Reply With Quoteadmin (12-04-13)
Still doesn't fly for me mate.Originally Posted by allover
As a builder I have had friends trying to show me stuff through photos and videos to get advice and eventhough the pics were good quality, nothing beats seeing it with your own eyes there and then. I personally would rather travel to where the specialist is than to have a fix via remote. In extreme cases maybe but that would be an insignificant small part in my eyes.
I'm with knowabit1 on this one, the excuse has been used to death as a pro NBN thing but it's wearing a bit thin.
admin (12-04-13)
The latest reports show that still only 1 in 4 people who have access to the NBN have actually chosen to take it up - and in many of those locations it it still subsidised.
Further, of those people who have connected more than 50% chose speeds of 25mb/s or slower. That's right, 25mb/s or slower.
On those figures alone Turnbull's plan makes sense - and that is before you start talking $$$.
If individuals want FTTH then let the individual pay - but don't force it on the tax payer.
+1
That is my understanding of the Turnbull's plan and I totally agree the plan is much more economically responsible in today economical situation than the labor's plan.
I hear what people say the existing infrastructure maintenance is costing too much money and I don't doubt it. I look at this from another point of view - the more people choose to have fibre to their home the less load will be to the copper. Less load will cause less spending - this is inevitable.
Plus, as soon as economy improves more people will be able to afford the fibre so the total FTTH will happen eventually anyway with much less stress for the economy.
Last edited by fromaron; 11-04-13 at 08:39 PM.
Most people I know wait at least 2 or 3 months to see a specialist, if you were scheduling in surgery with a specialist I find it hard to believe you would schedule it in for 2 or 3 months later to carry it out remotely
My question is the proposal by Abbott/Turnbull of Fibre to a terminal and copper from it to the home basically the same as the current ADSL or an updated version of it and if it is similar to ADSL in any form, does distance from this terminal/Node what have you mean you may not get any service if your too far from the terminal as happens now with ADSL??
Also I was on the understanding that the NBN was to be supplied in three ways, Fibre in populated areas, Wireless or Satellite depending on the area so if thats the case, its certainly not 'Fibre to Every Home'.
I stand unequivicably behind everything I say, I just dont ever remember saying it !!
If this is in fact even a realistic option at the moment, it seems to be easily dealt with by way of a fast connection for the local hospital only. I too think this argument is a furphy.
I, like others, don't want to get into a political debate. I would love fibre to my home at a reasonable cost. If it only goes to the node I would certainly look at paying for fibre from the node myself, if I can afford it at the time and it is feasible.
I have not looked in any detail at the Oppositions plan. But let's face it, the implementation of the NBN has been disastrous. There have been no proper audited costings right from the beginning, and the Government's estimates continue to blow out as time progresses. I think the latest figure I heard for the full NBN was about $40 billion. Personally, I would not be surprised to see anything up to about $90 billion unless some sanity is injected into the process soon. Further, whichever side builds it, the NBN will have a monopoly on the new fibre network. That will be bad enough. Heaven help us when it is privatised, which seems to be the plan at the moment.
I really would like to have seen the opposition policy prior to the election been to have the costings properly audited, and look at the best options from that time and that state of completion. I would also like to see plans for such an essential piece of infrastructure remain under Public Control in the long term, perhaps with wholesale prices ultimately set to make a limited profit to fund maintenance, expansion etc.
It is sad that the NBN was floated as an election promise and became such a political football. Had there been a bi-partisan approach perhaps we could have ended up both with value for money and an excellent network. I just hope that we can still get close, but fear that we will not.
Heres some questions plagerised from another posting
Please answer in order and i will mark the answers
Last Tuesday, Australia's coalition announced its alternative national broadband network (NBN) plan, offering fibre to the node as the dominant mode of delivery.
The plan appears comprehensive, but like any such document, it doesn't answer every conceivable question.
With an election fewer than six months away, El Reg's Sydney desk has had a lash at a few lines of questioning we think could usefully be answered as Australia's taxpayers try to consider the new plan and the government alternative. We're chasing up a few, and have left off a couple we think might make for good stories all by themselves. For now, here's what we'd like answered. Do you have questions too?
