40.
So Turnbull, Fifield, Morrow, et al have failed yet again � why do you sound proud of that fact, and why do you keep supporting them?
and 2015 was long after the NBN was change to the MTM any targets set then are not in question right this minute !
If you look at the last official Corporate Plan when Labor were in power, about 25% were expected to be on FTTP 100/40 by July 2016. (2012-15 Corporate Plan, reading off the graph exhibit 8-4, pg 64)
100/40 FTTP consumer demand forecasts for this year � made under Labor and the Coalition � are set to be optimistic.
If you look at the last official Corporate Plan when Labor were in power, about 25% were expected to be on FTTP 100/40 by July 2016. (2012-15 Corporate Plan, reading off the graph exhibit 8-4, pg 64)
ok gotcha, would have been interesting to see what the figures we would have if labors plan had kept going because it was right on target up until then
25% were expected to be on FTTP 100/40 by July 2016
It's not that far off, but we'll never know if that target would have ever been reached, will we?
100/40 FTTP consumer demand forecasts for this year � made under Labor and the Coalition � are set to be optimistic.
Forecasts made under Labor are irrelevant when they haven't been in power since September 2013 and the company has been doing everything in their power to not rollout FTTP (and talk down FTTP) since then.
What's a private NBN?
It's an oxymoron, hence your suggestion that Telstra FTTN was a private sector version of the NBN was false.
The only way it could benefit shareholders is if people actually used their FTTN product, and that's not possible unless the product is deemed desirable and good value for money.
Wrong, what you seem to be missing (deliberately or not) is that the Telstra FTTN involved disconnecting all other providers equipment from the copper and forcing anyone who wanted ADSL onto their FTTN (at exorbitant prices).
It's possible to commission a cell for about $100k that serves a 300m radius, so it's definitely viable and would probably cost a lot less than MTM for the same level of performance.
LOL, sure it is.
Fwiw, the gazetted minimum is 8Mbps for ADSL2.
Where on earth did you get that idea from? It's definitely not true in any way.
Funny isn't it, to think that FTTP was also calculated on the back of an envelope.
If you believe that you'll believe anything.
Demand is a definable quantity.
Let me guess this straight � you're saying that demand can be specified by the designer of the network?
5G is capable of 30Gbps.
To hundreds of users on a tower simultaneously? Do you have a source to support that assertion, or is it like your "1Gb may only need 30MHz" claim from yesterday?
If you look at the last official Corporate Plan when Labor were in power, about 25% were expected to be on FTTP 100/40 by July 2016
But these things are not done in a vacuum...if the rollout had continued, that might very likely have been true.
You seem to be under the same delusion that our old buddy Matthew was, that these temporary figure are actually important somehow...
the bottom line is that if there was the same number of fttn csutomers as fttp that fttp would be providing double the revenue , and that's discounting the operational costs of fttn. Fact is there aren't even nearly the numbers on fttn yet after 3 years of government
So one technology costs a lot to run and generates half the income, the other cost comparatively little to run and generates twice the income ...... have I got that about right ?
you believe that you'll believe anything.
Actually Conroy and Rudd dreamt up their plan on the back of a beer coaster / napkin or what ever.
Typical ALP due diligence ie zero
About as good as the claim that FTTP would cost Australia $0.
Funny how it was mentioned as expenditure in the Budget Papers.
Actually Conroy and Rudd dreamt up their plan on the back of a beer coaster / napkin or what ever.
Typical ALP due diligence ie zero
About as good as the claim that FTTP would cost Australia $0.
Funny how it was mentioned as expenditure in the Budget Papers.
what are you talking about ?
The NBN had a very detailed plan actually the initial idea would have started in someones head before it made it to a napkin, before it made it to an executive summary, before it made it to a 50 page policy ... what is your point ?
I'm not sure who claimed that it was going to cost $0 to roll out FTTP
My goodness Robboj... You can't be real?
I'm not sure who claimed that it was going to cost $0 to roll out FTTP
This is probably a [potentially deliberate] misunderstanding of the concept of an 'off budget' organisation that just needs to borrow funds to get off the ground before eventually returning a profit to the taxpayer. And being a valuable asset that we could sell in the future.
