| Comments on: Why Fibre to the Premises is not “Nation Building” |
|
| |
|
Add your comments, thoughts, critisisms and support. Any publically offensive content will be sensored by the moderator.
|
|
| Todd [2010-08-17 17:11:31] |
| "Thats good enough for most people and businesses Todd is referring to" Which is most people. So why build an NBN for "gamers"? |
|
| Jimara [2010-08-17 17:04:27] |
| As I said - It'll be right up there with other world class leading networks. If you're going to build a network, do it right. NBN is exactly that. Wireless users who like to sip latte's and play with their iphones while waiting for their friend to arrive can use the existing lame wireless network. Thats good enough for most people and businesses Todd is referring to. |
|
| Todd [2010-08-17 09:16:29] |
| "IT WONT cost $100/ month" it will for 100Mbps, which is what the Government is advertising. The Government themselves stated the wholesale price will be between $50 and $70. Add retail on top and it will actually be higher. You will actually find that NBNCo will have to run at a loss for quite a long time, in order to try and attract more people to the network. But don't worry everyone, because with Jamm's economic knowledge we'll all be safe when NBNCo *writes it off* somehow and continues to cut rates. They'll just pretend that the $43bn debt never happened. |
|
| Todd [2010-08-17 09:04:13] |
| Most businesses and gamers do fine today. What businesses do you suggest need faster internet? Retail outlets? Hairdressers? Car dealers? Coffee shops? Supermarkets? Dairy Farmers? Milk bars? Joiners? Plumbers? Symphony Orchestras? Taxi Drivers? Football Clubs? Dentists? I could go on. I'm sure they wouldn't complain, but it would have to be affordable. And "Gamers" Jamm? You really think all of Australia's taxpayers want to spend their money so you can have more fun? You know there are more pressing issues at stake in the world. Health, Housing, Drought, Drug Addiction, Crime. Sure let's improve our communication, but lets do so economically so we have money to spend on the important issues. |
|
| Jimara [2010-08-17 07:22:50] |
| Wireless cheaper alternatives are what the * iphone users are screaming for. But REAL internet users, businesses and gamers need ultra fast fibre with low latency these days. Wireless is just not going to cut it. We need this fibre network and it's costing so much because it's premium hardware and by the end of it, will be one of the best built networks in the world. Something to be proud of. |
|
| Jamm [2010-08-16 20:07:09] |
| Todd, I am going to say, IT WONT cost $100/ month. Are you dead stupid? Go back to highschool and learn that prices go down. It's only expensive because there aren't many users on it. |
|
| Bill [2010-08-15 21:10:51] |
| 1. Its a hugely expensive Govt monopoly proposal to try to distract from past pink bats & Taj Mahal disasters. 2. Its a hugely expensive socialist proposal that nobody but geeks want. 3. The Gillard Govt is proposing to replace Telstra copper with its short life NBN fibre so your phone would not work in a power outage. Blow a fuse and have no way of phoning for help, HA! 4. People do not want it even if it were free. It is totally uncommercial. If you click on a 1 GB/sec video it would cost you about $20 so why would you want it unless you were prepared to pay heaps for that speed - therefore it is unwanted in most homes.
Need I go on? |
|
| Todd [2010-07-28 14:50:13] |
| I'm not arguing against speed. I'm arguing about the way the government is going about achieving it. 1) At a high cost, 2) Trying to justify it by calling it a "productivity" booster, 3) In turn calling it nation building.
I certainly concede that the Nation Building argument is one of the weakest ones, probably wrong. However it still is an article to prompt thought. |
|
| Nathan [2010-05-06 18:51:18] |
| Man, I cant believe that people would argue against getting up to speed with the rest of the developed world. Also wireless faster than fibre :O, rightyo.... its amazing what people will believe. The NBN is the best thing since sliced bread and will allow huge benifits above and beyond what we are currently considering. |
|
| Nathan [2010-05-06 18:50:56] |
| Man, I cant believe that people would argue against getting up to speed with the rest of the developed world. Also wireless faster than fibre :O, rightyo.... its amazing what people will believe. The NBN is the best thing since sliced bread and will allow huge benifits above and beyond what we are currently considering. |
|
| Todd Hubers [2009-07-20 16:20:25] |
| "For any decent subscription [your] looking at around the $80 mark". Well I'm getting, 66GB for $45 a month at the moment, what do you do on the internet that needs more? And that $80 figure just enforces my suggestion that affordability is a problem today. An NBN should effectively decrease prices while increasing speed and volume. The proposed NBN does not achieve that. Wireless can most certainly deliver the required speeds, other alternatives also exist as well which can also deliver the required speeds. But we have no choice, and if it costs $80 for a "decent subscription", $100 is a lot more, for those who can't even afford $50 / month. The NBN FTTP plan will only disadvantage low income earners. |
|
| [2009-07-20 13:31:00] |
| Lol..
If you look at a lot of ISP packages now a days, for any decent subscription you looking at around the $80 mark. What is $100 compared to that.
Not only this, FTTP allows for other services such as IPTV, VoIP, VidConferencing, multicasting, etc.. which would just saturate a wireless network.
Yes, they are all available now on your current internet connection, but quality and content is severely limited.
Also, wireless speeds do not even come close to the speeds available with Fibre.
Note that for wireless you will need to use a licensed spectrum in the right frequency to get the best benefit. Which at the moment has already been sold off. Current spectrum that is left although can be used, are severely affected by objects requiring even more LOS. Also note that there is quite a bit of mountainous terrain which could limit the deployment.
|
|
| Todd Hubers [2009-07-13 17:47:46] |
| Hi Russel. I wouldn't mind Fibre either, but the fact remains that at $100/month, everyone can't afford it. Besides, alternatives don't just include wireless, they also include FTTN with VDSL2+ last mile, backhaul only. Also FTTP PON is a dead end technology and other countries will be using GPON, it's likely australia will also go for GPON, but that's even more expensive. Even then Active Optic networks are the ultimate and future proof. |
|
| Russell [2009-07-13 14:47:56] |
| I oppose this site because I don't want wireless - I want fibre. It's faster and more reliable. |
|
| Todd Hubers [2009-07-11 20:24:19] |
| OECD recommends that government not meddle with the last mile. That aside, PON is a severely limited implementation of FTTP. Active optical networks are forward thinking - however neither of these are affordable. OECD also recommends cost benefit analysis which the gov. hasn't done. A WiMax or LTE tower use point-to-multipoint access, and narrow Radio Frequency. There are many other versions of wireless, including Ultra Wideband, Free Space Optics exist. Also when any of these technologies are used in point-to-point access, you get the full bandwidth and no interference. Point-to-point is best arranged in a mesh topology. Fiber optic PON can be considered as point-to-mutipoint, sharing 622Mbps DL between 128 users, active optic networks are point-to-point. The only differences between wireless point-to-point and fiber optics is no fiber, shorter link distance, line of sight and more affordability, the bandwidth is the same. So wireless can have the same capacity as a wired medium and what's better, it's more cost effective. |
|
| Peter [2009-07-11 18:08:07] |
| FTTP is forward thinking, how can you suggest that wireless will meet our internet needs/desires in 10,20,50, 100 years time? No, wireless will always be a token option for mobile connectivity. Wireless can never have the same capacity as a wired medium.
As far as I can see, the only way a site like this could ever be justified is if a technology like that described in "The Light of Other Days" Arthur C Clarke + Stephen Baxter already existed and wasn't being put to use. |
|
| Todd Hubers [2009-07-07 09:29:21] |
| And why would that be Steve? |
|
| Steve [2009-07-06 18:25:55] |
| This website is a waste of space. |
|