Without any further ado:
What percentage of Telstra's current copper is fit to serve as a connection for an FTTN network? What percentage will need to be replaced to enable FTTN? What percentage needs to be replaced each year? Does the Coalition's NBN plan include the cost of such replacement, for initial build and then maintenance?
What will be the criteria for replacement of degraded copper?
Malcolm Turnbull's presentation suggested FTTN nodes be built to enable future FTTP build. Has analysis been undertaken of the likely future cost of this overbuild, versus the cost of the current universal FTTP build?
Coalition policy suggests there is no domestic demand for fast internet because current applications don't need it. Does FTTN therefore create a self-fulfilling prophecy, by locking Australia into speeds that do not encourage development of applications that use more bandwidth?
Regarding the last question, how well do Coalition assumptions about demand for fast broadband stand up if Facebook were to introduce video chat, a comfortably-foreseeable innovation that would likely increase demand for domestic bandwidth? What if department stores offer virtual shopping combining 4K video and haptics? That's a little more pie in the sky, but the point remains it's not hard to imagine applications that would make 25Mbps look a little lame
How does the coalition propose to extract 25Mbps performance from hybrid fibre coax, when many users report it seldom achieves that speed and is unreliable?
How can the Coalition guarantee 2016 completion of universal 25Mbps coverage when so many variables - Telstra negotiations and local government approval for FTTN cabinets, to name just two - have not been scoped?
What's the price going to be for user-pays FTTP? Let's not just assume BT's prices and the exchange rate hold, please!
How can the coalition state with such certainty that optical fibre may be superseded and it is therefore not worth building with it? Is the coalition aware that fibre is already envisaged as the medium for terabit ethernet? If so, is the coalition aware of any other medium likely to exceed that future headroom?
There is a fine line between "Hobby" and "Madness"
I CBF'd spending all day typing a post on all this as I have no doubt said it before. Facebook video chat ? People use Skype all the time, whats the difference ? My son is on skype every night for hours, last night I streamed a new release movie in 1080P at the same time. No problems. Half of the scenarios that get posted are ridiculous. Most of my TV viewing is via live streaming. Sometimes its on multiple TV's. I have ADSL2 and I am 4 kms from the exchange.
Its a bit like the so called "medical miracles" we are going to experience under the NBN. My doctor recently told me they have had the ability to online consulations and have had for years. Why doesnt he use it ? No one else does because most think its stupid and nothing beats a face to face consultation.
Yesterday I tried looking for NBN latest for my area. Estimation : At least 15 years ! And thats on the Mornington Peninsula, not far from Melbourne at all. If that doesnt show the extent of the ballsup so far, I dont know what does. At least its likely Labor will be booted from power and I will see it sooner than that.
If we end up with a plan that involves paying for your own fibre to your door from the street, its not the end of the world. If it saves a decent amount of money and gets the service available to people faster, do it I reckon. Those that are happy with copper to house dont have to do anything and they dont have to subsidise every one else.
lsemmens (12-04-13)
Yesterday it was announced that for the first time in 15 years a major Central West of NSW now has a resident Oncologist.
Until now they have been using a video link for some consultations which everyone agrees isnt as good as having face to face consultations but beats having nothing at all requiring already sick people to travel many hours to see the specialist.
Also there are other specialists who service a number of towns who FLY in to treat patients because they are Sydney based.
While your doctor may not see the need at his surgery being within spitting distance of available specialists and major hospitals, try chucking him out a couple of hundred K's where it is HOURS or even DAYS before a patient can be seen by a specailist and suddenly a video link isnt quite as frivolous an option as he/she currently considers it to be.
That along with a number of small towns who havent been able to attact a doctor to work there.
Regretably people must live and work in Rural areas to feed the cities where services abound but more often do so at the expense of having far fewer services provided.
I stand unequivicably behind everything I say
How many remote households are in Australia that will benefit from the fibre to home? What is wrong with the idea to have them connected to the fibre directly?