Of course, the new NBN will be back 'on budget' soon enough (probably should be there already), and then it really will be a taxpayer liability, with real costs, as opposed to just being a temporary investment loan.
Actually Conroy and Rudd dreamt up their plan on the back of a beer coaster / napkin or what ever.
If you repeat apocrypha as fact then you are either attempting to delude others or simply deluding yourself.
Typical ALP due diligence ie zero
You are confused � the ALP plan went through many, many reviews and audits and escaped unscathed, while the MTM doubled in cost and time.
About as good as the claim that FTTP would cost Australia $0.
Is there a Liberal party newsletter that prints these fantasies for you to repeat?
In fact I don't think I'll move away from my 3G Vodafone Mobile Broadband PrePaid Plan.
The cheapest plan will be adequate for most users.
Once again just like Dr. John, judging others and the greater needs for the future by their own bias, political and selfish interests.
There are many like this, that's why we are in this situation...
http://www.zdnet.com/article
Looks like 25mbps or less in 79.4% of cases on FTTP and 89.1% for FTTN.
(15.1% are choosing 100/40 on FTTP and 7.4% are choosing 25-100/5-40 on FTTN...)
Of course, the new NBN will be back 'on budget' soon enough
I'm not sure this is the case.
The first years have been setting up the transit network, the organisation, etc, but from now on the majority of the investment will be actual access network rollout, and the end user numbers will increase accordingly.
Of course, it will be still an accounting game to make sure the figures add up. The NBN, once the construction stage is over, will then have to more focus on revenue and OPEX, and being a new player on the block (the leapfrog effect), these should be low enough. NBN will always have the advantage of regulation and size to help them out, at least in the foreseeable future.
One would hope that with their economies of scale, inefficient parts would be addressed with a bit more cash injection, and I can't see that coming from the government in any great hurry unless the next few elections are close calls.
But as has been reported recently and historically, things like wireless network competition will alway be a real risk in regards to uptake and revenue loss for the NBN.
The cheapest plan will be adequate for most users.
Still true as evidenced by this thread now being more than 60 pages.
The cheapest plan will be adequate for most users.
Most users (by a huge margin) choose the next level up from the cheapest...
But of course that doesn't matter at all. What is important is the ability of the network to advance and change as demand does. So when that speed is no longer sufficient, users can move upwards easily to accommodate their needs.
At the end of the day, those needs will increase exponentially over time, while the infrastructure takes a decade to fix.
Hmmmm so people seemed to be buying faster speeds on the NBN under Labor and now significantly slower speeds on the MTM under the Coalition.....
Because the fastest speeds available are often lower. I would have got a 100meg speed plan on a FTTH connection as soon as I could, but now at 570 meters and a FTTN planned for next year, I'll be lucky to get more than 50meg. I'll initially sign up for 100, but likely downgrade if I don't get a lot more than 50. I know a lot of other people have done the same thing and it seems logical � I might be one of the lucky ones who gets close to 100, but when I get a boring 4meg ADSL connection I doubt it, and to be honest anything is likely to be faster lol
It seems to be a story which is becoming a part of NBN's history, yet hardly cracking a mention on mainstream media.
Ironically enough it actually *did* start out from the MSM. It was one of the very many smear campaign "exposes" that is now largely forgotten by most folks unless its trotted out as a supposed reason to say the NBN wasn't thoroughly planned, blah blah blah...
Once again just like Dr. John, judging others and the greater needs for the future by their own bias, political and selfish interests.
It's actually amusing seeing this...
I find a majority of folks who say "we don't need this" are usually the folks who either have low/casual use hence lower end plans are perfect for them OR they are the lucky few on a well provided area and everything is hunky dory.
Meanwhile as someone who's been constantly on the short end of the stick my opinion is the complete polar opposite since I've been forced on that glass ceiling so many times before and am loving the new freedom to "upgrade" on FTTP. It's the fact were all aiming for such low glass ceilings that really gets to me at times..
