Telstra's Thodey says Coalition's broadband plan is faster and cheaper than the NBN

[Clay Davis]

Better. Some information.

So again, based on the above. Why fibre to EVERY premises?

Why copper wire to every premises? Why powerlines to every premises? Why roads to every premises? Why does Australia Post deliver to every premises?

I guess it depends whether your view is that internet technology will be as revolutionary as the motor car, electricity and telephone or just a mindless distraction.

 

[Eagle87]

Why copper wire to every premises? Why powerlines to every premises? Why roads to every premises? Why does Australia Post deliver to every premises?

I guess it depends whether your view is that internet technology will be as revolutionary as the motor car, electricity and telephone or just a mindless distraction.

You get I run an outsource business that relies on technology?

In response to about the last 3 posts by you and the other bloke the issues are about threefold.

In the absence of a business plan the whole basis for this spend is "trust us, it'll be awesome" ... "oh, and don't worry about the cost or the quality, a government operated monopoly operator with no business plan will doubtless deliver a product that is always price competitive and cutting edge" ...

As for the ludicrous comparison with, say, electricity - this is nothing of the same. The "electricity" is already available via existing infrastructure which includes Telstra cable and it's also available via wireless. The issue is this "better" or "necessary" new "electricity" or is it a bit of a white elephant? Even in South Korea the case for economic advantage or gain has not been made despite them having what everyone acknowledges as an awesome system. If there is no actual tangible economic benefit and if the "electricity" is already available then one needs to make the case for "new electricity" especially when one can't really afford it ..

This is the upgrad to the 70 inch LED 3D Smart TV from the completely adequate 40 inch flat screen. Shit I'd do it, but I can afford it and I have done my own personal cost benefit analysis....

You guys are basically arguing that based on what might be the case and what this might deliver and what new data eating things may be in play we need to do it... But you won't countenance that other new technologies could render it a white (or white-ish) elephant...

Why do we NEED this in EVERY premises?

 

[Admiral Byng]

Better. Some information.

So again, based on the above. Why fibre to EVERY premises?

It wont be to every premises, only about 90%. The rest will get wireless or satellite. In remote and hard to reach places with low population denisty wireless and satellite will work adequately without too many user overloading the system.

 

[Eagle87]

It wont be to every premises, only about 90%. The rest will get wireless or satellite. In remote and hard to reach places with low population denisty wireless and satellite will work adequately without too many user overloading the system.

So wireless is adequate for certain users ....

Which of course then suggests it might be adequate for a lot more ... But we must fund the cost of fibre to every premises (that's not classed as remote or hard to reach)? And we are doing that because?

 

[Admiral Byng]

So wireless is adequate for certain users ....

Which of course then suggests it might be adequate for a lot more ... But we must fund the cost of fibre to every premises (that's not classed as remote or hard to reach)? And we are doing that because?

.. because you can't progressively upgrade the copper network. It has to be done as a completely new network, completeley separate from Telstra's copper.

 

[Eagle87]

.. because you can't progressively upgrade the copper network. It has to be done as a completely new network, completeley separate from Telstra's copper.

True. Which seems to presume that network is dead and has nothing to offer. Why not leave it there to compete and see if every premises really does need fibre. I mean if it's so awesome and if all these new data eating technologies take off then the NBN will naturally kill off Telstras network and we save, at least, $11 billion...

No?

 

[CM86]

I feel ignored and upset!

 

[Admiral Byng]

True. Which seems to presume that network is dead and has nothing to offer. Why not leave it there to compete and see if every premises really does need fibre. I mean if it's so awesome and if all these new data eating technologies take off then the NBN will naturally kill off Telstras network and we save, at least, $11 billion...

No?

No.

It is not a competitor to Telstra, Telstra will be a customer to the NBN. Other telcos will also be customers to the NBN.

The $11 billion deal between NBN and Telstra sees the sale of Telstra physical assets like conduits and manholes in the street to NBN. The copper wire will be removed, fibre will go in, Telstra will migrate those customers to the NBN. The deal earns Telstra $11 Billion, deals saves NBN having to dig new trenches and manholes in every street, brings the overall cost of the NBN down from $43 Billion to $36 Billion. A win-win situation.

 

[fairdinkum]

I am indicative of an emerging trend. The other poster was suggesting that currently most people still use Internet at home.

My point was and remains that the use of wireless as the main source of data is an emerging trend and using current usage patterns of the majority in 2012 for the basis of a network approach that won't be completed for 10 years may be flawed ...

So we should base our 'network approach' on the usage patterns of Eagle87 (as he is an 'emerging trend') and disregard the fact the vast bulk of data transferred today is, just as it has been for decades, downloaded via fixed line rather than via wireless technologies.

Some logic.

 

[kaysee]

... If Apple make a game changing move into the TV market the way they did with phone and tablet markets, will wireless technology deliver? My argument is that it won't.

Google is also pushing fibre optic in Kansas City. The big tech companies know that fibre for all is the future.

You realise that the BB requirement for IPTV is only 2-3Mbps. Even the NBN Co's own documentation over-estimates it at 4.5Mbps. This requirement is dropping with each improvement in compression algorithms.

You point out Googles decision in Kansas and I'll point out Vodafone in Europe see foregoing FTTx solutions for wireless.

I fully agree we need fibre as the backbone of the NBN. I do however heavily question the need to have fibre to the premise.

If I have a Telstra LTE smartphone, that can be used as a wireless modem, that comes with a 20Mb per month data allowance, delivers speeds of 6-10Mbps d/l and 2-3Mbps u/l, and all for $80 oer month... why would I want to pay for an extra BB service??? Everyone is going to have a smartphone with a data package anyway, so why not utilise it? I can get a Foxtel subscription where the data is unmeteted and I don't use 10Gb of data per month anyway.

The above is just a very plausible scenario that will eventuate within the next 2 years. I'm not saying it will apply to everyone... but definitely enough consumers to dent the NBN Co's profitability and ROI to the govt. Especially considering that it will be available 5-8 years before the NBN is completed.

 

[kaysee]

...

The way the internet world is heading is cloud storage and services. Apple, Google, Microsoft and Amazon all envision a world where they deliver content to you and store your data. That kills the desktop PC, but means that reliable, fast networks are a must. Wireless doesn't deliver that. It never will. The big tech companies know this.
...

Sigh... How can I state this without sounding condescending? You're trying to make seemingly valid points raided from pro-FTTP journos without really considering the full story.

Oh and you're totally misrepresenting wireless technology... actually your ignorant of it.

There are so many holes in your posts/points that I don't even know where to start or if I can really be bothered going through all this again.

 

[Eagle87]

So we should base our 'network approach' on the usage patterns of Eagle87 (as he is an 'emerging trend') and disregard the fact the vast bulk of data transferred today is, just as it has been for decades, downloaded via fixed line rather than via wireless technologies.

Some logic.

Decades?

Another young padawan...

You think whatever you'd like FD but at some stage I'd just ask that you actually think instead of going for cheap slogans and cheap point scoring in most posts.

Perhaps reference some posts by kaysee in this and other threads as you may actually be able to read his without bringing the prejudice to the table that you do with my posts ...

By the way, the emerging trend is clearly the increased use of mobile broadband services. If you see that as no issue that needs to be considered when looking at fibre to every premise then so be it .... You could be signed up to write Conroys business plan with those sort of blinkers ...

 

[MeeSo]

The increased use of mobile broadband largely coincides with the decreased use of dial-up. It's had some impact on fixed line broadband but fixed line subscriptions are still increasing. Of course there's quite a few people who use both services, myself being one of them, so I'm not sure if that skews the numbers. Personally I find mobile broadband completely inadequate for my usage but it's my only option in some situations.

Also our data usage is increasing at a pretty rapid rate. It's basically tripled over the last 2 years. 93% of that data is via fixed line. Wireless can't service that market.

 

[Eagle87]

The increased use of mobile broadband largely coincides with the decreased use of dial-up. It's had some impact on fixed line broadband but fixed line subscriptions are still increasing. Of course there's quite a few people who use both services, myself being one of them, so I'm not sure if that skews the numbers. Personally I find mobile broadband completely inadequate for my usage but it's my only option in some situations.

Also our data usage is increasing at a pretty rapid rate. It's basically tripled over the last 2 years. 93% of that data is via fixed line. Wireless can't service that market.

What is your usage?

I mean "completely inadequate" for what...

 

[MeeSo]

What is your usage?

I mean "completely inadequate" for what...

IT support

 

[Clay Davis]

Sigh... How can I state this without sounding condescending? You're trying to make seemingly valid points raided from pro-FTTP journos without really considering the full story.

Oh and you're totally misrepresenting wireless technology... actually your ignorant of it.

There are so many holes in your posts/points that I don't even know where to start or if I can really be bothered going through all this again.

Erm, you're the one talking about DIDO, which hasn't been proven at any vast network scale. It's interesting technology, but even its evangelists know it requires a fibre back haul. You are self limiting the expectations of the internet to what it is currently used for (current content delivery) and ignoring the expected reach of the internet into all devices. That is, the internet of things. Do you really think an age with robotic cars competing with all content delivered to the home can really be delivered on a wireless network reliably? We're talking systems requiring an always-on, reliable up time.

Wireless evangelists sound very similar to DC evangelists in the current wars.

 

[kaysee]

Erm, you're the one talking about DIDO, which hasn't been proven at any vast network scale. It's interesting technology, but even its evangelists know it requires a fibre back haul. You are self limiting the expectations of the internet to what it is currently used for (current content delivery) and ignoring the expected reach of the internet into all devices. That is, the internet of things. Do you really think an age with robotic cars competing with all content delivered to the home can really be delivered on a wireless network reliably? We're talking systems requiring an always-on, reliable up time.

Wireless evangelists sound very similar to DC evangelists in the current wars.

In the same post you go from stating that DIDO is unproven on a 'vast scale' to an 'age of robotic cars'... you maintain a consitant and unbiased approach now don't you?

 

[Clay Davis]

In the same post you go from stating that DIDO is unproven on a 'vast scale' to an 'age of robotic cars'... you maintain a consitant and unbiased approach now don't you?

DIDO is less proven that robotic cars. At least Google and others have done workable field trials. DIDO is what, a dozen APs and a white paper? Yet apparently it will revolutionise the world into providing exactly what broadband requirements are now.

Do you not see how you are self-limiting your argument by saying the infrastructure that should be built should be based around what current tech uses? What are the needs in 10 years? 20 years? When DC was pushed, it was difficult to scale (like wireless), but was cheap to roll out initially and met the needs of existing devices.

The better technology is fibre. That doesn't mean the NBN is good policy, but it also means the government spending billions on lesser technology is the worst example of picking winners you can think of.

 

[kaysee]

....

Do you not see how you are self-limiting your argument ...

And what is my argument exactly... Please go back ^ read my posts and understand what they are.

You'll find I've made 2 arguments:
- wireless will impact the NBN Cos profitability (and recall that the NBN is a no-budget item, an 'investment' so a ROI is expected).
- you've made a stack of misleading comments filled with holes.

I proudly stand by both arguments.

 

[kaysee]

DIDO is less proven that robotic cars. At least Google and others have done workable field trials. DIDO is what, a dozen APs and a white paper?...

Rearden have performed field trials with DIDO. The main roadblock to DIDO becoming available in the US in 2012 is the lobbyists and red tape required. Rearden are considering advancing it outside the US to fast track its progress, but since they were still hiring more developers in Feb '12 I doubt we'll see much in '12.

As for how wireless propogates perhaps the following will help you grasp a couple of concepts even you should understand:

The following is a direct response to me from Steve Pearlman's PA, just after the DIDO whitepaper was released:

Thank you for your inquiry.

The white paper was intended as an introduction to DIDO, and does not cover most of the functional details of the system.

Regarding your particular question, when there are more concurrent users than DIDO access points, the DIDO system is able to share the available concurrent data rate among all users. It can divide For example, if there is 100 Mbps available in the channel, and 10X the number of user as access points, and DIDO were to divide up the data rate equally, then each user would get 100/10=10Mbps. But, more likely, the data rate would be allocated based on need per user, so some very high data rate users each would be allocated the full 100Mbps, while others might only be allocated 1, 2, or 50 Mbps, in accordance with their needs at that time.

The total available data rate for all users is the channel data rate (e.g. 100Mbps) times the number of access points (e.g. 10), creating a shared pool (e.g. 100*10=1Gbps) that can be allocated among all the users however best suits the application, with the limitation being that each individual user can only receive the maximum channel data rate (e.g. 100Mbps).

I hope that answers your question, and again, thank you for your interest.

Lisa Cohen
Assistant to the President & CEO
Rearden, LLC

 

[Clay Davis]

And what is my argument exactly... Please go back ^ read my posts and understand what they are.

You'll find I've made 2 arguments:
- wireless will impact the NBN Cos profitability (and recall that the NBN is a no-budget item, an 'investment' so a ROI is expected).
- you've made a stack of misleading comments filled with holes.

I proudly stand by both arguments.

You self limit by declaring that a technology (wireless) is superior because its potential in the distant future will meet the needs of what is expected in the current term. Basically, wireless has limitless potential in your view, while the data needs of households and individuals are known and limited.

I know about those trials, that was my reference to a dozen APs. They don't seem to have done much else. In their response to you they don't elaborate on anything more they've done. By way of comparison, autonomous vehicles have clocked up 100,000s of miles. Point is, it is quite likely that the data needs of individuals and devices will expand far beyond current capacities, and the suggestion that a nascent technology with no demonstrable practical use will fill that gap seems a little ludicrous. At least fibre is proven.

BTW, I've seen your posts on Whirlpool. I take it wireless is a little obsession of yours.

I've already made my case on NBN co. My point is they are both bad policies. You're the one supporting a bad policy, not I.

 

[kaysee]

...

BTW, I've seen your posts on Whirlpool. I take it wireless is a little obsession of yours.

I've already made my case on NBN co. My point is they are both bad policies. You're the one supporting a bad policy, not I.

Reading doesn't mean understanding.

 

[Eagle87]

http://royal.pingdom.com/2012/05/08/mobile-web-traffic-asia-tripled/

In just over two years, the share of web traffic in Asia that comes from mobile devices has almost tripled. In fact, in some countries, close to half of all web traffic comes from mobile devices. India is very close to mobile traffic breaking 50% of all web traffic, as are several other countries in Asia as well as Africa.

So we have close on 200% growth in mobile usage in countries in various regions of the world in the last 2 years.

We have the second most populous country on earth with almost 50% of its web traffic from mobile ...

And we reckon we need FTTH? To over 90% of all premises.

If web traffic continues to shift to mobile then surely technology will follow? And, again, no one is arguing that Fibre shouldn't be he backbone but the FTTH model, done the way we are seems a decent chance of being seriously flawed.
Perhaps my earlier anecdotal examples come from being based in Asia, as it seems we are relatively immobile compared to Asians....

 

[The Goon]

http://royal.pingdom.com/2012/05/08/mobile-web-traffic-asia-tripled/



So we have close on 200% growth in mobile usage in countries in various regions of the world in the last 2 years.

We have the second most populous country on earth with almost 50% of its web traffic from mobile ...

And we reckon we need FTTH? To over 90% of all premises.

If web traffic continues to shift to mobile then surely technology will follow? And, again, no one is arguing that Fibre shouldn't be he backbone but the FTTH model, done the way we are seems a decent chance of being seriously flawed.
Perhaps my earlier anecdotal examples come from being based in Asia, as it seems we are relatively immobile compared to Asians....

Or its a good solution for countries with poor existing infrastructure.

 

[The Goon]

From the same blog.

Right now, the countries with the highest share of mobile traffic as part of total web traffic are:

48.87% – India
47.09% – Zambia
44.95% – Sudan
42.36% – Uzbekistan
40.65% – Nigeria
37.95% – Zimbabwe
35.46% – Laos
34.66% – Brunei
31.79% – Ethiopia
29.2% – Kenya

Yep, a who's who of the worlds leading economies.