FTTN will work just fine :D

[Uncle Fester]

Just like this bridge... if they thought 75 years ago just like our Government does today.





Photo-shopped (actually Gimped) this just for you Admin to cheer you up and not see this so seriously.


This is a tech minded forum and many tech minded people want a proper NBN and not some half finished job.
It puzzles me that you fight it so much, as in 10 years from now it will would have been generating a massive income due to the exponential speed technology is advancing and demands we
will have on a data network that almost everybody would want to be using.


...but let us, at least, relieve our frustration in those (for you) useless threads.

[Drift]

Agreed. Couple of threads about Cloud technologies about today. With the current infrastructure or the FTTN NBN, the full potential of the subject matter of those discussions simply can't be realised. Being part of an industry that is directly impacted by the limitations of the current infrastructure, I can assure you it's exceedingly frustating. Sure, you can have FTTP at the moment, but you pay a stupid premimium for the initial installation and for unnecessarily mediocre connection speeds.

Just like the pipeline to Perth from the Ord River. Had they done it when it was originally proposed, they wouldn't be spending stupid amounts on desalination plants that will ultimately cost more to run and maintain over their lifetime whilst producing less water.

[marty 17]

Good to see some posts from members that have taken some time to study the merits of FTTN vs FTTH and New Zealand is a good example of initially adopting FTTN and now installing FTTH as a preferred medium.

[Uncle Fester]

Just like this bridge... if they thought 75 years ago... .

Sorry, 81 years ago. After seeing this thread:


It drives me nuts if I get a number wrong, names OK but not numbers
I hate getting old.

[gordon_s1942]

[QUOTE=nomeat;575471
It drives me nuts if I get a number wrong, names OK but not numbers
I hate getting old.[/QUOTE]

You aint on your own there Brother............

Several years ago all the 'Experts' were telling us that
A/ the 'Copper network' was failing along with all the infrastructure and
B/ 'Everybody' was disconnecting their landines and going Mobile.

Now to suit their own agenda, instead of going ahead and replacing the 'Copper Network' with a system that as far as we know has a life and capacity for 'Future Proofing' of many decades suddenly the 'Copper Network' is back in vogue.

And if in fact 'Everybody' is going mobile, why are they bothering with either a FTTH or FTTN network when all they need is to erect towers and go from there?
So long as a Tower is in sight of another they dont need to be connected by cable but by microwave which is cheaper to instal than cable.

And what annoys me even more is that those who originally costed the FTTH network for the Party then in Government is now costing the FTTN network (which they will prove to be 'just as good') for the present Party in Government.

[Uncle Fester]

The problem is not the towers but the limited frequency bands. In more densely populated areas they need to run on many different frequencies. The prices for the licences are pretty hefty and NBN has only two.
If you could have as many frequencies as TV channels, maybe 80 (ditch Freeview, LOL) it could be feasible to have a totally wireless NBN system.
I have no clue who is using the vast spectrum between 2.5GHz and 5GHz and why Government regulators can't simply reserve A HUNDRED frequency bands with 10Mhz each for a reasonable fee, up in that range.
I guess it all politics and greed and maybe ignorance that unfortunately prohibits such a cool solution.


One other benefit would be the liberation from Telstra and their old dodgy pits and ducts, who is ripping off NBNco for a third of the total (originally) estimated cost, although they where mostly built with taxpayers money. Telstra just sat there for years on their profits without maintaining this infrastructure.
Telstra was/is delaying the NBN roll-out with all their might (understandably of course as they will/would loose landline income). Delays = Cost blowout.
Other delays are from teething problems like bad organisation and fibre splicing skills. The latter is solved with experience and I have no doubt the roll-out would have significantly accelerated if it were just that.

Anyhow it looks like the Telstra Lobby has won, as most will still need to keep their snotty* landlines and continue to pay as much as Telstra wants to charge for this 19th century technology.



*The connection from the copper in the pit to your house is done in a snot-box

[ol' boy]

Some good reading.
As much as the newer fibre optics can maintain a huge data flow, i'd suggest it is where people shop with their dollar that will get the most attention.
They are going to have to make the FTTP an attractive and cheap option to curb people away from full mobile solutions.

In the end.... The Market will dictate what happens.

[lsemmens]

Off topic, slightly: The question that should have been asked on day one, why are you paying more for a mobile service than a fixed line? The infrastructure is so much easier to install and maintain than the copper network. Who allowed them to get away with it?

[Uncle Fester]

Ocean, the article doesn't answer why I can't use a large amount of the spectrum between 2.5Mhz and 5MHz.
The range does not have to be that far so the frequencies can be repeated every 10 km or so.
Each individual cell does not need to be that powerful either, as they would only need to span a few hundred meters radius in high dense areas. 10 watts maybe, fairly cheap, far less health risks than a moblie phone blasting 2 watts of microwaves an inch from your brain.
Towers are not necessary for this short range. Just a lot of transmitters on or even in buildings, depending on the density.

Yes some transmitters need to be connected with fibre, but one fibre instead of a few hundred, which may already be existing in metro areas.
Others could use dedicated highly focussed microwave channels to connect with each other, even laser beams if clear line of sight is possible. Probably good for mountain ranges.

[ol' boy]

As i mentioned.... Market Dictates

Mobile is new, fashionable, desirable.... Hence, its priced at what the Market will pay Why see it cheaper, it already reached saturation in record time.
Once everyone has been groomed over to Mobile Comms, it is going to be like a step backwards to introduce a High Speed Fibre network (even if it is faster)
Just like Beta and VHS...... Beta was better, but everyone had moved to VHS.

Clearly Fibre will have a strong role in delivering all kinds of services (it will have to, to even be attractive)
Mobile will have a role too.

[ol' boy]

Ocean, the article doesn't answer why I can't use a large amount of the spectrum between 2.5Mhz and 5MHz.
The range does not have to be that far so the frequencies can be repeated every 10 km or so.
Each individual cell does not need to be that powerful either, as they would only need to span a few hundred meters radius in high dense areas. 10 watts maybe, fairly cheap, far less health risks than a moblie phone blasting 2 watts of microwaves an inch from your brain.
Towers are not necessary for this short range. Just a lot of transmitters on or even in buildings, depending on the density.

Yes some transmitters need to be connected with fibre, but one fibre instead of a few hundred, which may already be existing in metro areas.
Others could use dedicated highly focussed microwave channels to connect with each other, even laser beams if clear line of sight is possible. Probably good for mountain ranges.

That is true.
I just said it was interesting reading, wasn't really trying to answer any particular question with it
Your suggestion is valid, there many potential solutions... I like your idea.

[Uncle Fester]

Off topic, slightly: The question that should have been asked on day one, why are you paying more for a mobile service than a fixed line? The infrastructure is so much easier to install and maintain than the copper network. Who allowed them to get away with it?

If mobile was so cheap it would be totally overloaded because available frequency bands are very limited, not phsyically but due to regulation policies.
This is what drives up the price. Making them scarce, when there is a high demand. It is all about money, money, money....

We would also need different mobile devices for a wider spectrum, that don't exist yet either.

...but I am talking above about an NBN fixed wireless system to home, which would only need to have a simple box that picks up one frequency band and converts the signal directly for the WAN port of the router.

[gordon_s1942]

My remark about wireless was more rhetorical than reality because it too has its short comings as both nomeat and oceanboy point out.
Of the three methods of transmission available, I list the landline highest, followed by Wireless and then Satellite.
By landline I mean anything from a 'wet piece of string' to Optical Fibre.
Each has its qualities and faults which must be weighed when deciding what to use in a location.

[fromaron]

FTTH in current economical situation

[kevin1341]

Hay fromaron that looks like FTTN with those knockers.

[fromaron]

Hay fromaron that looks like FTTN with those knockers.

I insist it's FTTH - observe the speed.

[Uncle Fester]

I insist it's FTTH - observe the speed.

...probably also had to remove the saddle to save cost.

[hogwort]

I totally agree with FTTN. It will be the cheapest in the long run. Bullshite you say. Well we won't have to pay for the hefty price tag for FTTH, we just wait. Copper supposedly has a life span of 40 years & in a damp salt environment where I am even less. So theoretically I will only have to wait another 3 years for the copper to crumble. And what is Telstass going to replace it with??

[allover]

I am 200m to beach and it is just about gone now!

[gordon_s1942]

I totally agree with FTTN. It will be the cheapest in the long run. Bullshite you say. Well we won't have to pay for the hefty price tag for FTTH, we just wait. Copper supposedly has a life span of 40 years & in a damp salt environment where I am even less. So theoretically I will only have to wait another 3 years for the copper to crumble. And what is Telstass going to replace it with??

Copper wont 'crumble' in 3 years time but it could degrade to barely maintaining 'an acceptable Level of Service' over a long period of time and they wont do anything about it until it does fail completely.
And even then depending on the 'Need', you could be supplied with a telephone connection by wireless thats quite satisfactory for normal voice use but not for Broadband.
I have seen this done to a house that had a medical need for a Telephone and the land line failed and couldnt be restored for an acceptable period of time.
Although it was wireless, it was a standard handset connected to a transmitter and was NOT portable.
And I believe that if a section of copper cable did fail and it affected a large number of Customers,Telstass would simply use another copper cable to replace it.
Copper Cables are not going to disappear because of the use of Optical Fibre !!
There is no chance of you going Fibre from the Node to Home if your current Copper Cable fails because you dont have the equipment at the Home to connect the Fibre to.