Well it will be a very "interesting" 10-20 years to see how much this MTM will get us before people start whining about the glass ceilings of network speeds again (of course assuming we aren't again programmed to accept low quality connections as has been the norm for ages now =P)
there's a difference between want and need, and the former often gets adjusted smartly when it comes times to paying for it.
there's a difference between want and need, and the former often gets adjusted smartly when it comes times to paying for it.
Why would any rational business care about such a difference? Surely all they care about is whether people will buy what is being sold, whether the consumer "needs" or "wants" it. Why would any business choose a technology that cannot deliver what people are willing to pay for when the same cost could get them technology that can deliver it (and much more, and for decades to come)?
there's a difference between want and need
The need for the economy is to drastically increase broadband speeds so that we can match the rest of the folks on the planet. This is necessary if we don't want to continue having our economy slip...
Why would any rational business care about such a difference?
it's not the business, it's the consumer. they are ones who have to pay for it.
when the same cost could get them technology that can deliver it
since that's not the case it's rather a theoretical only question, but the other consideration is rollout speed. everyone wants it yesterday too, not in 10 years.
don't bother with the same tired old false claims about either not being the case. not interested.
The need for the economy is to drastically increase broadband speeds so that we can match the rest of the folks on the planet.
Especially with such a global future industry, not to mention our declining mining stocks.
We are only at the dawn of the future technology era...Australia will miss the boat.
everyone wants it yesterday too, not in 10 years.
The solution of waiting twice (vs once) lacks logic.
it's not the business, it's the consumer. they are ones who have to pay for it.
But they are not the ones who determine the price...
since that's not the case
At the end of the day, almost every country but us is proving able to deliver gigabit internet at very low prices.
I think any argument that it "won't work here" needs a hell of a lot more proof than just that tired old protestation...
So far I have seen absolutely no evidence that it won't work here.
it's not the business, it's the consumer
You better tell Apple and Samsung that... talk about missing the point entirely.
The solution of waiting twice (vs once) lacks logic.
would you prefer to wait 10 years for any option? that's what a full fibre rollout would mean.
But they are not the ones who determine the price...
they are the ones who determine the government of the day which makes those decisions on their behalf.
we had that choice a few weeks ago.
I think any argument that it "won't work here" needs a hell of a lot more proof than just that tired old protestation...
So far I have seen absolutely no evidence that it won't work here
the only tired protestation is among the people that cannot accept reality when they see it.
not everything is in the public domain, and since the government of the day has made their choice, further discussion is irrelevant.
since the government of the day has made their choice, further discussion is irrelevant
So, we as the public cannot protest any decision the government makes, because they are the government?
that's how it works. yes.
unless you wish to lead a coup to overthrow the democratically elected leadership of the country over your internet connection.
wish to lead a coup to overthrow the democratically elected leadership
There are other less violent ways to sway a governments decision...
would you prefer to wait 10 years for any option? that's what a full fibre rollout would mean
it IS taking 10 years, people WILL have been waiting 10 years and NOT get full fibre by the time its rolled out..
would you prefer to wait 10 years for any option? that's what a full fibre rollout would mean.
10 years waiting for fibre is preferable to waiting effectively 10 years for FTTN plus another 10 years for fibre. Logic. Try some.
the government of the day has made their choice, further discussion is irrelevant.
Pure garbage. So long as speed requirements grow beyond what FTTN is capable of (a given) the discussions will continue until it the network is fixed (that means fibre). Get used to it or exit the discussion.
There are other less violent ways to sway a governments decision..
we had one a few weeks ago, and we'll get another one in three years. for the meantime, the decision is made.
it IS taking 10 years, people WILL have been waiting 10 years and NOT get full fibre by the time its rolled out..
sorry, but the FTTN rollout will be largely complete in 3-4 years. only minor infill will be required beyond that.
10 years waiting for fibre is preferable to waiting effectively 10 years for FTTN plus another 10 years for fibre. Logic. Try some.
deal with it. the decision has been made.
Pure garbage. So long as speed requirements grow beyond what FTTN is capable of (a given) the discussions will continue until it the network is fixed (that means fibre). Get used to it or exit the discussion.
I have no doubt the futile discussion of the same tired old points will continue for some time.
what won't change is what happens.
you need to deal with this and move on.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét