Live data from Hacker News

Why the NBN needs to go the full way

callumj.com

71–80 of 80 posts

Re: Why the NBN needs to go the full way

#71
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

We already are paying - with our taxes. Not to mention that this is an investment which will pay back to the government. NBNCo will be getting paid for use. Pay-to-connect isn't available to the users who'd want it most - young people. And I don't just mean unaffordable. If you're renting, good luck convincing your land lord to splash out $4k every time you move.

> Not to mention that this is an investment which will pay back to the government.

According to NBNCo modelling, which has never been published. We are told that it has been reviewed by Deloitte (as I recall). But we weren't told what Deloitte reviewed, we weren't told what assumptions Deloitte were told to make. You can get an "auditor" to pass anything you want if you control the assumptions of the model.

NBNCo have already had to progressively change their projections for rollout time, rollout penetration and end user takeup. Multiple times. Does this change their model? I am kinda sorta prepared to bet that it does.

This goes back to my personal beef about the very poor transparency and governance of the NBN project.

Re: Why the NBN needs to go the full way

#72

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?

Looks like I've misread the current state of supply:

http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/government-it/net-capacity-down...

Looks more like an oligopoly of 5 companies. Australian bandwidth charges are well above international benchmarks.

Re: Why the NBN needs to go the full way

#73
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just only move to apartments that have the fibre. People are already doing that with windows and bathrooms.

That's hardly a reasonable solution -- people have to first consider bigger things like proximity to their place of work, good schools, whether or not pets are allowed, etc.

Sure. For lets of people internet access ranks pretty high, though. And for land lords it's not necessary about getting tenants at all, but being able to charge a premium.

Re: Why the NBN needs to go the full way

#74
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We already are paying - with our taxes. Not to mention that this is an investment which will pay back to the government. NBNCo will be getting paid for use. Pay-to-connect isn't available to the users who'd want it most - young people. And I don't just mean unaffordable. If you're renting, good luck convincing your land lord to splash out $4k every time you move.

Just only move to apartments that have the fibre. People are already doing that with windows and bathrooms.

Funnily enough I just signed a new lease in an apartment that doesn't have fibre. We rejected a place that did have fibre, just down the road.

Bigger apartment with better kitchen, view, facilities, and lower price. There aren't many places connected yet, and it's not looking like many more will be.

Re: Why the NBN needs to go the full way

#75
post #40

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.

You do realize this is one of the problems the NBN is trying to solve, right?

The problem with a competitive market as applied to public utilities is that there is only 1 set of infrastructure. So either 1 player owns the infrastructure and provides the service, the current regime, or you break out owning the infrastructure and providing the service.

The plan with the NBN is that NBNCo will own the infrastructure and then lease last-mile connections to whomever that specific customer chose as their ISP.

Re: Why the NBN needs to go the full way

#76
Let us start at the fact the fed gov originally put construction of the NBN out to tender. After considering proposals from the worlds leading broadband infrastructure experts they decided that NO proposal could satisfy the market saturation they needed nor come in at cost point that was reasonable (there was one or the other but not both). So despite having had no experience in the field, the Gov took on the responsibility as contractor and client as well. First red flag.

Who owns this new infrastructure? The gov. What historically have federal and state governments done with valuable infrastructure assets? Sold them. Profiting? Don't make me laugh. Quick cash grabs have been at the heart of filling budget black holes in this country and the NBN won't be safe either. You're kidding yourself if you think it is.

So that leaves us with Telecom to Telstra, phase 2. It will put us back at the same limitations the current DSL debacle has left us in but oh it promises soo much more. If only our ideals became reality.

Is there a better way? Legislation currently restricts any company from building a competing network. Prior to the NBN, Telstra owned the infrastructure, period. After the NBN, even Telstra will be forced to use the NBN to provide broadband services to its residential customers. This sets a wholesale base price, creates an unnecessary retail layer on top, leaves little in the way of competition for the ISPs.. hold on. Haven't we just seen this with Electricity? That's working for us! Even if iiNet wanted to roll out FTTH before the NBN got there, they couldn't. Google want to come in and build a 1gbps network, sorry guys, we're not having that! But the NBN is fair, it's so reasonable, we won't ever need anything more because government dictates that innovation doesn't have to come at the infrastructure level, no just build services that run on it - that's all we're good for!