If they can't afford it then it might be a good idea to have the installation subsidised based on their means test. Maybe this will be a good working solution for NBN rollout?
Are they having an audit or a cost benefit analysis to see what the state the copper is in? I reckon alot of it would be poor workmanship when making joinsHeres some questions plagerised from another posting
Please answer in order and i will mark the answers
Last Tuesday, Australia's coalition announced its alternative national broadband network (NBN) plan, offering fibre to the node as the dominant mode of delivery.
The plan appears comprehensive, but like any such document, it doesn't answer every conceivable question.
With an election fewer than six months away, El Reg's Sydney desk has had a lash at a few lines of questioning we think could usefully be answered as Australia's taxpayers try to consider the new plan and the government alternative. We're chasing up a few, and have left off a couple we think might make for good stories all by themselves. For now, here's what we'd like answered. Do you have questions too?
Without any further ado:
What percentage of Telstra's current copper is fit to serve as a connection for an FTTN network? What percentage will need to be replaced to enable FTTN? What percentage needs to be replaced each year? Does the Coalition's NBN plan include the cost of such replacement, for initial build and then maintenance?
What will be the criteria for replacement of degraded copper?
Malcolm Turnbull's presentation suggested FTTN nodes be built to enable future FTTP build. Has analysis been undertaken of the likely future cost of this overbuild, versus the cost of the current universal FTTP build?
Coalition policy suggests there is no domestic demand for fast internet because current applications don't need it. Does FTTN therefore create a self-fulfilling prophecy, by locking Australia into speeds that do not encourage development of applications that use more bandwidth?
Regarding the last question, how well do Coalition assumptions about demand for fast broadband stand up if Facebook were to introduce video chat, a comfortably-foreseeable innovation that would likely increase demand for domestic bandwidth? What if department stores offer virtual shopping combining 4K video and haptics? That's a little more pie in the sky, but the point remains it's not hard to imagine applications that would make 25Mbps look a little lame
How does the coalition propose to extract 25Mbps performance from hybrid fibre coax, when many users report it seldom achieves that speed and is unreliable?
How can the Coalition guarantee 2016 completion of universal 25Mbps coverage when so many variables - Telstra negotiations and local government approval for FTTN cabinets, to name just two - have not been scoped?
What's the price going to be for user-pays FTTP? Let's not just assume BT's prices and the exchange rate hold, please!
How can the coalition state with such certainty that optical fibre may be superseded and it is therefore not worth building with it? Is the coalition aware that fibre is already envisaged as the medium for terabit ethernet? If so, is the coalition aware of any other medium likely to exceed that future headroom?
I will not start too much on video chat, if people want to see every zit on somebodies face through facebook the user or facebook can pay for it instead of the taxpayer subsidizing facebook's business model.
If the consumer wants faster they can pay for it, it is not rocket science.
All these people just want something for nothing
lsemmens (12-04-13)
The problem is though that it is not 'something for nothing' - that is what people need to realise.
It's a network that will is likely to cost $90 billion to build over decades and will take generations of Australians to pay off. Certainly not free.
The worst part of this whole matter is we have two opposing sides DEBATING which system is better.
It is One sides objective to present nothing but 'Positives' of their proposal and the other side to Oppose it as vigorously as possible.
While neither side is lying in their presentations but neither are they telling the whole truth as there are always 'Grey Areas' in any proposal.
Politicians are consummate Debaters as most Lawyers are as it forms part of their stock in trade.
It is not the one who know the Law best but presents their version of the Law best that wins the day.
If you could peel Malcome Turnball away from Tony Abbott and because he isnt a politican but a Banker and a good manager and ask him what he would invest in for the future of Australia (NBN or Not), I think his answer would be the one I would take very seriously indeed.
Last edited by gordon_s1942; 12-04-13 at 08:39 PM.
