Why the NBN needs to go the full way • Hacker News Board

Re: Why the NBN needs to go the full way

#31

Post by pugz » Fri, Sep 06, 2013, 6:07 AM UTC

retrogradeorbit wrote: post #27

pugz wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true, but light only travels at ~0.67c in a fibre optic cable. That's why I mentioned that fibre optic cables and copper wires are not vacuums.

According to wikipedia, electric field propagation through unshielded copper is 0.95c to 0.97c. Electric field propagation through standard coaxial cable is 0.66c.

Hence why zmmmmm was incorrect about the speeds: electricity in the copper wires is travelling faster than light in the fibre optic cables. zmmmmm didn't mention drift velocity, but that wasn't really related to his point.

Re: Why the NBN needs to go the full way

#32

Post by threeseed » Fri, Sep 06, 2013, 6:07 AM UTC

jacques_chester wrote: post #19

zmmmmm wrote: post #7

I'm not sure that is all accurate (umm, light and electricity travel at the same speed ...), but I agree with the central idea: fibre is the next generation of technology, copper is the last. We can fully expect that just as massive speed increases were achieved on copper, so too will they be on fibre. Gen 1 of fibre is already 10x better than the last generation of copper - how much better will generation 2, 3, 4 be…

Part of the problem is how badly it has been planned and managed from the very beginning. How fast is the actual rollout? We don't know. Commercial-in-confidence. And NBNCo say they don't keep figures down to the street level anyhow (which begs the question of which basis they are using to pay contractors). How much has already been borrowed? We don't know. Commercial-in-confidence. How much has been spent? We don't…

I am so sick of this obsession with cost/benefit analysis.

How can you possibly quantify the future benefits of the NBN ? Nobody could have predicted that when the copper lines were installed that one day it would be primarily used for the internet. And the historic changes to the world economy it has caused. So why even attempt to do it ? Or why not just say it will cost $50 billion but result in $500 trillion worth of benefits.

Re: Why the NBN needs to go the full way

#33

Post by Wingman4l7 » Fri, Sep 06, 2013, 6:08 AM UTC

cpayne wrote: post #6

I always thought it was a silly argument until I was using my laptop in London. Getting 20 meg downloads just blew my mind away. For me, it changed everything. (Non technical) friends just didn't bother with torrents anymore. It was easier for them to download a movie legitimately instead of all the mucking around...

Also, if you mention the existence of ISP broadband caps, on/off peak traffic caps, shaping, overage fees, etc. to someone in the US, they'll probably look at you like you're crazy.

Although then they have to deal with secret caps on "unlimited" plans which you aren't told about until you hit them and the ISP berates you for it and cuts off your service -- Google "Comcast caps".

Re: Why the NBN needs to go the full way

#34

Post by Wingman4l7 » Fri, Sep 06, 2013, 6:09 AM UTC

jacques_chester wrote: post #15

schappim wrote: post #8

The most cost effective thing the Australian government can do to better the experience of Australians is to subsidise hosting in Australia. The cost of hosting a server in a data centre is 2-3x the US. If you've ever been in San Francisco you'd have experienced how all the web services feel like they're running on localhost!

Last I checked, Australia only has a few international pipes operated by a cost duopoly. All traffic is charged at high rates because it can go over those very expensive lines to the US, Guam or Singapore. All it means is that the NBN will be expensive unless and until a third player enters the market ... and doesn't get immediately bought out.

Duopoly? Who, besides Telstra, owns pipes? Optus?

Re: Why the NBN needs to go the full way

#35

Post by NamTaf » Fri, Sep 06, 2013, 6:12 AM UTC

The problem with the NBN is that Labor has, like so many other of their policies, sold it beyond terribly.

It's about 2 things, and neither are raw download speed.

1) It's about upload speed. That's the major upgrade that we don't see right now. As the net moves towards more and more user-generated content (youtube, dropbox file relocation, etc.) it's going to be upload speeds that are the Achilles heel of these technologies working.

2) Related to #1 and perhaps even more importantly, it's about leveling the playing field. Right now, if you design an online service you have to assume someone has DSL at 1.5Mb/sec down, as that's the minimum guaranteed DSL connection.

You can't assume people can stream HD. You can't assume people can move multiple GB of data down in a reasonable time, or even hundreds of MB up in a reasonable time. All of these assumptions play a crucial role in what online services can deliver in this country.

It would be as if some new technology came along for our road network that allowed people to drive safely at 500km/hr but there's also a cheaper alternative that allowed travelling at 200km/hr, then focusing on whether we need to be able to drive at 500km/hr or 200km/hr over our existing road network to get to work or not. That's completely missing the point. The thing that a 500km/hr road network allows you to do is completely change how and where towns are constructed.

Suddenly, traveling from Sydney to Melbourne by road is trivial, rather than a plane trip as it currently is. People can live in Newcastle (for non-AU people, a small industrial satellite town of Sydney) but work quite conveniently in Sydney, changing the game for the real estate pricing problems Sydney presently faces.

The problem is that people are extrapolating present-day experiences to this new tech and that is completely missing the point. Doing what we currently do, only faster, is about 1% of the puzzle. The overwhelming majority of the advantage comes about from completely changing the landscape on what online services can do, what they can assume, and how they will go on to affect what will undoubtedly be a huge array of facets of our day-to-day life.

When we upgraded from 56k dial-up to DSL, it wasn't about loading animated spinning wireframe skull gifs from Geocities faster. It was about being able to stream audio and (eventually) video. The landscape changed and suddenly Netflix/YouTube/etc. became possible.

Re: Why the NBN needs to go the full way

#36

Post by pugz » Fri, Sep 06, 2013, 6:12 AM UTC

40 wrote: post #29

The difference between the two policies is ideology. ALP wants everyone to have same speeds regional/city, rich/poor, home/business. ALP wants fairness - this is their guiding ideology as a party in general. This obviously comes at an additional cost, scope and risk (lack of competition, cost-blowouts, etc.). NLP is just less concerned with fairness and more concerned with cost/benefit even if that means that some pe…

To be fair, the LNP has a reputation for concern re: cost/benefit analyses, but that has not carried over to their VDSL proposition. The ARPU (average revenue per user) possible on a VDSL network is far less than on a FTTP network (no multiplay, a cap on higher speeds, etc) and this lesser ARPU is not commensurate with the marginally cheaper LNP proposal.

If the ratio of ARPU to rollout costs were equal, it would be an issue. The issue is that a VDSL network would not be able to recoup the construction cost proposed by the LNP.

Re: Why the NBN needs to go the full way

#37

Post by pugz » Fri, Sep 06, 2013, 6:13 AM UTC

Wingman4l7 wrote: post #34

jacques_chester wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last I checked, Australia only has a few international pipes operated by a cost duopoly. All traffic is charged at high rates because it can go over those very expensive lines to the US, Guam or Singapore. All it means is that the NBN will be expensive unless and until a third player enters the market ... and doesn't get immediately bought out.

Duopoly? Who, besides Telstra, owns pipes? Optus?

There's PIPE Pacific Cable (PPC-1), independent of Telstra[1].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipe_Pacific_Cable

Re: Why the NBN needs to go the full way

#38

Post by davidp » Fri, Sep 06, 2013, 6:17 AM UTC

threeseed wrote: post #32

jacques_chester wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the problem is how badly it has been planned and managed from the very beginning. How fast is the actual rollout? We don't know. Commercial-in-confidence. And NBNCo say they don't keep figures down to the street level anyhow (which begs the question of which basis they are using to pay contractors). How much has already been borrowed? We don't know. Commercial-in-confidence. How much has been spent? We don't…

I am so sick of this obsession with cost/benefit analysis. How can you possibly quantify the future benefits of the NBN ? Nobody could have predicted that when the copper lines were installed that one day it would be primarily used for the internet. And the historic changes to the world economy it has caused. So why even attempt to do it ? Or why not just say it will cost $50 billion but result in $500 trillion worth…

Because without some rudimentary numbers like the ones he's talking about, everyone involved can escape accountability -- the politicians, the contractors, the public (since they can claim to have been "misled" and not feel guilty later), ... But mainly because it's an invitation to corruption, for people known to be highly corruptible.

You're right that cost/benefit analysis is hard for transformative things like this, but the citizens throwing their hands up and saying "I don't care WHAT it costs" is like Pavlov's bell to politicians.

Re: Why the NBN needs to go the full way

#39

Post by gd1 » Fri, Sep 06, 2013, 6:20 AM UTC

sien wrote: post #12

Wingman4l7 wrote: post #3

It's maddening to see a such a shortsighted attempt to cut costs by essentially un-future-proofing brand new infrastructure. Heck, why not replace the last leg with a couple of cans and a piece of string? It'd be even cheaper then! >. It's such a false economy!

Apparently you will be able to pay for fibre all the way yourself. Turnbull says about 2K, the ALP 5K. Delimeter seems to indicate toward the lower value. http://delimiter.com.au/2013/08/23/open-deception-albanese-c...

Seems fair. Some quick maths says that 200 billion dollars (just you watch it blow out) / 30 million people = roughly $6600 per man, woman and child living in Australia. Probably $12k per taxpayer. Seems fair to make the user pay for a bit of that rather than dump the debt on the next generation. I know people don't like to let little things like numbers intrude on their socialist utopia, but this is real money I'm afraid...

Re: Why the NBN needs to go the full way

#40

Post by jbarham » Fri, Sep 06, 2013, 6:25 AM UTC

As a relatively recent arrival to Australia I'm surprised that that there isn't more skepticism about the long term wisdom of granting wholesale internet access for the entire country to a single government funded monopoly.

It's absurd to hear politicians argue about how networks should be built. IMO that is the role of a competitive market.