There are few people in Australia that know fibre like Bevan Slattery, founder of Pipe Networks. He is most known for building PPC-1, the $200m link from Sydney to Guam, forcing wholesale data prices to fall dramatically overnight. After taking the company public, they were taken over by TPG (the ISP, not the private equity firm) for $375m in March 2010. The rumour is he won big by buying the Telecom dark fibre assets that Telstra didn't want, connecting East Coast data centres from Brisbane to Melbourne, via Sydney, and owning the market for interstate DC redundancy. He is a man that knows all the difficulties in building fibre infrastructure in this country and has been a staunch critic of the NBN from the beginning. Not because having FTTH wouldn't be fantastic but because the game the government is trying to play, is one they can't win.

Here's how I think you build a better NBN.

1) Kill the idea the GOV needs to connect 93% of homes, schools and workplaces to fibre. 2) Prioritise GOVs efforts to invest solely in building a strong fibre backbone (think of our existing highway/motorway network). Allow inexpensive access to ISPs. Legislate a restriction on selling infrastructure for the next 99 years. 3) Legislate to allow competition in building new broadband infrastructure, particularly fibre. This involves allowing businesses to use existing underground conduit (even that built for other services - power, water, etc.) inexpensively or grant licence to put in new conduit and pits where suits. 4) Keep legislation that require new developments to be wired with fibre, not copper. 5) Cut the cost of accessing premium wireless spectrum and open limited ex-analog tv spectrum for free. Legislate against monopoly/duopoly leasing of spectrum, it must be opened to multiple providers. 6) Provide up to 100% tax deduction to investors who back broadband infrastructure projects, in exactly the same way they were offered to those people investing in Timber Plantation projects throughout the 1990s/2000s. 7) Target 'dark' areas that ISPs are unlikely to cover (regional and outback) and provide high-speed 4g access in either sole government or government-private partnership.

This plan encourages competition. It will allow companies like Google to offer massive speeds/data for low costs. IT will encourage new businesses to build new technology, the 4G LTE Advanced of the future! Consumers will get a better deal, government will be able to focus on other much needed infrastructure spending (roads, hospitals, schools) and overall everyone will experience the best of what technology has to offer, because it will be able to be offered.

That's my incredibly long two cents - now tell me I'm crazy. But before you cry out and say but I live in Macksville, NSW, its out of the way and no company will build there.. I'm talking about allowing an ISP, no matter how small, to connect to the (mythical) Macksville NBN pit off the Pacific Highway, very affordably, and sell high-speed services over fibre or wifi to the residents of Macksville at a reasonable price. Won't they price gauge the consumer? Unlikely given that a competitor can connect to the (mythical) Macksville NBN pit off the Pacific Highway, very affordably, and sell high-speed..... ahh you get the picture!

Okay, now you can tell me I'm crazy.

Re: Why the NBN needs to go the full way

#77
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

umm, light and electricity travel at the same speed ... ? Light travels at ~299m/s. This will slow down in a medium like fibre, but it's still faster than anything else. At best, in a particle accelerator you can accelerate electrons to maybe 0.8, 0.9 c?

Surely you mean 299 000 000 meters/ second ?

Yes!

Re: Why the NBN needs to go the full way

#78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

umm, light and electricity travel at the same speed ... ? Light travels at ~299m/s. This will slow down in a medium like fibre, but it's still faster than anything else. At best, in a particle accelerator you can accelerate electrons to maybe 0.8, 0.9 c?

Yes, but the electric field that forms as a circuit closes travels at the speed of light.

I am not sure what you are talking about. When you push data down a wire you are definitely not close to c.

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

Re: Why the NBN needs to go the full way

#79
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…

> Gen 1 of fibre is already 10x better than the last generation of copper - how much better will generation 2, 3, 4 be? And fibre is potentially even more upgradeable than copper - it's just a channel for light, the throughput is limited by the boxes at either end which can be incrementally upgraded at low cost.

Not really. There is still a physical limit to how many light paths you can have in one fiber wire. If applications are relying more and more on available bandwidth and if more people or more connections are being made (and this is the case and it shows no signs of slowing down) you will want to increase bandwidth because the network will suffer congestion and then you are going to need to dig in the ground and install an additional bunch of physical cables. And that costs more than just tweaking the boxes at the edge of the network.

Re: Why the NBN needs to go the full way

#80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Looks like I've misread the current state of supply: http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/government-it/net-capacity-down... Looks more like an oligopoly of 5 companies. Australian bandwidth charges are well above international benchmarks.

> Australian bandwidth charges are well above international benchmarks.

Along with costs of mobile phone service, housing, electronics, appliances, beer, and damn near everything else.

Post reply on HN