I stand unequivicably behind everything I say
I probably should of said people want the taxpayer to pay for it
I used to live and work in telecommunications in remote OZ (last century) Fibre to the node is all that is really necessary to give the average user a reasonable internet service. I now live in a rural community with ADSL2 on the copper network and it is certainly up to the task for me. If you need FTTH then be prepared to pay for it. Remote communities used to have a reliable telephone service provided by the Government (in the guise of PMG, Telecom, etc) When "privatisation" came in, telstra had their hands tied behind their back. How many of you in business for yourself would permit a competitor to cut into your territory by letting him use your infrastructure which is exactly what happened. None of this "competition" will service rural and remote areas without a good return on investment. The copper network was maintained up until privatisation and did not generally have any major problems, barring mechanical cable locators etc. Since every dog and his man has "maintenance" access to the network now, it is a dogs breakfast and one that I'm glad that I am out of. Yes, FTTN should be a national infrastructure project, beyond that, copper to the premises should also be pre-requisite with facility to provide FTTP if requested with one exception.... All new housing developments should be provided with FTTP as a pre-requisite by the developer.
borisbadfinger (13-04-13),DB44 (13-04-13)
I am replying to isemens post but cannot use the quote facility so I cut and pasted in stead
I used to live and work in telecommunications in remote OZ (last century)
I also did .
Fibre to the node is all that is really necessary to give the average user a reasonable internet service. I now live in a rural community with ADSL2 on the copper network and it is certainly up to the task for me.
I live in an urban area and I am stuck on a 1.5Mbps Adsl1 service.
If you need FTTH then be prepared to pay for it. Remote communities used to have a reliable telephone service provided by the Government (in the guise of PMG, Telecom, etc) When "privatisation" came in, telstra had their hands tied behind their back. How many of you in business for yourself would permit a competitor to cut into your territory by letting him use your infrastructure which is exactly what happened. None of this "competition" will service rural and remote areas without a good return on investment. The copper network was maintained up until privatisation and did not generally have any major problems, barring mechanical cable locators etc. Since every dog and his man has "maintenance" access to the network now, it is a dogs breakfast and one that I'm glad that I am out of.
I wish I was still a faultman on contract finding locating the fault, restoring service and throwing the cable into a plastic bag and back into the bottom of a pit.
Who will pay to have the copper (last mile) restored to a usable condition for FTTN ??
Yes, FTTN should be a national infrastructure project, beyond that, copper to the premises should also be pre-requisite with facility to provide FTTP if requested with one exception.... All new housing developments should be provided with FTTP as a pre-requisite by the developer.
Why not just give them copper as Fibre to the node also is all that is really necessary to give the average user a reasonable internet service
Quick reply to this message
Last edited by marty 17; 13-04-13 at 07:36 AM. Reason: Typos
Sounds like you agree with me there, marty.
As a contractor, If my contacts tell me true, you are paid a set amount per fault, so, if it's a quick fix, you win, but........ As to the "last mile" typically much of that is in jacketed "plastic" insulated cable and not paper, so fault incidence is much reduced. Back when I was in FDC co-ordinating cable relocations etc, a "main" Pair change usually rectified a cable fault, rarely was there a fault in "0" pairs. Of course with the cowboys out there now, who knows. As I implied, since selling off the network, there is little incentive to anyone to keep it running smoothly for their opponents. This is the main reason all of my telecommunications needs are kept with Telstra, not because they are any better than the opposition, but because, ultimately, the buck stops with them. I can ring up and say "it's broken, go fix" and they cannot then say have you "checked with your supplier" who says "telstra's problem" who then says.......you get the idea.I wish I was still a faultman on contract finding locating the fault, restoring service and throwing the cable into a plastic bag and back into the bottom of a pit.
Who will pay to have the copper (last mile) restored to a usable condition for FTTN ??
Yep...exactly why I stay with them...it has saved me so much hassle over the years
I have never been able to work out why joins in pits stuff up in the telecoms industry but in the electrical industry there are submersible pumps which have their joins submersed in water still going strong after 20 + years.
Is it a workmanship issue as with Isemenns post (37) it seems the job does not get done properly
Because electrical industry is driven by engineering principles unlike telecom industry by politicians.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks